Talk:ISPF

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Fix classification

I changed the classification in the first paragraph to again call it a 'software product' rather than a 'component' of z/OS, because it is a separate package from z/OS, sold as an add-on at an additional price. In MVS class systems, 'component' normally implies that it is included as part of the package. T-bonham (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUI

Shouldn't there be a mention to TUI - text user interface (as mentioned in List_of_initialisms)?

Name?

When I used it, back in the early 1980s, it was called "SPF" not "ISPF", and the older documents called it "Structured Programming Facility", and the newer ones called it "System Productivity Facility".

In fact IBM described it as 'Interactive Structured Programming Facility'. I guess this is just another example of how Wikipedians - and Interactive Business Methods - rewrite history.

Yes, and somehow the "I" for "Interactive" crept in. Martin Packer (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this product has changed several times over the 35 years that it has been around (which isn't particularly unusual, for computer software or even products in general). A paragraph in the article describes the various name changes over the years fairly accurately. I don't see how using the current name for the product is "rewriting history", especially when previous names are mentioned. T-bonham (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC versions

Changed the section on PC versions of ISPF -- it implied that they were only a thing of the past. T-bonham 06:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I felt the whole page had a "thing of the past" feel about it. So I've tried to change that when editing the substantive material. Martin Packer (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposal

I propose the following changes:

Change Product Development Facility (ISPF/PDF) to Program Development Facility (ISPF/PDF) with the reference: International Business Machines (2008) z/OS V1R10.0 ISPF Services Guide. Boulder, CO: IBM
Change the word Customisation and its variations to Customization.
Add a reference in the first paragraph to: Lowe, D. (1991) Murach’s MVS TSO: Concepts and ISPF. Fresno, CA: Mike Murach & Associates, Inc.

--Les (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Murach's book is very good (like most of his), why would we want to include a reference to it, rather than one of the many other books about ISPF? Especially why put such a ref in the first paragraph? At best, it belongs down at the end under a Additional Information or similar heading. And there is still the question of why pick out this one book to highlight. T-bonham (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it DO?

"Software product" is not very descriptive. Don't make readers dig for such basic info.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]