Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162790

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

From	Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com>
Newsgroups	alt.folklore.computers
Subject	Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)?
Date	2016-04-21 11:10 +0100
Organization	Neural Planner Software Ltd
Message-ID	<md9hhbpsqrlircfuc5mcchj2dgpito7ube@4ax.com> (permalink)
References	<49e96268-91bd-4db9-bde1-02a5aaca853d@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com> <g6d7uc-quf.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> <dnrmdaFk1nU1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:55:49 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"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.
>
> 

I used them all at the same time. Paper tape was more difficult to
shuffle than cards! After dropping a box of cards it was quite
difficult to get them back into order.

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

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