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



Quote:



>>>> On the 2401, the window was
>>>> electrically-operated, and the interlock was probably a bit more
>>>> reliable. <SNIP>
>>>> The electric windows were much more popular with operators.


>>The ones where the access window rose *up* through a slot in
>>the top of the unit.  Was a Real PITA for operators pre-staging
>>multi-reel jobs.  They'd stack reals number 2->n on top of the
>>unit in preparation for the subsequent mount requests.  If they
>>were lucky, the reels only slid back on the top of the drive --
>>behind the up-raised glass.  Usually tho', the reels were
>>dumped on the floor.
>>'Twas a big problem for the old time, long time IBM shop operators.

>....and for DECSystem-10 shops that bought the rebadged Storage Tech
>9-track drives.  You got the drives, an S/360-compatible controller,
>and a bus converter (DX-10?) that attached the IBM interface on the
>Storage Tech controller to the guts of the Kx-10.  DEC sold them
>as the ... TU-70?  TU-78?  We had both and I can't recall which
>was which.

TU-70, TU-71 and TU-72 were the only good tape drives we
ever hung off a -10.   I hated the 78s.

Quote:

>Cancel that last; they were TU-70 (with the controller rebadged as
>a TX-01).

That TX-01 doesn't right.  Your DX-10 reference sounded more correct.

Quote:
> .. I just found a copy of the (1982) user's guide for the shop
>which had an equipment list.  It also had a price list: $130/hour
>for KL-10 CPU time, $2.25/kword-hour, and $0.0004/line printed.

>I never understood why the controllers were configured with the 2-channel
>switch.  I considered attaching the unused second interface to our IBM
>system, but the DEC CEs stated that if we did, they would refuse to
>service the box.

That's one way to do it.  It was also nice if you had a way
to configure the tapes to the one CPU that was still running.

Quote:

>You also got the problem of very frequent broken glass.

I don't think I ever saw broken glass.  How did that happen?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.



Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:20 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:



> >>On the 2401, the window was
> >>electrically-operated, and the interlock was probably a bit more
> >>reliable. <SNIP>
> >>The
> >>electric windows were much more popular with operators.

> > As I recall, this was not nearly as "popular with operators" as sitting
the
> > mini-skirted junior op on top of the line printer and pressing the
button to
> > raise the lid.
> > Sadly I dont recall the model numbers of the printer or the girl .
> > Sorry to break your train of thought... couldn't resist ;-)

> 1403-N1 (approximately 1965-1979).
> 3211 (approximately 1970-1980)

That has thoroughly shattered my illusion of IBM shops
being professional^Wstuffy. :)

Cheers,
Rupert



Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:25:19 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)



Quote:



> >>On the 2401, the window was
> >>electrically-operated, and the interlock was probably a bit more
> >>reliable. <SNIP>
> >>The
> >>electric windows were much more popular with operators.

> > As I recall, this was not nearly as "popular with operators" as sitting
the
> > mini-skirted junior op on top of the line printer and pressing the
button to
> > raise the lid.
> > Sadly I dont recall the model numbers of the printer or the girl .
> > Sorry to break your train of thought... couldn't resist ;-)

> 1403-N1 (approximately 1965-1979).
> 3211 (approximately 1970-1980)

It must have been 1973 - mini-skirts were particularly short that year.


Tue, 02 Aug 2005 03:30:37 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)

Quote:


>>....and for DECSystem-10 shops that bought the rebadged Storage Tech
>>9-track drives.  You got the drives, an S/360-compatible controller,
>>and a bus converter (DX-10?) that attached the IBM interface on the
>>Storage Tech controller to the guts of the Kx-10.  DEC sold them
>>as the ... TU-70?  TU-78?  We had both and I can't recall which
>>was which.
>TU-70, TU-71 and TU-72 were the only good tape drives we
>ever hung off a -10.   I hated the 78s.

>>Cancel that last; they were TU-70 (with the controller rebadged as
>>a TX-01).
>That TX-01 doesn't right.  Your DX-10 reference sounded more correct.

The TX-01 was the Storage Tech control unit; it was designed to be
attached to an IBM S/360 channel.  The DX-10 took the Massbus
interface on the KL10 and translated it into what appeared to the TX-01
as an IBM channel.

Quote:
>>You also got the problem of very frequent broken glass.
>I don't think I ever saw broken glass.  How did that happen?

The glass panel on a drive would jam in the tracks, but the motor kept
trying to move it.  A classic example of immovable object vs. irresistable
force: the force (Force?) triumphed.

I don't recall (from 20 years ago) that the glass ever shattered; instead
it cracked and was replaced.  Given where it was, I would hope that it had
been safety glass...

Joe Morris



Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:09:40 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)

Quote:



>> > As I recall, this was not nearly as "popular with operators" as
>> > sitting the mini-skirted junior op on top of the line printer and
>> > pressing the button to raise the lid.  Sadly I dont recall the
>> > model numbers of the printer or the girl .  Sorry to break your
>> > train of thought... couldn't resist ;-)

>> 1403-N1 (approximately 1965-1979).
>> 3211 (approximately 1970-1980)

> It must have been 1973 - mini-skirts were particularly short that year.

I remember an Australian magazine -- Aust PC World? or somesuch? --
back in the hobbyist days, probably 1984 or so, running a two-page
spread cartoon riffing on an alleged correspondence between word
length and skirt length.

two dozen drooling horny programmers slaving away on a... ONE...
BIT...  COMPUTER!!!

those were... *different* times, those were.

[followups to afc]

butting



Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:42:38 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:





>> >>On the 2401, the window was
>> >>electrically-operated, and the interlock was probably a bit more
>> >>reliable. <SNIP>
>> >>The
>> >>electric windows were much more popular with operators.

>> > As I recall, this was not nearly as "popular with operators" as
sitting
>the
>> > mini-skirted junior op on top of the line printer and pressing the
>button to
>> > raise the lid.
>> > Sadly I dont recall the model numbers of the printer or the girl .
>> > Sorry to break your train of thought... couldn't resist ;-)

>> 1403-N1 (approximately 1965-1979).
>> 3211 (approximately 1970-1980)

>That has thoroughly shattered my illusion of IBM shops
>being professional^Wstuffy. :)

Just because those types didn't let it all hang out
does not imply there wasn't anything going on underneath
all that twill.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.



Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:39:36 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)


Quote:


>>>....and for DECSystem-10 shops that bought the rebadged Storage Tech
>>>9-track drives.  You got the drives, an S/360-compatible controller,
>>>and a bus converter (DX-10?) that attached the IBM interface on the
>>>Storage Tech controller to the guts of the Kx-10.  DEC sold them
>>>as the ... TU-70?  TU-78?  We had both and I can't recall which
>>>was which.

>>TU-70, TU-71 and TU-72 were the only good tape drives we
>>ever hung off a -10.   I hated the 78s.

>>>Cancel that last; they were TU-70 (with the controller rebadged as
>>>a TX-01).

>>That TX-01 doesn't right.  Your DX-10 reference sounded more correct.

>The TX-01 was the Storage Tech control unit; it was designed to be
>attached to an IBM S/360 channel.  The DX-10 took the Massbus
>interface on the KL10 and translated it into what appeared to the TX-01
>as an IBM channel.

Now you see why I categorized all of that {*filter*}curd as a guy
thing.  I never could keep track of any of it.  

Quote:

>>>You also got the problem of very frequent broken glass.

>>I don't think I ever saw broken glass.  How did that happen?

>The glass panel on a drive would jam in the tracks, but the motor kept
>trying to move it.  A classic example of immovable object vs. irresistable
>force: the force (Force?) triumphed.

>I don't recall (from 20 years ago) that the glass ever shattered; instead
>it cracked and was replaced.  Given where it was, I would hope that it had
>been safety glass...

My memory's very hazy.  I do remember learning that all of the
windows popping up at the same time was an "Uh-oh" moment.
But I don't remember why.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.



Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:43:14 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)

Quote:




>> > As I recall, this was not nearly as "popular with operators" as sitting
>the
>> > mini-skirted junior op on top of the line printer and pressing the
>button to
>> > raise the lid.
>> > Sadly I dont recall the model numbers of the printer or the girl .
>> > Sorry to break your train of thought... couldn't resist ;-)
>> 1403-N1 (approximately 1965-1979).
>> 3211 (approximately 1970-1980)
>It must have been 1973 - mini-skirts were particularly short that year.

Gee, I guess *I* chose the wrong year to spend as an eight year old :)

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics    /"\   ASCII ribbon campaign

These opinions will not be those of              X    and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer.           / \  



Sun, 07 Aug 2005 03:42:34 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)



Quote:


> >It must have been 1973 - mini-skirts were particularly short that
year.

> Gee, I guess *I* chose the wrong year to spend as an eight year old

:)

  Nope.  It was worse if you were a horny 24 year old -
  believe me.



Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:07:55 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)



Quote:
>   Nope.  It was worse if you were a horny 24 year old -
>   believe me.

AMEN (still horny at 50)


Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:27:27 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:30:37 +0000 (UTC) in
alt.folklore.computers, "Pointless Harlows"

Quote:






>> >>On the 2401, the window was
>> >>electrically-operated, and the interlock was probably a bit more
>> >>reliable. <SNIP>
>> >>The
>> >>electric windows were much more popular with operators.

>> > As I recall, this was not nearly as "popular with operators" as sitting
>the
>> > mini-skirted junior op on top of the line printer and pressing the
>button to
>> > raise the lid.
>> > Sadly I dont recall the model numbers of the printer or the girl .
>> > Sorry to break your train of thought... couldn't resist ;-)

>> 1403-N1 (approximately 1965-1979).
>> 3211 (approximately 1970-1980)

>It must have been 1973 - mini-skirts were particularly short that year.

It was better in the '60s -- difficult to stay close enough to
the desk to write with pretty, nubile, young female (foreign
language mostly) teachers wearing mini-skirts sitting on the
front edge of their desks or turning around and leaning over to
pick something off it -- it was an all-boys high school -- they
were probably just getting their egos stroked teasing us.

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis         Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--

    fake address                use address above to reply






Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:30:30 GMT  
 Card Columns (was Why did they make ... ?)

Quote:

> It must have been 1973 - mini-skirts were particularly short that year.

sometime in the early to mid '70s those student tables in classrooms
got the panel across the front .... i remember hearing them referred
to as modesty panels.

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



Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:43:43 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