Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?) 
Author Message
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:
> Except, of course, that they didn't. S/7, S/1, 8100, S/3, PC, PC/RT,
> S/38; there were huge deviations from the idea of a single product
> line.

they weren't suppose to be compatible ... it was every model in the
360 line that was suppose to be compatible. i was told that the
testimony was specifically with respect to the mainframe industry and
the bunch/etc ... and each of them supposedly attempting to meet
criteria of a compatible mainframe product line ... going from the
mainframe business of the late '50s transitioning into the early to
mid 60s. lots of these other machines happened after the testimony in
question.

s/1 was peachtree in the 70s (some number of people tried to get it as
basis for 3705 instead of uc.5). 8100 was kingston project with uc.5
microprocessor. uc.5 was also in 3705 ... some discussion that pu4/pu5
interface was reaction to the first 360 pcm controller:
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm

there were huge number of controllers, terminals, other stuff. opd
also had stuff like displaywriter. field engineers had the "brick"
which was a wireless portable computer. there was the precusor to the
pc ... that ran apl & basic.

future systems (official follow-on for 360 for some period)
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys
until it got killed. story is that some number of the future system
people went up to rochester and did the s/38.

"fort knox" was sort of the next generation version of the 360 issue
... which was to use 801s for all microprocessors (s/3* stuff rom
rochestor, low & mid range 370s, numerous controllers and other
projects) ... which eventually got killed. ROMP was sort of follow-on
by research and opd for displaywriter follow-on. When it got killed
the group switched and got the company that did the unix port to pc
for pc/ix to do a port to romp.
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/subtopic.html#801

there was also the instruments division 68k machine

some of the past discussion of the palm processor for the pc precursor:
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2000.html#69 APL on PalmOS ???
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2000.html#70 APL on PalmOS ???
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2000d.html#15 APL version in IBM 5100 (Was: Resurrecting the IBM 1130)
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2000g.html#24 A question for you old guys -- IBM 1130 information
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2000g.html#31 stupid user stories
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2000g.html#46 A new "Remember when?" period happening right now
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2001b.html#45 First OS?
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2001b.html#51 Stealth vs Closed
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2001b.html#56 Why SMP at all anymore?
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2001b.html#71 Z/90, S/390, 370/ESA (slightly off topic)
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2001d.html#36 solicit advice on purchase of digital certificate
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2001d.html#41 solicit advice on purchase of digital certificate
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2002b.html#39 IBM 5100 [Was: First DESKTOP Unix Box?]
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2002b.html#43 IBM 5100 [Was: First DESKTOP Unix Box?]
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2002b.html#45 IBM 5100 [Was: First DESKTOP Unix Box?]
http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/2002b.html#47 IBM 5100 [Was: First DESKTOP Unix Box?]

--

Internet trivia, 20th anniv: http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~lynn/rfcietff.htm



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:40:39 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)

Quote:

> ...and JCL is designed to support batch operations, which is what
> the mainframe world used in general-purpose data centers when the
> S/360 line and its associated operating systems were being designed.

Can anyone (meaningfully) compare OS1100/2200 ECL to JCL in terms of its
flexibiity?  

ECL allowed one to specify lots of information when assigning or
cataloging a file if one cared, but it tended to have VERY good default
values so most people had to do little more than specify a filename and
perhaps rough size requirements.

--
 -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
                     Written online using slrn 0.9.5.4!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:42:55 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)

Quote:

> The first machine I ever formally worked on was the 7010.  A splendid
> machine.  The only problem with writing Autocoder to run on it and the 1401
> was the latter's over-simplified read, punch and print instructions with
> fixed areas.  The 1440 had the same M%... type instructions with explicit
> addresses, same as the 1410/7010.

Yes, but the 1401 U-R I/O had the advantage that it could do
simultaneous read/punch/print without tricky software, and the fixed
buffer addresses also reflected the fact that the fixed core buffers
were hard-wired to the equipment; the reader/punch had _no_ buffer of
its own, and a buffer in the printer was an optional extra.  The 1440,
on the other hand, used the 1410-like I/O because the 1442 card
reader/punch was serial by column, and short I/O meant substantially
faster I/O.

Anyway, a macro or two (or use of IOCS) could solve it.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
   -- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:03:40 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)

Quote:
> future systems (official follow-on for 360 for some period)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys
> until it got killed. story is that some number of the future system
> people went up to rochester and did the s/38.

i believe one of the quoted references in the above stated that the
360 future system follow-on was to have such a large complex
intergration between the main processor and the controllers and
devices ... that it would make it difficult for PCM cotnroller
competition ..  which is what a couple of us at the univeristy get
blaimed for originating:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm

large part of the FS processor architecture was one level store (lots
of virtual memory) and probably also could be considered quite object
oriented.

when FS got killed ... folklore is that some number of people went off
to rochester and did the s/38 with a one-level-store architecture.

the other part is that some aspect of the FS large complex integration
carried over into the pu4/pu5 design for ncp/vtam (in reaction to the
first pcm controller project i worked on at the university).

and of course my comment about FS was that it had some analogy to a
cult film that had been playing down the street in central sq for over
a decade (inmates in charge of the institution).

--

Internet trivia, 20th anniv: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:09:28 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:
>(I have no notion of how good "Liberator" was,

Probably fairly good, since the H-200 was basically a 1401 with binary
addressing instead of decimal.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:10:21 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:
>I'd say that IBM mainframes reflect their punch card heritage, while
>other manufacturers' mainframes provided support for both punch cards
>and paper tape, having neither a Hollerith nor a telecomms heritage.

Remington Rand also had a card heritage.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:02:33 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:
>BTW, I do agree with the poster that the 36 bit
>machine had something to do with the 72 column
>card limit but I seem to recall the 407 (??) accounting
>machine only had 72 columns of print out as well
>and maybe it impacted this limit as well.

That's a common misconception. The 407 could print 120 columns, but
you had to wire the board to use an extra print cycle for everything
beyond 72. As I recal the same was true for the unit record equipment
on the 7090; you could get more than 72 columns, but there was a
performance cost.

Trivia; name an oddball function of the "Share board" for the printer
on the 7090.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:00:47 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)



Quote:
>1401 emulation was available on the model 30 and 40.

And 50.

Quote:
>The 1401 mode on the 30, I believe, was actually "compatibilty"
>rather than
>emulation as such, as it could run entirely without a
>360-architecture program.

No.

Quote:
>As far as I know, with any of
>them, they only
>dropped out to the 360-level to perform I/O.

No. DIL also dropped out to let the emulation program handle
instructions that couldn't be handled by the "microcode".

Quote:
>This was a good
>thing, because it allowed
>the emulators to co-exist with an operating system, although
>initially they weren't
>written that way.

There were obstacles to running "emulation" under an operating system,
which is why COS was such a hack and why there was no OS/360 version
of it. Starting with the 360/85 the emulation features were designed
to not interfere with operating systems. --
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:56:49 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)



Quote:
>I believe that the DLM option came much later, probably processed by
>JES while spooling.

Later, but not that late. It was processed by the OS/360
Reader/Interpreter. I don't recall whether ASP and HASP II got support
for it at the time or only later, but they both did eventually support
it.

Quote:
>I thought only for DD DATA, and not DD *, though.

That's my recollection as well.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:51:27 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:
>More of a microcode assist for a simulator.

IBM coined the word "emulator", so their definition is the one that
matters. A simulator exploiting special "microcode" and hardware is an
emulator, by IBM's definition, and it was only with newer versions of
the 1401 emulation program that they shipped a 1401 simulator that
could run without the 1401 emulation feature.

Quote:
>Mod 30 & 65 I am sure of,
>and I think 40 & 50 as well.

30, 40 and 50 for 1401/1410; 65 and 85 for 7070, 7080 and 7090. On
S/370 it was 145 for DOS; 145 and 155 for 1401/1410; 165 for 7070,
7080 and 7090. The 148, 158 and 168 have the same capabilities as the
corresponding 1x5 models.

Quote:
>I know of someone who rewrote the mod 30 program, so that it could
>run two 1401 sessions at once.

With the advent of the integrated emulation programs on the 360/85 and
S/370, that was no longer an issue. --
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:48:03 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:
>IMO systems where you don't need JCL are better designed for humans
>to use.

How do you design a system where you don't need JCL? You can, of
course, change the nomenclature, and there are a lot of ways that you
can structure it, but you need some way to specify what functions to
perform, where the inputs are and where to place the outputs.

There's an old joke, to which the puch line is "We've already settled
what you are, now we're just haggling over the price." Well, if you
see a need for a command language of any sort, then you've already
accepted the need for JCL and you're just haggling over how it should
look and what functionality it should have.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:35:53 GMT  
 
 [ 373 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software