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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162788

Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)?

From "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Newsgroups alt.folklore.computers
Subject Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)?
Date 2016-04-21 19:55 +1000
Message-ID <dnrmdaFk1nU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <49e96268-91bd-4db9-bde1-02a5aaca853d@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com> <g6d7uc-quf.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>

Show all headers | View raw


"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g6d7uc-quf.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
>>> the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
>>> System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
>>
>>The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people 
>>didn't
>>see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was 
>>already
>>on the way out.
>>
>>Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated 
>>the
>>saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the
>>world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with 
>>them
>>until they gave up on cards entirely.
>
> I have the impression that the suits used cards, the production engineers
> used paper tape, and everyone else used 9" magtapes.

Nope. I used them all, simultaneously too.

Paper tape was more viable for the earlier data loggers
before direct connection or floppys were viable and
vastly cheaper than 9" mag tape that was never viable
for anything except very large scale data loggers.

Cards were much more viable than paper tape for the
dinosaurs who found them easier to understand than
screen editors.

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

Thread

Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-04-15 07:16 -0700
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-15 17:16 +0200
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 19:55 +1000
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-21 11:10 +0100
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 22:17 -0400
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-15 14:03 -0700
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-17 10:36 -0400
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-17 15:46 +0100
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-04-17 09:52 -0600
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-04-17 17:18 -0700
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-22 11:01 -0400
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-26 08:22 +0100
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-26 08:20 +0100
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-19 11:44 -0700
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-20 01:36 +0000
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-20 16:58 -0700
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:52 +0000
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-21 12:37 -0700
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 16:25 -0400
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 17:35 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 21:51 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 20:58 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 11:34 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:53 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:45 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 11:34 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:55 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:18 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:38 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 21:21 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 22:21 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-04-21 21:53 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 15:22 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-22 17:55 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:31 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 10:43 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-23 12:48 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-23 16:21 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 18:12 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 20:44 -0500
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-04-24 09:09 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-25 15:08 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-25 13:39 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 18:07 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-25 13:48 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 17:33 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 19:47 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 22:56 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-04-26 17:51 -0500
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 21:40 +0000
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-21 22:31 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 15:22 +0000
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-22 07:15 +0100
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-22 14:44 +0000
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:16 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 17:10 -0400
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 22:38 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-23 16:28 +0000
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 12:35 -0400
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-21 12:41 -0700
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 16:25 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:18 -0700

csiph-web