IBM system 370 
Author Message
 IBM system 370

Just a check.. Is this group all about the language used in some IBM system
370 from year 1976?!! Has it's language lived on or why on earth is anyone
so in to this? I have to admitt that those are cool machines but they are a
little to big to have at home, aren't they?

stunned
Jonas Olson



Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:43:41 GMT  
 IBM system 370
Yes, its about the language used in IBM 370's.

And do your other point.  Yes, but PC's are a little small to have running a
business.

--
The software said it ran under Windows 98/NT/2000, or better.
So I installed it on Linux...

Quote:
> Just a check.. Is this group all about the language used in some IBM
system
> 370 from year 1976?!! Has it's language lived on or why on earth is anyone
> so in to this? I have to admitt that those are cool machines but they are
a
> little to big to have at home, aren't they?

> stunned
> Jonas Olson



Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:01:21 GMT  
 IBM system 370
On Sun, 04 May 2003 22:43:41 GMT, Jonas Olson hath writ:

Quote:
> Just a check.. Is this group all about the language used in some IBM system
> 370 from year 1976?!! Has it's language lived on or why on earth is anyone

Nope.  Sys/360 -- *1966*.

Jonesy
--
  | Marvin L Jones       | jonz           |  W3DHJ   |  OS/2

  |   7,703' -- 2,345m   |   frontier.net |  DM68mn             SK



Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:57:06 GMT  
 IBM system 370
Assembler language (on almost any platform) lives on for the simple
reason that all higher level languages are simply glorified macro-generators
to create Assembler language...  "Assembler" is what runs no matter what
language the code exists in, and ...

You're not a programmer are you?  God I hope not.

--
The software said it ran under Windows 98/NT/2000, or better.
So I installed it on Linux...


Quote:
> Just a check.. Is this group all about the language used in some IBM
system
> 370 from year 1976?!! Has it's language lived on or why on earth is anyone
> so in to this? I have to admitt that those are cool machines but they are
a
> little to big to have at home, aren't they?

> stunned
> Jonas Olson



Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:42:22 GMT  
 IBM system 370

Quote:

>little to big to have at home, aren't they?

The P/370, available in the early 1990s, fit into a Microchannel slot,
complete with 16M of private memory.  It was a damn decent machine,
comparable to the top-of-the line S/370-168 of the late 70s.  It was
definitely useful for home use.  (Some "home" S/370 machines in the
mid-1980s were pretty horrible: XT/370 and AT/370 -- and gave the
whole idea of a personal mainframe a bad reputation.)  It's I/O
performance was severely hobbled by a pinhole interface and emulation
software under OS/2, but we had an experimental version with native
MicroChannel I/O whose disk I/O performance (for one disk, not for a
mainframe disk farm) exceeded that of contemporary mainframes.  (It
also booted cold (power-up) in 13 seconds, while the host Bios was
still counting its memory, and an OS/2 prompt for those who wanted
to play PC games was still several minutes away.)

Michel.



Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:50:18 GMT  
 IBM system 370

Quote:

>Just a check.. Is this group all about the language used in some IBM system
>370 from year 1976?!! Has it's language lived on or why on earth is anyone
>so in to this? I have to admitt that those are cool machines but they are a
>little to big to have at home, aren't they?

>stunned
>Jonas Olson

IBM - 360 hardware was the base hardware, and IBM ZOS is the most
current operating system run
on the hardware now identified as Z-series. Let's see - 1966-2002 is 36+
years for an environment
 where existing software can still be run. Don't know of very many other
platforms where the same
 can be said - even if you lowered the time frame by half!

You would be surprised to find out how many of these machines exist, and
how many businesses still
use the IBM-360 and its successors.  As was stated by others, the heart
of almost all operating systems
is assembler language, and once you have learned how to code in
assembler - you generally can code
for any platform with a minimum of re-training or practice.

Assembler coding is not for everybody, precise attention to detail is
generally a requirement. but the
advantages are that code usually runs much faster with far less errors -
assuming, of course, that the
programmer was somewhat skilled and took pride in their work.  And the
way you get skilled
programms is to take semiskilled ones and let them practice.

As far as your comment on having them at home...

... You'd be surprised to discover what some people have at home for
hardware.
And besides, anyone can download HERCULES (to emulate the hardware
environment)
and run either IBM MVS or IBM VM/CMS at home on their PC.  

Can you run a business on it?  Probably not, unless you were a  MVS or
VM programmer
needing a test platform - but you can run MVS or VM, and you CAN learn
from it. I'll agree
that the available releases are older versions that were originally
distributed by IBM  for no charge,
with no license required - but they do run and work well!. And you can
do many things with
either system. write code, test algorithms, learn how it works or learn
JCL - explore the concepts
of batch programming - or maybe learn what it takes to be a Master
Console Operator.

Just don't expect to find licensed software like ISPF (for example)on
the MVS system - as
you must have a license from IBM to run it, and as an individual you
can't get a license from
IBM for it.   Maybe that will change someday, but in the meantime there
are many talented
programmers writing code "for real programmers by real programmers" to
run on this platform...

...and yes, if it will run under MVS or VM with HERCULES, It will run on
the real machine as well.

see http://www.cbttape.org  for  availability of CD's containing
Volker Bandke's MVS turnkey system or Andy Norrie's 4-pack VM system....

(No, I am not affiliated with CBTTAPE - other than as a user who has made
 use of this shareware distibution for many, many years.)

/s/ Bill Turner, wb4alm



Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:34:16 GMT  
 IBM system 370
| Yes, its about the language used in IBM 370's.
|
| And do your other point.  Yes, but PC's are a little small to have running
a
| business.

You mean that PC's (i guess you mean personal computer, not program counter
or post card or anything..) are physically to small to be used for buissnes?
Or do you mean that an IBM system 370 would be more powerful than today's
desktop computers?

Jonas



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:07:55 GMT  
 IBM system 370
| Nope.  Sys/360 -- *1966*.

Hmmm.. if it's for the sys/360, why is it called comp.lang.asm370 ?

Jonas



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:08:46 GMT  
 IBM system 370
| Assembler language (on almost any platform) lives on for the simple
| reason that all higher level languages are simply glorified
macro-generators
| to create Assembler language...  "Assembler" is what runs no matter what
| language the code exists in, and ...
|
| You're not a programmer are you?  God I hope not.

I'm afraid I have to disappoint you because I actually do program. Even
assembler. Still I don't get your point when you say that the instruction
set for the system/370 lives on just because other languages are translated
(I guess we could pick up the term "compiled") into assembler. What
surprised med was that there still existed a discussion about a platform
which I thought was forgotten (almost) about a long time ago.

Jonas



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:16:04 GMT  
 IBM system 370
So you say these systems (or it's likes mabye) are still used? Are they
fast?! Can they be used for some purpose where an ordinary computer of today
won't do?

Jonas



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:18:46 GMT  
 IBM system 370

Quote:

> I'm afraid I have to disappoint you because I actually do
> program. Even assembler. Still I don't get your point when you say
> that the instruction set for the system/370 lives on just because
> other languages are translated (I guess we could pick up the term
> "compiled") into assembler. What surprised med was that there still
> existed a discussion about a platform which I thought was forgotten
> (almost) about a long time ago.

basically, majority of the application level (problem state)
instructions from 360 (even precursor to 370), still live on in 390
and current Z machines ... and a lot of people just don't get around
to changing the name every machine generation .... at least in part,
up until 64bit ... majority of changes from one generation to the next
were in the supervisor state (aka kernel/privileged) instructions.

the bible for instructions that the assembler implements is
the principles of operation .... here is the esa/390 pop:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9AR004/C...

(instruction and machine) compatibility is covered at
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9AR004/1...

and comparison with system/370 and 370-xa is at:
DT=1997http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9AR004/F...

along with summary of changes:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9AR004/F...

while lots of the POP covers kernel & privilege mode operation .... most
of the instructions in chater 7, general instructions:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9AR004/C...

come right out of 360 (even before 370).

the latest z/architecture (with 64 bit support) POP is at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9ZR001/C...

POPs for the past 30? some years have always had the summary of
changes section. this seems to just have the section on "The ESA/390 base"
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9ZR001/C...

I expect that it is still possible to use the current assembler to
correctly assemble some number of 360 era assembler programs
(precursor to 370).

So a lot of people talking about the "370 assemble" (when referencing
the current assembler) probably learned on 370 (or even 360) ... and
nobody has felt strongly enuf about the reference to change the name
of the newsgroup everytime a new generation machine was brought out.

From a standpoint of nomenclature, at one time the "SLAC-mods" to the
assembler represented a bigger differentiator in assembler function
...  than the change from one machine generation to the next.

There are somewhat orthogonal issues ... the features of the assembler
and the machine instructions supported by the assembler. However,
people may make references to the (ibm) 370 assembler ... when they
are referring to the current assembler product.

so the current official name ....
IBM High Level Assembler for MVS & VM & VSE
can be found at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ASMR1001/C...

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 04:42:32 GMT  
 IBM system 370
IBM has lot's of info about their mainframes...

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/

Quote:

> So you say these systems (or it's likes mabye) are still used? Are they
> fast?! Can they be used for some purpose where an ordinary computer of today
> won't do?

> Jonas

--
Don Poitras - EST Development  -  SAS Institute Inc. -  SAS Campus Drive



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 04:36:40 GMT  
 IBM system 370


Quote:
> | Assembler language (on almost any platform) lives on for the simple
> | reason that all higher level languages are simply glorified
> macro-generators
> | to create Assembler language...  "Assembler" is what runs no matter what
> | language the code exists in, and ...
> |
> | You're not a programmer are you?  God I hope not.

> I'm afraid I have to disappoint you because I actually do program. Even
> assembler. Still I don't get your point when you say that the instruction
> set for the system/370 lives on just because other languages are translated
> (I guess we could pick up the term "compiled") into assembler. What
> surprised med was that there still existed a discussion about a platform
> which I thought was forgotten (almost) about a long time ago.

> Jonas

Just think of it as:

370 = 360 -> 370 -> 370/XA -> 370/ESA -> 390 -> z/Architecture

just like:

x86 = 8086 -> 286 -> 386 -> 486 -> Pentium -> Pentium 3 -> Pentium 3 ->
Pentium 4

We just use "370" as the generic moniker. Note that z/Architecture is a
64-bit machine.

The basic instruction set is the same across all generations, but each
new generation added new features.
--
Robert Ngan
CSC Financial Services Group



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 05:50:38 GMT  
 IBM system 370

Quote:

> So you say these systems (or it's likes mabye) are still used? Are they
> fast?! Can they be used for some purpose where an ordinary computer of today
> won't do?
> Jonas

Are you kidding, all of the large banks in the US use mainframes.
Almost 50% of all residential mortgages in the US are processed on a
mainframe system. Have you any idea of how complex posting items to a
checking account is? Mainframes may not have "cutesty" gui interfaces,
but they're sitting in the backrooms of major businesses doing the
work.
A fortune 100 company I used to work for was going to eliminate the
mainframe in 2 years back in the early 90's. They're still there, and
probably will be for many more years.

As for physical size, the largest single piece of equipment in the
typical shop is not the mainframe itself, but the tape silo.

        Jerry



Sat, 22 Oct 2005 06:26:22 GMT  
 IBM system 370



(snip)

Quote:
> I expect that it is still possible to use the current assembler to
> correctly assemble some number of 360 era assembler programs
> (precursor to 370).

I believe so, though you might want to use an old macro library if you
expect to run on an old machine.

Also, there is sometimes a problem where old macros have the same name as
new instructions.

Quote:
> So a lot of people talking about the "370 assemble" (when referencing
> the current assembler) probably learned on 370 (or even 360) ... and
> nobody has felt strongly enuf about the reference to change the name
> of the newsgroup everytime a new generation machine was brought out.

> From a standpoint of nomenclature, at one time the "SLAC-mods" to the
> assembler represented a bigger differentiator in assembler function
> ...  than the change from one machine generation to the next.

-- glen


Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:04:22 GMT  
 
 [ 61 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

 Relevant Pages 

1. IBM system 370 system call "DMXINV"

2. FS: IBM System/370 Emergency Pull Knob

3. FS/370 System/370 Emulator

4. System/370 Systems Person, Mountain View, CA

5. IBM Mainframe 370

6. OS for IBM 370

7. IBM/370 architecture specification

8. FA: Assembler Language Programming for the IBM 370

9. IBM 370 Mainframe Board for the PC

10. ibm pc/370 -- what is this beast???

11. IBM 370 ASM to C

12. IBM 370 Assembler Emulator for WIN95

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software