Talk:IBM System/23 Datamaster

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

About influence on PC and ASCII

The Datamaster is EBCDIC, therefore there can't be a direct influence over ASCII. I cannot deny influence on later IBM systems with similar charsets, but not over the IBM PC as it is the first IBM computer having ASCII charset. Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the font could be considered as an influence. Still, there are many points to consider:

Not all characters are provided by the character generator ROM, some are provided by the Intel 8275 it uses.
The Datamaster misses the character '1' (one) and reuses the character 'l' (L).
The characters are not written in the ROM in any unknown encoding (no ASCII, no EBCDIC) so EBCDIC conversion is made before writing the character codes in the video memory.

I can provide the external link of the thread where this is discussed if anybody wants. As a colleague said, in the last six months there has been more breakthrough in the Datamaster than in the past twenty years.

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong microprocessor frequency

4.77MHz as operating frequency is incorrect. The master clock of a System/23 is 18.432MHz which is then divided by 3 to generate a 6.14MHz 33% duty cycle that is provided to the 8085. Therefore, the correct value is 6.14MHz. Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing IBM reference from sources

IBM deleted the resource at the end of the URL. It has not been captured by the wayback machine either. The only solution is deletion. If anybody could find a replacement that would be great. Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Catalan

I have finished my translation from Catalan. It is ready at Draft:IBM System/23.

I would like that draft to be revised publicly before replacing the actual contents of the current article.

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, I have moded the contents from the draft to the article itself. I would like to ask that if there is any issue, contact with me first in order to try to fix it instead of revert or delete it.

Thank you in advance!

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between models

@Mir Novov

Thank you for your edits. However, there's one thing that I think that you should revert. Only model 5322 is an all-in-one unit, while both models are Datamasters. What do you think?

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, that was a mistake. novov talk edits 10:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry! Your contributions are welcome. Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

IBM System/23 Datamaster

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I have listed this article because I have improved the overall article by writing it from scratch. Actually, I wrote it in Catalan and later ported it to English in order to level the completion. I would like to know if the references are sufficient enough, if not, I can provide even more of them. Having access to the real hardware, I can discern what sources are of quality and which aren't. Also, I am not a native English speaker, so my translation, whose writing was done manually, may be quirky and may need a revision. Finally, I would like to see into which quality category could this article be listed, just for curiosity.

If you need more information or data regarding the article or the machine itself feel free to ask. I will try to solve the issue in the best way I can.

Thank you very much in advance, Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work that you've been doing to improve this page! There is a wealth of information there.

I've made a number of edits to the references to fill in missing parameters such as date and publisher. Also, tried to provide more consistent formatting of citations to improve readability.[1] One general comment that I'll make is that the article is very reliant on primary sources, for example IBM manuals and TI data sheets. There are some great secondary sources, for example NY Times articles, BYTE magazine, and the book Multilingual Book Production. The article could benefit from more of these types of secondary sources. See WP:PSTS for guidelines on the use of primary and secondary sources. Some of the sources (for example discussion forums) are considered self-published. See WP:RSSELF for guidelines on this category of source.

I'll search for additional secondary references. Feel free to leave a message here, or on my talk page, or on the article talk page if you'd like clarification or to discuss improvements. --mikeu ^talk 21:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

For some reason, the system hasn't notified me about your comment.

Yes, I employ a lot of primary sources because I can't rely on many others. There are lots of accumulated errors during the lifetime of this computer. Since many of the details from the computer weren't released, the gaps of information were filled with myths. I have been clarifying these sections during three years.

If you need anything, especially for verifying the secondary sources, don't hesitate to ask me.

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Re: "The Datamaster is the first IBM computer that uses a microprocessor not made by them and the first to use an Intel microprocessor." The IBM Displaywriter System article states that it used an Intel 8086, before the introduction of the Intel 8085 based Datamaster. --mikeu ^talk 18:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to edit in the article ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD: I updated the article for mikeu. RastaKins (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does means "Mikeu" ? Is this about the microprocessor ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mikeu is the registered user who brought the date discrepancy to our attention. See first posting in this thread. I said "be bold" to encourage mikeu to make his own edits. RastaKins (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer ! Now , I understood. Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for a WP:RS that makes an explicit statement about the (since removed) claims above. The current statement "only 8-bit microcomputer" still lacks a source. I don't doubt that it is true; I just haven't seen a source that makes that specific claim. ----mikeu ^talk 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Sorry for joining the party so late. Notification issues...

1) When I made the statement of the first IBM microcomputer I was not considering the release date, but the moment the project started, which was 1978. Then there was a protracted development that lasted until 1981, although the computer hardware was ready by 1980. The Displaywriter project started after it but was released before. If we consider the release date, then the Displaywriter comes first.

2) The microcomputers marketed by IBM are basically the Datamaster, the Displaywriter and the PC. All of them but the Datamaster are x86 (16-bit). The 5100 series don't have a microprocessor and therefore they are not microcomputers. This makes is the Datamaster the only IBM 8-bitter, with an 8085.

If you need more details to help clarify don't hesitate to ask. If you need more references, I will search for them.

As I said in the "Peer Review" section of this talk page, there are accumulated errors in the description of the computer over the years. I can verify the correct sources from the incorrect ones. Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, I took care of removing a nasty circular reference that was plaguing the previous version of this article. I was able to break the vicious circle, but the damage is done and various sites still state the incorrect data without stating they took the value from here, so it's a risk to consider. I am talking about the clock frequency, for in case anybody asks.

I also took care to destroy as many myths about the computer as I could. It took much time and got a lot of people involved, but most places were corrected as soon as they were notified of the rerrors. For example, I took care to shot down the affirmation that the Datamaster had redundant memory.

If you are asking how do I know... I own three machines, I have repaired three and I am in course of repairing a fourth. I also offer my knowledge to repair the motherboards of other owners. This year we have had a record number of repairs, the highmost since IBM ceased to give support. I also have contact with some of the engineers that made it. That's the reason I go for primary sources rather than articles or publicity. Publicity made a lot of damage to the real knowledge of this computer.

By the way, I would be partidary of removing the weight and price from the description. There is a serious reason for this. We don't know either the model nor the submodel that it is being weighted. To starters, it does not weight the same a 5322 than a 5324, and does not weight the same a submodel without a 51TD than on one that have both. There's a really crazy list of submodels, especially with the first Datamaster model. The two main weight elements of a Datamaster are the power supply and the drives. The power supply is there always, but with the drives it is another matter. The same occurs with the introductory price. And in many estimates a printer is included in the amount, so it is a false value, higher than it should be. I think I found the original price table some time ago. If you really want I could recover it.

About things that my article lacks... I couldn't write about the peripherals of this computer series, especially the 5246 and 5247. The 5247 is the granddad of the NAS. I was able to get the service manual, but since I don't own one, I don't know enough to write about it. About the software, It is so privative that it is very difficult to study, and for this reason the section is so small. I am sorry for these shortcomings.

That being said, since I have had to work with the boards so much recently, I have knowledge about the diagnostics system of the computer and, if I was allowed to make a personal remark (not in the article, of course), the computer is not built like a tank, but like a battleship. In my experience of collecting computers for 14 years I have never seen an 8-bit computer with such a diagnostics subsystem, it is really so exhaustive that it lasts about 45 seconds since applying power to actually get the BASIC prompt.

In any case, feel free to ask any question about this machine. I will answer accordingly to my capabilities (and provide fonts, if they still exist).

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IBM 5120

There's an issue with the IBM 5120. Actually it is not a predecessor but could be considered in some way a derivative ot the Datamaster. While the electronics of the 5110-3/5120 are the same as the 5110, the enclosure was taken from the Datamaster while it was stuck in the BASIC development hell. Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]