Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156587

Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision?

Show key headers only | View raw

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> System/370 got muddled because IBM was unsure of the future of
> various components, and was diverted with Future System.  None
> the less, despite the setbacks, IBM generally did well with S/360
> successor products.  Sadly, IBM let itself get bloated and almost
> suffocated itself.

This end of ACS-360 also has some discussion of pricing &
price/performance model ... including shutting down ACS-360 because
executives thot that it would advance the state-of-the-art too fast and
IBM would loose control of the market
http://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html


Of the 26,000 IBM computer systems in use, 16,000 were S/360 models
(that is, over 60%). [Fig. 1.311.2]

Of the general-purpose systems having the largest fraction of total
installed value, the IBM S/360 Model 30 was ranked first with 12%
(rising to 17% in 1969). The S/360 Model 40 was ranked second with 11%
(rising to almost 15% in 1970). [Figs. 2.10.4 and 2.10.5]

Of the number of operations per second in use, the IBM S/360 Model 65
ranked first with 23%. The Univac 1108 ranked second with slightly over
14%, and the CDC 6600 ranked third with 10%. [Figs. 2.10.6 and 2.10.7]

... and

To achieve a profit for the ACS program, Amdahl asked IBM management to
approve three ACS-360 models: the high-performance design, a 1/3
performance version, and a 1/9 performance version. He felt that these
performance goals would be a good fit with the System 360 marketing
plans. He remembers that IBM Corporate Marketing evaluated the targets
and reported: "1) the supercomputer alone was a loss leader! 2) the
supercomputer plus the 1/3 performance computer was break-even! And 3)
the supercomputer plus both the 1/3 performance computer and the 1/9
performance computer was normal profit -- 30% pre-tax!"

... snip ...

it also has discussion of ACS-360 features that show up 20yrs later with
es/9000.

this account by former IBM executive says that major motivation for
"Future System" was trying to lock out "clone controllers"
http://www.ecole.org/en/seances/CM07

unfortunately during FS period, internal politics was shutting down 370
efforts ... and the lack of new 370 products during this period is
credited with giving "clone processors" a market foothold.

past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

trivia ... as undergraduate I tried to do some stuff with 2702 terminal
controller ... which it couldn't quite do. This was part of the
motivation for the univ. to do a clone controller effort ... starting
with Interdata/3 ... later morphed into a combination of Interdata/4 for
the channel interface and cluster of Interdata/3s for line/port
scanners. Interdata (later acquired by P/E) markets this as commerical
product. Somewhere there is writeup that credits four of us for (some
part of the) clone controller market.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

IBM STRETCH repricing decision? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:37 -0800
  Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:59 -0800
    Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0800
    Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 18:50 -0800
      Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-12 23:37 -0800
        Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 07:24 -0800
          Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-13 14:37 -0800
      Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:37 +0100
        Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 07:39 -0800
          Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-13 08:17 -0800
            Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-13 18:02 -0600
          Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-13 12:58 -0800
            Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 13:53 -0800
              Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-13 14:31 -0800
                Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 18:38 -0800
              Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-13 22:43 +0000
                Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 20:13 -0500
                Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-13 17:17 -0800
                Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 18:32 -0800
                Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 21:51 -0500
                Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:24 +0000
              Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 20:04 -0500
            Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 08:03 -0500
          Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-13 17:49 -0600
            Re: IBM STRETCH repricing decision? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 08:03 -0500

csiph-web