Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163878 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 598 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-24 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-24 16:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-25 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-25 16:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-26 12:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-28 13:17 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-29 10:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 19:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:41 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 10:49 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:36 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-29 15:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:54 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Larry <lelmore76@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:29 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:45 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-25 17:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-25 22:04 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 00:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 10:07 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:55 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-26 15:57 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:00 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-27 11:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:49 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-28 13:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-28 17:53 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-29 13:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 16:33 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-05-31 14:10 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 22:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 07:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 12:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 10:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:11 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-01 17:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:31 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:41 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 15:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 10:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 11:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:14 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 16:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 17:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 10:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 09:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 10:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:59 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-08 15:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 15:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 10:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 11:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-09 16:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:00 -0700
Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-06-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:17 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 15:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 23:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:05 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:24 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 22:41 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:54 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 07:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 09:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 21:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 21:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 21:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-08 06:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 09:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 07:33 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 17:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 20:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:09 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:18 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 13:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-01 13:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 08:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-02 02:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-24 11:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-24 17:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-24 20:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-24 18:26 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-06-24 21:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-25 05:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 07:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-27 21:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 08:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-28 17:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 19:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-27 19:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 23:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 07:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 08:02 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 10:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 14:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 12:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 15:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-28 21:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-29 12:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:25 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-29 17:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-25 07:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:02 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 12:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 16:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-26 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-27 15:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-28 22:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 22:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-28 20:25 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 10:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 17:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 23:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-30 18:27 +0000
PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:20 -0400
Re: PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-28 00:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:47 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-01 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 20:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:48 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 07:50 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:38 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 12:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 10:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 07:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 06:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 07:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 08:52 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 14:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-05 10:04 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:20 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-04 15:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 16:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 17:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 19:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 12:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 13:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:44 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:07 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-03 17:04 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 12:08 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 10:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:51 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:05 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 15:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 06:12 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 07:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:24 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:48 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:29 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 19:47 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:45 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:48 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 13:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 14:57 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:21 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 14:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 09:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-08 12:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-07 18:08 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-08 12:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 09:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-08 19:06 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 18:17 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 09:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 12:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 12:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:02 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 21:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 03:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 22:42 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:51 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 22:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 18:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 23:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-04 23:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 09:25 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:05 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 20:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-09 07:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:13 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 10:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 18:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-05 17:53 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:53 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 22:06 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-07 13:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-08 00:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-04 13:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:39 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:14 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:45 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-03 15:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 12:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:05 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 06:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-10 11:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-16 17:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 16:15 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:49 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 12:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:23 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 02:15 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 22:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 14:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-31 16:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:56 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:41 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 13:37 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 12:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 16:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 07:04 -0400
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-01 13:15 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-01 15:38 -0500
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:44 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 18:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 11:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-27 13:36 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 15:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 16:07 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-27 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-28 20:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:51 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 06:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:51 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:25 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-27 05:43 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 05:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 11:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-26 12:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 15:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 05:38 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:53 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-30 07:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 14:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-30 22:29 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700
Page 4 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 30 Next page →
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1587581050.486486361.225523.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164240 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Bob Eager wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:08:17 +0200, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >>> In article <dr7ik2Fm19sU32@mid.individual.net>, >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:19:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home >>>>> says... >>>>>> >>>>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad >>>>>>> <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>>>>>>> in-house compilers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost >>>>>>> exclusively on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of >>>>>>> them. Almost all products were written in either the respective >>>>>>> assembly language or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am >>>>>>> not aware of any, there may have been some odd product DEC sold that >>>>>>> was written in something else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). >>>>> >>>>> If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that >>>>> there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason >>>>> for not using them. >>>> >>>> No, it was just the engineering ethos that went all the way back to the >>>> start of DEC. >>>> >>>> The assemblers were *very* good. >>> >>> I know, I used them. >>> >>> But assembler does lock you in to a specific architecture. >> >> They managed the port to the Itanium rather cleverly. >> >>> Yes, I know that DEC was a hardware company. But the software was the >>> driver, and they never saw that before it was too late. >> >> I believe they did. > > Nope, Bell refused to accept the concept. It's one of the reasons > he got rid of the PDP-10 business; it required certain hardware > development and the hardware development folklore couldn't allow > it to be wagged by the OS development tail. > > >> What they didn't do was see where the market was >> going. > > In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the > computing market was going. DEC was implementing heterogenous > networks when IBM was still insisting homogenity. Timesharing > with batch functionality was preparing the masses for the PC > computing era. I could go on but this list will create > stupidity havoc :-). > DEC was ahead in a lot of area, but IBM did batch a lot better, and business DP In general, stuff like a better SORT/MERGE, CICS, etc. No one can excel at everything. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005344A4D8CE855@aca41013.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164254 |
Peter Flass wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Bob Eager wrote: >>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:08:17 +0200, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>>> In article <dr7ik2Fm19sU32@mid.individual.net>, >>>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:19:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home >>>>>> says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad >>>>>>>> <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>>>>>>>> in-house compilers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost >>>>>>>> exclusively on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of >>>>>>>> them. Almost all products were written in either the respective >>>>>>>> assembly language or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am >>>>>>>> not aware of any, there may have been some odd product DEC sold that >>>>>>>> was written in something else. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). >>>>>> >>>>>> If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that >>>>>> there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason >>>>>> for not using them. >>>>> >>>>> No, it was just the engineering ethos that went all the way back to the >>>>> start of DEC. >>>>> >>>>> The assemblers were *very* good. >>>> >>>> I know, I used them. >>>> >>>> But assembler does lock you in to a specific architecture. >>> >>> They managed the port to the Itanium rather cleverly. >>> >>>> Yes, I know that DEC was a hardware company. But the software was the >>>> driver, and they never saw that before it was too late. >>> >>> I believe they did. >> >> Nope, Bell refused to accept the concept. It's one of the reasons >> he got rid of the PDP-10 business; it required certain hardware >> development and the hardware development folklore couldn't allow >> it to be wagged by the OS development tail. >> >> >>> What they didn't do was see where the market was >>> going. >> >> In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the >> computing market was going. DEC was implementing heterogenous >> networks when IBM was still insisting homogenity. Timesharing >> with batch functionality was preparing the masses for the PC >> computing era. I could go on but this list will create >> stupidity havoc :-). >> > > DEC was ahead in a lot of area, but IBM did batch a lot better, and > business DP In general, stuff like a better SORT/MERGE, CICS, etc. No one > can excel at everything. Of course IBM was better at data processing than DEC. Concentrated data processing and doing timesharing of a system's resources do not mix well on the same machine; they never have. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2336138f-4095-4fb4-9c78-0afeb343089e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164314 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:11:34 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: > Of course IBM was better at data processing than DEC. Concentrated > data processing and doing timesharing of a system's resources do > not mix well on the same machine; they never have. We had a sub-division that wanted to computerize and sought a particular Wang machine. The user felt that the machine could easily do batch and on-line at the same time. I checked with active users and found that was false, indeed, that the machine wasn't very powerful and two units were needed. We ended up doing the project on the mainframe, which worked out well. The mainframe easily handled both batch and CICS during the daytime. It amazes me how the Z series handles the work of five former independent data centers with ease.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5753d4b1.26088333@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164314 |
On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:36 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Of course IBM was better at data processing than DEC. Concentrated >data processing and doing timesharing of a system's resources do >not mix well on the same machine; they never have. More nonsense. Any unchecked load can bring a system to its knees, whether it's a hundred students doing the TECO-FORTRAN two-step or a couple of engineers submitting a complete monitor build. The key is proper system management. You seem unaware that TOPS-10 included a good tool for doing just that -- the class scheduler. I worked in one shop that catered to an engineering group that used a compute-bound automated design application. Firing up a couple of those batch jobs without restraint would completely swamp a KL. The design users were put in a class that could only receive a fraction of the CPU during the day. The rest went to timesharing. In the early evening the restrictions were lifted, and the engineering jobs could use the whole machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053488ABEF63B1@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164535 |
Questor wrote: > On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:36 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Of course IBM was better at data processing than DEC. Concentrated >>data processing and doing timesharing of a system's resources do >>not mix well on the same machine; they never have. > > More nonsense. Any unchecked load can bring a system to its knees, whether > it's a hundred students doing the TECO-FORTRAN two-step or a couple of > engineers submitting a complete monitor build. The key is proper system > management. You seem unaware that TOPS-10 included a good tool for doing just > that -- the class scheduler. > > I worked in one shop that catered to an engineering group that used a > compute-bound automated design application. Firing up a couple of those batch > jobs without restraint would completely swamp a KL. The design users were put > in a class that could only receive a fraction of the CPU during the day. The > rest went to timesharing. In the early evening the restrictions were lifted, > and the engineering jobs could use the whole machine. > I was not talking about compute-bound jobs; this is an entirely different category of computing services which were provided by CRAY flavored machines. I was talking about data processing which is very differnt from compute-bound processing. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj1o214no0@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164580 |
On 2016-06-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > I was not talking about compute-bound jobs; this is an entirely > different category of computing services which were provided > by CRAY flavored machines. > > I was talking about data processing which is very differnt from > compute-bound processing. Most of the time. However, if you're running a large sort, or one of your programs goes into a CPU loop, your data-processing machine has suddenly become compute bound, and if the OS doesn't deal well with the mix you can have problems. For instance, Univac's OS/3 would not time-slice jobs of equal priority. In this case, that big sort or looping program would bring all other running jobs of equal or lower priority to a grinding halt - even totally I/O-bound tasks like file copying. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87wpm3coup.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #164610 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > Most of the time. However, if you're running a large sort, or one > of your programs goes into a CPU loop, your data-processing machine > has suddenly become compute bound, and if the OS doesn't deal well > with the mix you can have problems. > > For instance, Univac's OS/3 would not time-slice jobs of equal > priority. In this case, that big sort or looping program would > bring all other running jobs of equal or lower priority to a > grinding halt - even totally I/O-bound tasks like file copying. I did dynamic adaptive resource management as undergraduate at the Univ. in the 60s ... which IBM picked up and distributed in their operating system product. The implementation included both "feed forward" and "feedback" ... part of the reason I was so taken with John Boyd when I met him in the 80s and sponsored his briefings at IBM. Unlocking the Power of Colonel John Boyd's OODA Loop http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-people-and-ideas/2015/unlocking-the-power-of-john-boyd-ooda-loop.html Observation feeds forward to Orientation, Orientation feeds forward to Decide, Decide feeds forward to Action, and finally Action feeds forward to Observation ... which results in feedback loop ... and all four are operating continuously and asynchronously Feedforward, Behavioral and Cognitive Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedforward,_Behavioral_and_Cognitive_Science Feed forward (control) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_forward_(control) A control system which has only feed-forward behavior responds to its control signal in a pre-defined way without responding to how the load reacts; it is in contrast with a system that also has feedback, which adjusts the output to take account of how it affects the load, and how the load itself may vary unpredictably; the load is considered to belong to the external environment of the system. ... snip ... Original dynamic adaptive resource manager, customers sometimes referred to as "fair share" ... because default policy was fair share resource allocation ... with priorities that allowed more or less than fair share (each time-slice had relative deadlines that were dynamicalloy adjusted if process was getting more or less than allocated resource). Then it was possible to override fair share & priorities to give fix percent of resources ... typically for batch work while rest competed for the remaining with fair share (and all sort of dynamics for processes using more or less than their allocated resources). I've periodically mentioned that one of my hobbies for a couple decades was providing enhanced operating systems to internal datacenters. I was once listening to director of one very large internal datacenter complain about regular status meetings where the significant number of different development organizations constantly complaining about they wanted more resources than the other organizations. I offered to implement "group fair share" ... where he could give fixed resources to specific organizations ... and then it would fair share within those fixed resources the members of that group. The director looked horrified at the suggested ... he said that the internal politics and complaints were bad enough as it were ... but he could give a pat answer that he could do anything about it. He said imagine if it got out that he could give priority to different organizations ... then the demands and internal politics would totally explode. Note that today nearly all IBM mainframes today are configured with LPAR (logical partition) support ... basically hardware/microcode mechanism for partitioning the machine into multiple systems. The specifications for CPU resource allications to the different LPAR systems can be fairly sophisticated. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1246273135.486933838.302655.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164629 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: >> Most of the time. However, if you're running a large sort, or one >> of your programs goes into a CPU loop, your data-processing machine >> has suddenly become compute bound, and if the OS doesn't deal well >> with the mix you can have problems. >> >> For instance, Univac's OS/3 would not time-slice jobs of equal >> priority. In this case, that big sort or looping program would >> bring all other running jobs of equal or lower priority to a >> grinding halt - even totally I/O-bound tasks like file copying. > > > I did dynamic adaptive resource management as undergraduate at the > Univ. in the 60s ... which IBM picked up and distributed in their > operating system product. The implementation included both "feed > forward" and "feedback" ... part of the reason I was so taken with John > Boyd when I met him in the 80s and sponsored his briefings at IBM. > > Unlocking the Power of Colonel John Boyd's OODA Loop > http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-people-and-ideas/2015/unlocking-the-power-of-john-boyd-ooda-loop.html > > Observation feeds forward to Orientation, Orientation feeds forward to > Decide, Decide feeds forward to Action, and finally Action feeds forward > to Observation ... which results in feedback loop ... and all four are > operating continuously and asynchronously > > Feedforward, Behavioral and Cognitive Science > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedforward,_Behavioral_and_Cognitive_Science > Feed forward (control) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_forward_(control) > > A control system which has only feed-forward behavior responds to its > control signal in a pre-defined way without responding to how the load > reacts; it is in contrast with a system that also has feedback, which > adjusts the output to take account of how it affects the load, and how > the load itself may vary unpredictably; the load is considered to belong > to the external environment of the system. > > ... snip ... > > Original dynamic adaptive resource manager, customers sometimes referred > to as "fair share" ... because default policy was fair share resource > allocation ... with priorities that allowed more or less than fair share > (each time-slice had relative deadlines that were dynamicalloy adjusted > if process was getting more or less than allocated resource). Then it > was possible to override fair share & priorities to give fix percent of > resources ... typically for batch work while rest competed for the > remaining with fair share (and all sort of dynamics for processes using > more or less than their allocated resources). > > I've periodically mentioned that one of my hobbies for a couple decades > was providing enhanced operating systems to internal datacenters. I was > once listening to director of one very large internal datacenter > complain about regular status meetings where the significant number of > different development organizations constantly complaining about they > wanted more resources than the other organizations. > > I offered to implement "group fair share" ... where he could give fixed > resources to specific organizations ... and then it would fair share > within those fixed resources the members of that group. The director > looked horrified at the suggested ... he said that the internal politics > and complaints were bad enough as it were ... but he could give a pat > answer that he could do anything about it. He said imagine if it got out > that he could give priority to different organizations ... then the > demands and internal politics would totally explode. I think this is exactly why better scheduling algorithms aren't more widely used. If you just let everyone compete equally for resources you're not giving anyone a lever to demand higher priority. > > Note that today nearly all IBM mainframes today are configured with LPAR > (logical partition) support ... basically hardware/microcode mechanism > for partitioning the machine into multiple systems. The specifications > for CPU resource allications to the different LPAR systems can be fairly > sophisticated. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005349C113DE935@aca407c0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164610 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-06-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> I was not talking about compute-bound jobs; this is an entirely >> different category of computing services which were provided >> by CRAY flavored machines. >> >> I was talking about data processing which is very differnt from >> compute-bound processing. > > Most of the time. However, if you're running a large sort, or one > of your programs goes into a CPU loop, your data-processing machine > has suddenly become compute bound, and if the OS doesn't deal well > with the mix you can have problems. I would think that a sort couldn't get compute bound with limited memory. There would have to be I/O going on for the temporary sort files. > > For instance, Univac's OS/3 would not time-slice jobs of equal > priority. In this case, that big sort or looping program would > bring all other running jobs of equal or lower priority to a > grinding halt - even totally I/O-bound tasks like file copying. > We would consider the grinding halt a bug. It sounds similar to the pre-TOPS-10's pink scheduling bug. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj47i901rtt@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164667 |
On 2016-06-06, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2016-06-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> I was not talking about compute-bound jobs; this is an entirely >>> different category of computing services which were provided >>> by CRAY flavored machines. >>> >>> I was talking about data processing which is very differnt from >>> compute-bound processing. >> >> Most of the time. However, if you're running a large sort, or one >> of your programs goes into a CPU loop, your data-processing machine >> has suddenly become compute bound, and if the OS doesn't deal well >> with the mix you can have problems. > > I would think that a sort couldn't get compute bound with limited > memory. There would have to be I/O going on for the temporary > sort files. True, but the amount of I/O would be small enough that the sort (especially in early phases) would be sufficiently CPU-bound to interfere with other jobs. >> For instance, Univac's OS/3 would not time-slice jobs of equal >> priority. In this case, that big sort or looping program would >> bring all other running jobs of equal or lower priority to a >> grinding halt - even totally I/O-bound tasks like file copying. > > We would consider the grinding halt a bug. It sounds similar > to the pre-TOPS-10's pink scheduling bug. I thought of it not so much a bug, but as a deficiency in design. Later versions of OS/3 added a sysgen option allowing the default execution priority of a job step to be something other than the lowest possible level. Until then, you'd have had to manually assign priorities to every step in every piece of JCL in the shop. With the modification, you need only specify that CPU-bound steps run at a lower priority; other jobs would by default run at a priority high enough that they'd get the access they needed for good performance, while the CPU-bound steps would gobble up whatever CPU time was left over. Really important jobs, like the transaction processing monitor (OS/3's equivalent of CICS) had an explicit high priority set in the JCL - but there were only a few such jobs. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74e9c55a-dddb-4036-bc5b-a6964b446e58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164610 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > For instance, Univac's OS/3 would not time-slice jobs of equal > priority. In this case, that big sort or looping program would > bring all other running jobs of equal or lower priority to a > grinding halt - even totally I/O-bound tasks like file copying. On our Univac 90/30 with OS/3, we found we could _effectively_ run only one batch job at a time, even though the system supported up to five partitions. I recall experimenting, and comparing the throughput of two jobs back to back vs. two jobs simultaneously. Back to back was actually faster. (I'O contention played a role.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj5cu112clo@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164711 |
On 2016-06-06, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> For instance, Univac's OS/3 would not time-slice jobs of equal >> priority. In this case, that big sort or looping program would >> bring all other running jobs of equal or lower priority to a >> grinding halt - even totally I/O-bound tasks like file copying. > > On our Univac 90/30 with OS/3, we found we could _effectively_ > run only one batch job at a time, even though the system supported > up to five partitions. I recall experimenting, and comparing the > throughput of two jobs back to back vs. two jobs simultaneously. > Back to back was actually faster. (I'O contention played a role.) With our job mix, I found that it was typically the third concurrent job that hit the point of diminishing returns - usually due to disk thrashing. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <575733fa.20927482@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164580 |
On 5 Jun 2016 14:31:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Questor wrote: >> On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:36 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Of course IBM was better at data processing than DEC. Concentrated >>>data processing and doing timesharing of a system's resources do >>>not mix well on the same machine; they never have. >> >> More nonsense. Any unchecked load can bring a system to its knees, whether >> it's a hundred students doing the TECO-FORTRAN two-step or a couple of >> engineers submitting a complete monitor build. The key is proper system >> management. You seem unaware that TOPS-10 included a good tool for doing >just >> that -- the class scheduler. >> >> I worked in one shop that catered to an engineering group that used a >> compute-bound automated design application. Firing up a couple of those >batch >> jobs without restraint would completely swamp a KL. The design users were >put >> in a class that could only receive a fraction of the CPU during the day. >The >> rest went to timesharing. In the early evening the restrictions were >lifted, >> and the engineering jobs could use the whole machine. >> >I was not talking about compute-bound jobs; this is an entirely >different category of computing services which were provided >by CRAY flavored machines. > >I was talking about data processing which is very differnt from >compute-bound processing. Data processing is very generic term that can mean lots of different things. It's just more of your usual hand-waving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87a8j4cv9j.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #164240 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the > computing market was going. DEC was implementing heterogenous > networks when IBM was still insisting homogenity. Timesharing > with batch functionality was preparing the masses for the PC > computing era. I could go on but this list will create > stupidity havoc :-). mainstream OS/360, MVS ... sold large number of systems in the 60s and 70s ... however there was a fairly large number of online virtual machine CP67/CMS and then VM370/cms ... just not as many as OS/360 & MVS. MVS/SNA was also dumb terminal paradigm sold to customers. However the IBM cambridge science center had done virtual machines, CP67, CMS, internal network (non-SNA and technology also used for univ. BITNET/EARN, which had lots of DEC machines), GML and other stuff. science center posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech internal network posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet bitnet/earn posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet 4300s came along in late 70s and sold against VAX ... 4300s sold about the same as VAX in the mid & low range market ... however large corporations were also doing 4300 orders for hundreds of machines at a time for deployment out in departmental areas ... sort of leading edge of distributed computing tsunami. VAX orders sliced and diced by years, model, US/non-US ... showing mid-range market starting to move to workstations & large PCs in 2nd half of the 80s http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#0 old 4300 email http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx however, the communication division was not above all sorts of internal dirty tricks to try and preserve their dumb terminal paradigm (including in the 2nd half of the 80s, telling corporate hdqtrs that the internal network that it needed to be converted to SNA or otherwise it might stop working). old internal network email http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#vnet old NSFNET email http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet NSFNET posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet the above has references to the communication group distributing internal mis-information about needing to convert the internal network to SNA/VTAM ... as well as other SNA/VTAM about it could be used for the NSFNET backbone. I've also periodically referenced senior disk engineer getting a talk scheduled in the late 80s at the annual, internal, world-wide, communication group conference ... supposedly on 3174 performance ... but opened the talk with the statement that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. The issue was that the communication group had strangle-hold on datacenters with their corporate startegic ownership of everything that crossed the datacenter walls .... heavily fighting off distributed computing and client/server trying to preserve their dumb terminal paraidgm and install base. The disk division was seeing the effects of data fleeing datacenters to more distributed computing friendly platforms with drop in disk sales. The disk division had come up with a number of solutions that were all vetoed by the communication group http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal I've also mentioned that in the mid-80s, I gave a presentation at SNA architecture review board meeting in Raleigh comparing a customer implementation of PU4/PU5 emulation onf Series/1 (where SNA RUs were encapsulated in real network) to 3725 configuration. The Series/1 data came from customer 60,000 terminal network. First the communication group said that the 3275 information was totally inaccurate. However, I pointed out that it was taken from the communication group 3725 configurator on HONE (provided by the communication group for ordering 3725). Then they tried all sorts of other ways to discredit the analysis. Part of my presentaton http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67 part of the customer presentation at Common user meeting http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#70 I actually had a plan to turn the series/1 pu4/pu5 emulation out as as type-1 product, porting to rs/6000 base ... where we thought we had walled off all possible communication group dirty tricks. What they then did can only be described as truth is stranger than fiction. The disk division as somewhat work-around to the problems with the communication group ... started doing investment in startups that were providing open architecture distributed commputing support for mainframe. This was primarily being done by the disk division VP of software ... and he would periodically ask us to help with some of his investments. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 11:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nip1ta$qdt$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #164294 |
On 02/06/2016 01:03, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the >> computing market was going. It was, but the computing power wasn't there to support it. I so remember a friend who worked for a large Bank saying whilst he didn't like PROFS as much as all-in-one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL-IN-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_OfficeVision at the time VMS just didn't scale well enough for him to roll it out Company wide, it was going to have to be PROFS. It was really hard to get enough main store (RAM) to get decent response times. Lets face it any OS where:- 1. The user hits a key. 2. The OS receives the character 3. The OS works out the editor app its intended for is paged out. 4. The OS pages the app in and sends it the character. 5. the app sees the character is an ordinary letter and echoes it back to the terminal. 6. the OS echos the character 7. The OS marks the app as waiting for I/O and pages it out... is going to have scalability problems with many terminals. The modern paradigm is to give each user a computer and OS. >> DEC was implementing heterogenous >> networks when IBM was still insisting homogenity. Timesharing >> with batch functionality was preparing the masses for the PC >> computing era. I could go on but this list will create >> stupidity havoc :-). > IBM already had VM/CMS since 1972 (and CP/67 before) which had no Batch. It is a pure personal computing environment. You could do single step debugging of your OS, patch the OS, most anything. Much closer to a modern personal computing environment than anything DEC offered except perhaps stand-alone PDP-11's. The trouble is that as such it removes control from Central IT/DP departments. IBM's marketing was top-down. They sold to the board. They wanted to sell control. VM/CMS didn't fit that model BUT PROFS runs in VM/CMS so they needed it for PROFS. DEC's marketing was "bottom up", they sold to the techy people, the designers and innovators. For them it was natural. Of course when the PC came along I don't think either camp realized how paradigm changing it was. In summary I think to look at IBM as a monolith selling MVS is very narrow minded. It had many divisions and sold many things. I remember when I first used an IBM phone system on one of the IBM1800 based "PABX's" it sold in the UK I was awestruck at the facilities available compared to the ones I had been used to. The selectric typewriter with exchangeable fonts is a work of mechanical genius. Its a pity about the "light pen" a mouse is much easier to use, but perhaps touch screens and gestures are a similar paradigm... .. but of course the sadest thing of all is that DEC rejected the idea of a personal computer, when really that was what they had built their business on... Dave G4UGM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005344A42095F07@aca41013.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164304 |
David Wade wrote: > On 02/06/2016 01:03, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the >>> computing market was going. > > It was, but the computing power wasn't there to support it. I so > remember a friend who worked for a large Bank saying whilst he didn't > like PROFS as much as all-in-one > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL-IN-1 > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_OfficeVision > > at the time VMS just didn't scale well enough for him to roll it out > Company wide, it was going to have to be PROFS. > > It was really hard to get enough main store (RAM) to get decent response > times. Lets face it any OS where:- > > 1. The user hits a key. > 2. The OS receives the character > 3. The OS works out the editor app its intended for is paged out. > 4. The OS pages the app in and sends it the character. > 5. the app sees the character is an ordinary letter and echoes it back > to the terminal. > 6. the OS echos the character > 7. The OS marks the app as waiting for I/O and pages it out... > > is going to have scalability problems with many terminals. The modern > paradigm is to give each user a computer and OS. We had a customer whose LOGMAX was 500 and the services were handled just fine. Of course, he needed 5 CPUs to deal with those services. > >>> DEC was implementing heterogenous >>> networks when IBM was still insisting homogenity. Timesharing >>> with batch functionality was preparing the masses for the PC >>> computing era. I could go on but this list will create >>> stupidity havoc :-). >> > > IBM already had VM/CMS since 1972 (and CP/67 before) which had no Batch. > It is a pure personal computing environment. You could do single step > debugging of your OS, patch the OS, most anything. Much closer to a > modern personal computing environment than anything DEC offered except > perhaps stand-alone PDP-11's. > > The trouble is that as such it removes control from Central IT/DP > departments. IBM's marketing was top-down. They sold to the board. They > wanted to sell control. VM/CMS didn't fit that model BUT PROFS runs in > VM/CMS so they needed it for PROFS. > > DEC's marketing was "bottom up", they sold to the techy people, the > designers and innovators. For them it was natural. > > Of course when the PC came along I don't think either camp realized how > paradigm changing it was. > > In summary I think to look at IBM as a monolith selling MVS is very > narrow minded. It had many divisions and sold many things. I remember > when I first used an IBM phone system on one of the IBM1800 based > "PABX's" it sold in the UK I was awestruck at the facilities available > compared to the ones I had been used to. I'm describing why DEC sold certain systems. One of the reasons was IBM refused to be hetero with other manufacturers' gear. This was at Oak Ridge in 1970. It was the seed for ANF-10 and DECnet. > > The selectric typewriter with exchangeable fonts is a work of mechanical > genius. > > Its a pity about the "light pen" a mouse is much easier to use, but > perhaps touch screens and gestures are a similar paradigm... > > .. but of course the sadest thing of all is that DEC rejected the idea > of a personal computer, when really that was what they had built their > business on... DEC didn't. When TOPS-10 was running, each and every user had the experience of having his/her own PC. that is what timesharing is supposed to do. If it wasn't for DEC's timesharing experience, the PC business would be much later. Some people would use TOPS-10 or TOPS-20 and lust to be the owner of his/her own system. Since mainframes were so expensive to buy and maintain, people would start to cobble together a smaller system when they could afford to buy the hardware. Kids in college would buy their own terminals in 1969 or 1970. It's not a big leap for those same kids to want to buy their own computer system. That's how the PC biz began. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 15:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6qn52d-tff.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164315 |
In article <PM0005344A42095F07@aca41013.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >David Wade wrote: >> On 02/06/2016 01:03, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>> In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the >>>> computing market was going. >> >> It was, but the computing power wasn't there to support it. I so >> remember a friend who worked for a large Bank saying whilst he didn't >> like PROFS as much as all-in-one >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL-IN-1 >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_OfficeVision >> >> at the time VMS just didn't scale well enough for him to roll it out >> Company wide, it was going to have to be PROFS. >> >> It was really hard to get enough main store (RAM) to get decent response >> times. Lets face it any OS where:- >> >> 1. The user hits a key. >> 2. The OS receives the character >> 3. The OS works out the editor app its intended for is paged out. >> 4. The OS pages the app in and sends it the character. >> 5. the app sees the character is an ordinary letter and echoes it back >> to the terminal. >> 6. the OS echos the character >> 7. The OS marks the app as waiting for I/O and pages it out... >> >> is going to have scalability problems with many terminals. The modern >> paradigm is to give each user a computer and OS. > >We had a customer whose LOGMAX was 500 and the services were >handled just fine. Of course, he needed 5 CPUs to deal with those >services. Yes, you did some stuff quite well. But the argument about not bothering the main CPU too much stands. I know of several places that hit the VTAM max on assigned terminals, which was ~16000 at the time (AFAIR). They ran the code on 4341s with CICS. That is about equivalent to a KL10 in CPU power. OK, there were an handful of them, about even with the logmax 500 system you describe above. >I'm describing why DEC sold certain systems. One of the reasons was IBM >refused to be hetero with other manufacturers' gear. This was at >Oak Ridge in 1970. It was the seed for ANF-10 and DECnet. DEC also had a string NIH streak. Just look at how much it took to get TCP/IP into the kernel. >> The selectric typewriter with exchangeable fonts is a work of mechanical >> genius. >> >> Its a pity about the "light pen" a mouse is much easier to use, but >> perhaps touch screens and gestures are a similar paradigm... >> >> .. but of course the sadest thing of all is that DEC rejected the idea >> of a personal computer, when really that was what they had built their >> business on... > >DEC didn't. When TOPS-10 was running, each and every user had >the experience of having his/her own PC. that is what >timesharing is supposed to do. If it wasn't for DEC's >timesharing experience, the PC business would be much later. >Some people would use TOPS-10 or TOPS-20 and lust to be the >owner of his/her own system. Since mainframes were so >expensive to buy and maintain, people would start to cobble >together a smaller system when they could afford to buy the >hardware. Kids in college would buy their own terminals >in 1969 or 1970. It's not a big leap for those same kids >to want to buy their own computer system. > >That's how the PC biz began. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005345F6683781B@aca40481.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164323 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM0005344A42095F07@aca41013.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>David Wade wrote: >>> On 02/06/2016 01:03, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>>> In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the >>>>> computing market was going. >>> >>> It was, but the computing power wasn't there to support it. I so >>> remember a friend who worked for a large Bank saying whilst he didn't >>> like PROFS as much as all-in-one >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL-IN-1 >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_OfficeVision >>> >>> at the time VMS just didn't scale well enough for him to roll it out >>> Company wide, it was going to have to be PROFS. >>> >>> It was really hard to get enough main store (RAM) to get decent response >>> times. Lets face it any OS where:- >>> >>> 1. The user hits a key. >>> 2. The OS receives the character >>> 3. The OS works out the editor app its intended for is paged out. >>> 4. The OS pages the app in and sends it the character. >>> 5. the app sees the character is an ordinary letter and echoes it back >>> to the terminal. >>> 6. the OS echos the character >>> 7. The OS marks the app as waiting for I/O and pages it out... >>> >>> is going to have scalability problems with many terminals. The modern >>> paradigm is to give each user a computer and OS. >> >>We had a customer whose LOGMAX was 500 and the services were >>handled just fine. Of course, he needed 5 CPUs to deal with those >>services. > > Yes, you did some stuff quite well. But the argument about not > bothering the main CPU too much stands. That depends on what's going on. A user hitting <CTRL>C<CTRL>C in panic wants the attention of the CPU running his job. I do remember lots of discussions and experiments w.r.t. echoing when the DC72 became more than a glint in the bit god's eye. > > I know of several places that hit the VTAM max on assigned terminals, > which was ~16000 at the time (AFAIR). They ran the code on 4341s with > CICS. That is about equivalent to a KL10 in CPU power. OK, there were > an handful of them, about even with the logmax 500 system you describe > above. I thought those configurations had more to do with forms control, data entry, and batch processing. There's a big difference between that and general timesharing for many diverse users. > >>I'm describing why DEC sold certain systems. One of the reasons was IBM >>refused to be hetero with other manufacturers' gear. This was at >>Oak Ridge in 1970. It was the seed for ANF-10 and DECnet. > > DEC also had a string NIH streak. That seemed to happen only when Bell or Cutler or Husvedt(sp?) got involved. Those were the small computer product lines. Absolute control absolutely predominated the culture. That, naturally, spilled over into the development decisions of the hard/software. >Just look at how much it took to get > TCP/IP into the kernel. DEC was highly invested in DECnet. The entire project was delayed to the point that TOPS-10 comm developers in CSS group took the current specs of DECnet and developed a comm product which ended up being ANF-10. We had customers who needed the functionality yesterday and wouldn't wait for final apporval of all specs; this approval didn't happen until years later. There was a struggle going on during all that time about which networking protocols were going to be the computer biz standard. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 16:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kih82d-2h2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164397 |
In article <PM0005345F6683781B@aca40481.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM0005344A42095F07@aca41013.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>David Wade wrote: >>>> On 02/06/2016 01:03, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>>>> In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the >>>>>> computing market was going. >>>> >>>> It was, but the computing power wasn't there to support it. I so >>>> remember a friend who worked for a large Bank saying whilst he didn't >>>> like PROFS as much as all-in-one >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL-IN-1 >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_OfficeVision >>>> >>>> at the time VMS just didn't scale well enough for him to roll it out >>>> Company wide, it was going to have to be PROFS. >>>> >>>> It was really hard to get enough main store (RAM) to get decent response >>>> times. Lets face it any OS where:- >>>> >>>> 1. The user hits a key. >>>> 2. The OS receives the character >>>> 3. The OS works out the editor app its intended for is paged out. >>>> 4. The OS pages the app in and sends it the character. >>>> 5. the app sees the character is an ordinary letter and echoes it back >>>> to the terminal. >>>> 6. the OS echos the character >>>> 7. The OS marks the app as waiting for I/O and pages it out... >>>> >>>> is going to have scalability problems with many terminals. The modern >>>> paradigm is to give each user a computer and OS. >>> >>>We had a customer whose LOGMAX was 500 and the services were >>>handled just fine. Of course, he needed 5 CPUs to deal with those >>>services. >> >> Yes, you did some stuff quite well. But the argument about not >> bothering the main CPU too much stands. > >That depends on what's going on. A user hitting <CTRL>C<CTRL>C >in panic wants the attention of the CPU running his job. I do >remember lots of discussions and experiments w.r.t. echoing >when the DC72 became more than a glint in the bit god's eye. > >> >> I know of several places that hit the VTAM max on assigned terminals, >> which was ~16000 at the time (AFAIR). They ran the code on 4341s with >> CICS. That is about equivalent to a KL10 in CPU power. OK, there were >> an handful of them, about even with the logmax 500 system you describe >> above. > >I thought those configurations had more to do with forms control, data >entry, and batch processing. There's a big difference between that >and general timesharing for many diverse users. This is transactions in an online network vs timesharing. When it comes to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. The web is very similar to cics. Rolling out support for >2M users within a 2 hour period is reasonably easy to do with http. BTDT. I wouldn't even try with logins. I have seen around a thousand on one machine, and it still worked sort of OK. That was a SGI challenge with 4-way mirrored disks, 16 in total and a max on 16 cpus. The users were mainly running uucp. >>>I'm describing why DEC sold certain systems. One of the reasons was IBM >>>refused to be hetero with other manufacturers' gear. This was at >>>Oak Ridge in 1970. It was the seed for ANF-10 and DECnet. >> >> DEC also had a string NIH streak. > >That seemed to happen only when Bell or Cutler or Husvedt(sp?) got involved. >Those were the small computer product lines. Absolute control absolutely >predominated the culture. That, naturally, spilled over into the >development decisions of the hard/software. Don't blame individuals. This NIH was a strong part of the entire culture. >>Just look at how much it took to get >> TCP/IP into the kernel. > >DEC was highly invested in DECnet. The entire project was delayed to >the point that TOPS-10 comm developers in CSS group took the current >specs of DECnet and developed a comm product which ended up being >ANF-10. We had customers who needed the functionality yesterday >and wouldn't wait for final apporval of all specs; this approval >didn't happen until years later. There was a struggle going on >during all that time about which networking protocols were going >to be the computer biz standard. So, you didn't even consider taking a standard from outside and implementing it; even improving on it? -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mGh4z.1606$z42.1133@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #164421 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >In article <PM0005345F6683781B@aca40481.ipt.aol.com>, >jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>> I know of several places that hit the VTAM max on assigned terminals, >>> which was ~16000 at the time (AFAIR). They ran the code on 4341s with >>> CICS. That is about equivalent to a KL10 in CPU power. OK, there were >>> an handful of them, about even with the logmax 500 system you describe >>> above. >> >>I thought those configurations had more to do with forms control, data >>entry, and batch processing. There's a big difference between that >>and general timesharing for many diverse users. > >This is transactions in an online network vs timesharing. When it comes >to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. One must also remember that in the 70's, terminals were rare, and data comms (current loop or RS232) were limited in capacity and controllers were expensive, which lead to multi-drop and POLL/SELECT protocols. In the late 70's I visited a Sperry development site, and they had a handful of terminals on carts that one would check out and roll to ones office - at burroughs a couple years later, we had TD830's (2 24x80 pages) block-mode terminals that we used for MCP development via CANDE. Transaction processing systems efficiently routed transactions (identifed by protected fields on the block-mode terminals) to the appropriate applications/hosts[*] using inter-program communiation services provided by the OS. Burroughs called these Message Control Systems (MCS) analogous to Tuxedo in later days on Unix. [*] The Data Communcations Processors could examine the protected field and determine which host hosted that application and route the message appropriately. And transmitting the string '?brk' was equivalent to CTRL-C in the Burroughs batch world :-) >>DEC was highly invested in DECnet. The entire project was delayed to >>the point that TOPS-10 comm developers in CSS group took the current >>specs of DECnet and developed a comm product which ended up being >>ANF-10. We had customers who needed the functionality yesterday >>and wouldn't wait for final apporval of all specs; this approval >>didn't happen until years later. There was a struggle going on >>during all that time about which networking protocols were going >>to be the computer biz standard. > >So, you didn't even consider taking a standard from outside and >implementing it; even improving on it? I'm not sure there was much of a standard at that time. IBM had HDLC over bisync lines, Burroughs had an analogous BDLC over bisync lines. The higher level protocols in SNA and BNA were proprietary not standards. X25 was being developed during that timeframe, but wasn't widely adopted outside of a few niche markets (financial, IIRC).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web