Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162917

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	2016-04-25 05:41 +1000
Message-ID	<do4lr9F98eiU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<PM0005313AC07D75D2@aca40fb0.ipt.aol.com>

Show all headers | View raw


"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM0005313AC07D75D2@aca40fb0.ipt.aol.com...
> Dan Espen wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 10:43:13 AM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Management likes control and predictability, and they had more
>>>> > of that in the tab world than with electronic computers.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like you're making excuses for those idiots.
>>>
>>> Certainly, many managers are idiots.  However, managers do
>>> have a different perspective--and responsibility--on the
>>> situation than the workers, so it is understandable they
>>> would make different decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your argument about disk being unpredictable (especially
>>>> compared to card systems) is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> Computer mainframe hardware was significantly less reliable
>>> than it is today.  Today, it is extremely rare for our
>>> mainframe and CICS applications to be unavailable.  Forty
>>> years ago, outages (for various reasons) were common.  The
>>> 360-40, 158 and supporting peripherals and operating systems
>>> did not have the reliability as today's systems.
>>
>> That does not change the fact that a IBM 14xx with a 1311 drive
>> could and did operate for years without ever reporting a disk
>> error.
>
> <snip>
>
> Then the OS and field service were doing a very good job
> dealing with bad spots on the disk and preventive
> maintenance.

That wasn’t the case with the DEC RS09 that I had which
had none of that and operated for years without ever
reporting a disk error. It never ever had any preventative
maintenance and the OS never had to deal with bad
spots on the disk.

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

Thread

Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-24 13:06 +0000
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:41 +1000

csiph-web