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 5 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 30 Next page →
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87d1nycid8.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #164423 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > 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). during the very early days of SNA development ... my wife was co-author of alternative architecture ... AWP39 "peer-to-peer networking" (title partially because SNA co-opted "networking" for dumb terminal communication). She then was con'ed into going to POK responsible for loosely-coupled (aka cluster) architecture ... where she did "peer-coupled shared data" architecture. She didn't last very long in POK ... in part because of little uptake of the architecture (except for IMS hot-standby until SYSPLEX and Parallel SYSPLEX) and in part because of constant battles with communication group trying to force her to use SNA for loosely-coupled operation. http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#shareddata Later she did a (short) stint as chief architect of AMADEUS (european airlines res system scaffolded off the old Eastern System/One) ... however the SNA forces got her removed because she backed X.25 (removal didn't did the SNA forces much good because AMADEUS went with X.25 anyway). aka SNA wasn't a "system", wasn't a "network", and wasn't a "architecture" ... it was VTAM dumb terminal ... other IBM corporate entities that tried to build hardware to the SNA architecture ... tended to find it didn't work ... to get something to work, they had to do extensive reverse engineering of VTAM operation. Upthread (and many other times), I've referenced a talk by senior disk engineer giving a talk claiming that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of disk division (because communication group was fighting off networking, distributed computing, client/server, etc ... trying to preserve their dumb terminal paradigm and install base). http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal past posts mentioning AMADEUS http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#49 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#76 Other oddball IBM System 360's ? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#67 unix http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003n.html#47 What makes a mainframe a mainframe? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#6 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#7 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2004o.html#23 Demo: Things in Hierarchies (w/o RM/SQL) http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2004o.html#29 Integer types for 128-bit addressing http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#22 System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2005p.html#8 EBCDIC to 6-bit and back http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#4 How Many 360/195s and 370/195s were shipped? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#9 Was FORTRAN buggy? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#19 Pennsylvania Railroad ticket fax service http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#52 US Air computers delay psgrs http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#72 The top 10 dead (or dying) computer skills http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#45 64 gig memory http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2008c.html#53 Migration from Mainframe to othre platforms - the othe bell? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#19 American Airlines http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#34 American Airlines http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2008p.html#41 Automation is still not accepted to streamline the business processes... why organizations are not accepting newer technologies? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#33 IBM touts encryption innovation http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#55 IBM halves mainframe Linux engine prices http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#59 "Portable" data centers http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#23 Happy DEC-10 Day http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#29 someone smarter than Dave Cutler http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#16 Sabre Talk Information? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#17 Looking for a real Fortran-66 compatible PC compiler (CP/M or DOS or Windows, doesn't matter) http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#41 Looking for a real Fortran-66 compatible PC compiler (CP/M or DOSor Windows http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#14 Sabre; The First Online Reservation System http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#43 Sabre; The First Online Reservation System http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#74 Multiple Virtual Memory http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#77 program coding pads http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#8 The PC industry is heading for collapse http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#9 The PC industry is heading for collapse http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#5 Interesting News Article http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#41 System/360--50 years--the future? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#13 Should you support or abandon the 3270 as a User Interface? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#69 IBM layoffs strike first in India; workers describe cuts as 'slaughter' and 'massive' http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#7 Last Gasp for Hard Disk Drives http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#54 Has the last fighter pilot been born? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#84 ACP/TPF http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016.html#58 Man Versus System -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053473E5B4164F@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164423 |
Scott Lurndal wrote: > 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). There wasn't an universal standard. The X25 so-called standard was changing out from underneath the developer who was trying to implement it. Military and commerical use had to be kept separate. Every manufacturer was implementing their own comm software, including Compuserv. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164421 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > 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. Right. We dabbled in that, too. >When it comes > to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. But those users are all running the same software. Timesharing is a mixture of all kinds of computing services requests. > > 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. A thousand transactions/minute (or was it second?) was our goal. I wish I had a copy of the specs we worked on. > > 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. Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. > >>>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? We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the software under TOPS-20. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 16:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ei4b2d-bub.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164479 |
In article <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> 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. > >Right. We dabbled in that, too. > >>When it comes >> to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. > >But those users are all running the same software. Timesharing >is a mixture of all kinds of computing services requests. No, a CICS can have several thousand different transactions, a.k.a. "Programs" configured at any one time. ISTR the limit was around 16000 per cics partition. To be loaded on demand, if not already in memory. >> 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. > >A thousand transactions/minute (or was it second?) was our goal. I >wish I had a copy of the specs we worked on. The web site I refer to had around 70 million hits per hour. Think of it as cics transactions, they are html page loads. That is more than a million per minute. This was done by load-balancing over ~100 front end servers with cache and having 3 back-end database clusters with the real data. This was 1999. Around 1000 in Moore-multiplier from 1980. So a thousand per minute seems right. >> 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. > >Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. The clear resisitance to TCP/IP, C, PL/1 and SQL tells me otherwise. We saw it then, and ran to the competition. >>>>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? > >We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but >couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed >to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which >was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the >software under TOPS-20. Bullshit. You could make and sell as much arpanet hardware and software as you liked. The only issue was with connecting it to the actual Arpanet. Building another Arpanet for commercial traffic would have been quite straightforward from ca 1973 forward. Even for inhouse use. And cloning the IMPs was not rocket science either. All the necessary specs were public domain, or US federal (publicly) owned. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005348836FBE04F@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164495 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> 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. >> >>Right. We dabbled in that, too. >> >>>When it comes >>> to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. >> >>But those users are all running the same software. Timesharing >>is a mixture of all kinds of computing services requests. > > No, a CICS can have several thousand different transactions, > a.k.a. "Programs" configured at any one time. ISTR the limit was > around 16000 per cics partition. To be loaded on demand, if not > already in memory. Ah, DECism problems...you have a different use of the word transaction that we did. > >>> 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. >> >>A thousand transactions/minute (or was it second?) was our goal. I >>wish I had a copy of the specs we worked on. > > The web site I refer to had around 70 million hits per hour. Think of > it as cics transactions, they are html page loads. > > That is more than a million per minute. This was done by load-balancing > over ~100 front end servers with cache and having 3 back-end database > clusters with the real data. > > This was 1999. Around 1000 in Moore-multiplier from 1980. So a thousand > per minute seems right. OK. Thanks. We worked hard on that TPS architectural spec. I don't think anything came of it unless the VAX and Alpha product lines started out with the spec to write their own. > >>> 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. >> >>Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. > > The clear resisitance to TCP/IP, C, PL/1 and SQL tells me otherwise. > > We saw it then, and ran to the competition. > >>>>>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? >> >>We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but >>couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed >>to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which >>was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the >>software under TOPS-20. > > Bullshit. > > You could make and sell as much arpanet hardware and software as > you liked. The only issue was with connecting it to the actual Arpanet. > > Building another Arpanet for commercial traffic would have been > quite straightforward from ca 1973 forward. Even for inhouse use. > And cloning the IMPs was not rocket science either. > > All the necessary specs were public domain, or US federal (publicly) > owned. To do any cloning required establishing groups of developers, maintainers, and support people who had nothing to do with the Arpa work. The code and anything related to the product had to be separate from everything else. that's how it was back then. You underestimate work done for the US government which fell under national security. We already had the DC72, DC76 doing netowrking. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 23:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n1ie2d-33h.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164582 |
In article <PM0005348836FBE04F@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>>Right. We dabbled in that, too. >>> >>>>When it comes >>>> to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. >>> >>>But those users are all running the same software. Timesharing >>>is a mixture of all kinds of computing services requests. >> >> No, a CICS can have several thousand different transactions, >> a.k.a. "Programs" configured at any one time. ISTR the limit was >> around 16000 per cics partition. To be loaded on demand, if not >> already in memory. > >Ah, DECism problems...you have a different use of the word >transaction that we did. > >> >>>> 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. >>> >>>A thousand transactions/minute (or was it second?) was our goal. I >>>wish I had a copy of the specs we worked on. >> >> The web site I refer to had around 70 million hits per hour. Think of >> it as cics transactions, they are html page loads. >> >> That is more than a million per minute. This was done by load-balancing >> over ~100 front end servers with cache and having 3 back-end database >> clusters with the real data. >> >> This was 1999. Around 1000 in Moore-multiplier from 1980. So a thousand >> per minute seems right. > >OK. Thanks. We worked hard on that TPS architectural spec. I don't >think anything came of it unless the VAX and Alpha product lines >started out with the spec to write their own. > >> >>>> 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. >>> >>>Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. >> >> The clear resisitance to TCP/IP, C, PL/1 and SQL tells me otherwise. >> >> We saw it then, and ran to the competition. >> >>>>>>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? >>> >>>We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but >>>couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed >>>to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which >>>was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the >>>software under TOPS-20. >> >> Bullshit. >> >> You could make and sell as much arpanet hardware and software as >> you liked. The only issue was with connecting it to the actual Arpanet. >> >> Building another Arpanet for commercial traffic would have been >> quite straightforward from ca 1973 forward. Even for inhouse use. >> And cloning the IMPs was not rocket science either. >> >> All the necessary specs were public domain, or US federal (publicly) >> owned. > >To do any cloning required establishing groups of developers, >maintainers, and support people who had nothing to do with >the Arpa work. The code and anything related to the product had >to be separate from everything else. that's how it was back then. >You underestimate work done for the US government which fell >under national security. Actually, this is a big misunderstanding. The whole of the Arpanet specs, RFTs, RFQs etc were public. Even we, in another NATO country, could request them without any clearance whatsoever. We could buy the IMPs as well. And, two of our institues actually did so, in 1972 and in 1974. It was the connection and transmission through the Arpanet that needed authorisation, Just as we did a lot with TCP/IP 10 years later, we could build wholly separate networks with the technology. This would have been as early as the Reuters network, ca 1972. >We already had the DC72, DC76 doing netowrking. In 1972? -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005349BCD6377CF@aca407c0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164632 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM0005348836FBE04F@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>Right. We dabbled in that, too. >>>> >>>>>When it comes >>>>> to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. >>>> >>>>But those users are all running the same software. Timesharing >>>>is a mixture of all kinds of computing services requests. >>> >>> No, a CICS can have several thousand different transactions, >>> a.k.a. "Programs" configured at any one time. ISTR the limit was >>> around 16000 per cics partition. To be loaded on demand, if not >>> already in memory. >> >>Ah, DECism problems...you have a different use of the word >>transaction that we did. >> >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>A thousand transactions/minute (or was it second?) was our goal. I >>>>wish I had a copy of the specs we worked on. >>> >>> The web site I refer to had around 70 million hits per hour. Think of >>> it as cics transactions, they are html page loads. >>> >>> That is more than a million per minute. This was done by load-balancing >>> over ~100 front end servers with cache and having 3 back-end database >>> clusters with the real data. >>> >>> This was 1999. Around 1000 in Moore-multiplier from 1980. So a thousand >>> per minute seems right. >> >>OK. Thanks. We worked hard on that TPS architectural spec. I don't >>think anything came of it unless the VAX and Alpha product lines >>started out with the spec to write their own. >> >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. >>> >>> The clear resisitance to TCP/IP, C, PL/1 and SQL tells me otherwise. >>> >>> We saw it then, and ran to the competition. >>> >>>>>>>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? >>>> >>>>We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but >>>>couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed >>>>to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which >>>>was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the >>>>software under TOPS-20. >>> >>> Bullshit. >>> >>> You could make and sell as much arpanet hardware and software as >>> you liked. The only issue was with connecting it to the actual Arpanet. >>> >>> Building another Arpanet for commercial traffic would have been >>> quite straightforward from ca 1973 forward. Even for inhouse use. >>> And cloning the IMPs was not rocket science either. >>> >>> All the necessary specs were public domain, or US federal (publicly) >>> owned. >> >>To do any cloning required establishing groups of developers, >>maintainers, and support people who had nothing to do with >>the Arpa work. The code and anything related to the product had >>to be separate from everything else. that's how it was back then. >>You underestimate work done for the US government which fell >>under national security. > > Actually, this is a big misunderstanding. The whole of the > Arpanet specs, RFTs, RFQs etc were public. Even we, in another NATO > country, could request them without any clearance whatsoever. > > We could buy the IMPs as well. And, two of our institues actually > did so, in 1972 and in 1974. Then I don't understand why the work we did had to be secure. Are you sure it was public or were you in an environment which allowed access to sources? > > It was the connection and transmission through the Arpanet that > needed authorisation, > > Just as we did a lot with TCP/IP 10 years later, we could build > wholly separate networks with the technology. This would have > been as early as the Reuters network, ca 1972. > >>We already had the DC72, DC76 doing netowrking. > > In 1972? I don't remember when the 72 shipped. It was passe when we moved to Marlboro and the 76 was the new gear. A lot of the networking hard/software were specialized systems and wasn't part of the general distribution tapes. The software was a second save set on the monitor distribution tape when it did move to general distribution. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 18:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p7kg2d-sh3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164671 |
In article <PM0005349BCD6377CF@aca407c0.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM0005348836FBE04F@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> In article <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>Right. We dabbled in that, too. >>>>> >>>>>>When it comes >>>>>> to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. >>>>> >>>>>But those users are all running the same software. Timesharing >>>>>is a mixture of all kinds of computing services requests. >>>> >>>> No, a CICS can have several thousand different transactions, >>>> a.k.a. "Programs" configured at any one time. ISTR the limit was >>>> around 16000 per cics partition. To be loaded on demand, if not >>>> already in memory. >>> >>>Ah, DECism problems...you have a different use of the word >>>transaction that we did. >>> >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>A thousand transactions/minute (or was it second?) was our goal. I >>>>>wish I had a copy of the specs we worked on. >>>> >>>> The web site I refer to had around 70 million hits per hour. Think of >>>> it as cics transactions, they are html page loads. >>>> >>>> That is more than a million per minute. This was done by load-balancing >>>> over ~100 front end servers with cache and having 3 back-end database >>>> clusters with the real data. >>>> >>>> This was 1999. Around 1000 in Moore-multiplier from 1980. So a thousand >>>> per minute seems right. >>> >>>OK. Thanks. We worked hard on that TPS architectural spec. I don't >>>think anything came of it unless the VAX and Alpha product lines >>>started out with the spec to write their own. >>> >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. >>>> >>>> The clear resisitance to TCP/IP, C, PL/1 and SQL tells me otherwise. >>>> >>>> We saw it then, and ran to the competition. >>>> >>>>>>>>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? >>>>> >>>>>We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but >>>>>couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed >>>>>to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which >>>>>was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the >>>>>software under TOPS-20. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. >>>> >>>> You could make and sell as much arpanet hardware and software as >>>> you liked. The only issue was with connecting it to the actual Arpanet. >>>> >>>> Building another Arpanet for commercial traffic would have been >>>> quite straightforward from ca 1973 forward. Even for inhouse use. >>>> And cloning the IMPs was not rocket science either. >>>> >>>> All the necessary specs were public domain, or US federal (publicly) >>>> owned. >>> >>>To do any cloning required establishing groups of developers, >>>maintainers, and support people who had nothing to do with >>>the Arpa work. The code and anything related to the product had >>>to be separate from everything else. that's how it was back then. >>>You underestimate work done for the US government which fell >>>under national security. >> >> Actually, this is a big misunderstanding. The whole of the >> Arpanet specs, RFTs, RFQs etc were public. Even we, in another NATO >> country, could request them without any clearance whatsoever. >> >> We could buy the IMPs as well. And, two of our institues actually >> did so, in 1972 and in 1974. > >Then I don't understand why the work we did had to be secure. >Are you sure it was public or were you in an environment which >allowed access to sources? They would need export clearance, but nothing spectacular. Nothing like the VAX 8600 when it came out. For such DARPA-stuff it sure also helped being in NATO, but mostly because the purchasing path was already there. Or we could build our own. That would be a neat project for history now. >> It was the connection and transmission through the Arpanet that >> needed authorisation, >> >> Just as we did a lot with TCP/IP 10 years later, we could build >> wholly separate networks with the technology. This would have >> been as early as the Reuters network, ca 1972. >> >>>We already had the DC72, DC76 doing netowrking. >> >> In 1972? > >I don't remember when the 72 shipped. It was passe when >we moved to Marlboro and the 76 was the new gear. A lot >of the networking hard/software were specialized systems >and wasn't part of the general distribution tapes. The >software was a second save set on the monitor distribution >tape when it did move to general distribution. I sense a bit of middle manager shufflebut here. And it was not unique to DEC. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534AEF5B849BB@aca202b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164698 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM0005349BCD6377CF@aca407c0.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <PM0005348836FBE04F@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> In article <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>Right. We dabbled in that, too. >>>>>> >>>>>>>When it comes >>>>>>> to scaling to an insane amount of users, transactions win. >>>>>> >>>>>>But those users are all running the same software. Timesharing >>>>>>is a mixture of all kinds of computing services requests. >>>>> >>>>> No, a CICS can have several thousand different transactions, >>>>> a.k.a. "Programs" configured at any one time. ISTR the limit was >>>>> around 16000 per cics partition. To be loaded on demand, if not >>>>> already in memory. >>>> >>>>Ah, DECism problems...you have a different use of the word >>>>transaction that we did. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>A thousand transactions/minute (or was it second?) was our goal. I >>>>>>wish I had a copy of the specs we worked on. >>>>> >>>>> The web site I refer to had around 70 million hits per hour. Think of >>>>> it as cics transactions, they are html page loads. >>>>> >>>>> That is more than a million per minute. This was done by load-balancing >>>>> over ~100 front end servers with cache and having 3 back-end database >>>>> clusters with the real data. >>>>> >>>>> This was 1999. Around 1000 in Moore-multiplier from 1980. So a thousand >>>>> per minute seems right. >>>> >>>>OK. Thanks. We worked hard on that TPS architectural spec. I don't >>>>think anything came of it unless the VAX and Alpha product lines >>>>started out with the spec to write their own. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. >>>>> >>>>> The clear resisitance to TCP/IP, C, PL/1 and SQL tells me otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> We saw it then, and ran to the competition. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>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? >>>>>> >>>>>>We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but >>>>>>couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed >>>>>>to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which >>>>>>was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the >>>>>>software under TOPS-20. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> You could make and sell as much arpanet hardware and software as >>>>> you liked. The only issue was with connecting it to the actual Arpanet. >>>>> >>>>> Building another Arpanet for commercial traffic would have been >>>>> quite straightforward from ca 1973 forward. Even for inhouse use. >>>>> And cloning the IMPs was not rocket science either. >>>>> >>>>> All the necessary specs were public domain, or US federal (publicly) >>>>> owned. >>>> >>>>To do any cloning required establishing groups of developers, >>>>maintainers, and support people who had nothing to do with >>>>the Arpa work. The code and anything related to the product had >>>>to be separate from everything else. that's how it was back then. >>>>You underestimate work done for the US government which fell >>>>under national security. >>> >>> Actually, this is a big misunderstanding. The whole of the >>> Arpanet specs, RFTs, RFQs etc were public. Even we, in another NATO >>> country, could request them without any clearance whatsoever. >>> >>> We could buy the IMPs as well. And, two of our institues actually >>> did so, in 1972 and in 1974. >> >>Then I don't understand why the work we did had to be secure. >>Are you sure it was public or were you in an environment which >>allowed access to sources? > > They would need export clearance, but nothing spectacular. Nothing > like the VAX 8600 when it came out. For such DARPA-stuff it sure also > helped being in NATO, but mostly because the purchasing path was > already there. > > Or we could build our own. That would be a neat project for > history now. > >>> It was the connection and transmission through the Arpanet that >>> needed authorisation, >>> >>> Just as we did a lot with TCP/IP 10 years later, we could build >>> wholly separate networks with the technology. This would have >>> been as early as the Reuters network, ca 1972. >>> >>>>We already had the DC72, DC76 doing netowrking. >>> >>> In 1972? >> >>I don't remember when the 72 shipped. It was passe when >>we moved to Marlboro and the 76 was the new gear. A lot >>of the networking hard/software were specialized systems >>and wasn't part of the general distribution tapes. The >>software was a second save set on the monitor distribution >>tape when it did move to general distribution. > > I sense a bit of middle manager shufflebut here. And it was > not unique to DEC. Not really. DEC did a lot of special installation development. When more than one customer started to require the hard/software of these development teams, the code was handed over to the monitor group for general distribution, future development and maintenance. IOW, a successful project of the special team would be moved into the prouduct line's general distribution. ANF-10 is an example of this. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <575733e6.20907202@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164495 |
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 16:18:22 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >In article <PM00053473DB52038D@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, >jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> 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: >>>>>>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. >> >>Not in the -10 group and I doubt in the non-11M PDP-11 groups. > >The clear resisitance to TCP/IP, C, PL/1 and SQL tells me otherwise. What resistance? DEC had its own products, including a C compiler. Every company has to make decisions on what products to develop and sell. >>>>>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? >> >>We couldn't for commercial use. ARPAnet was implemented but >>couldn't be sold to a lot of customers. I wasn't allowed >>to physically touch the [can't recall the word] system which >>was the in-house ARPAnet node used to develop and test the >>software under TOPS-20. > >Bullshit. > >You could make and sell as much arpanet hardware and software as >you liked. The only issue was with connecting it to the actual Arpanet. > >Building another Arpanet for commercial traffic would have been >quite straightforward from ca 1973 forward. Even for inhouse use. >And cloning the IMPs was not rocket science either. > >All the necessary specs were public domain, or US federal (publicly) >owned. Again, why should DEC do that, when it had its own product? DEC's customers were other companies with businesses of their own to run. They wanted computing solutions, and they didn't care about "religious" wars in the tech community about whether TCP/IP or DECnet was a better network, or if BLISS produced better object code than C. They just wanted stuff that worked. Looking back literally decades later, its easy to see the slow trend away from proprietary software. In the mid-1980s, the eventual popularity of TCP/IP and C was not at all obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5753d4c1.26104105@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164421 |
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:41:56 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >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: >>>>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. BLISS, TOPS-20 (as TENEX), and PCL (Programmable Control Language), the script lanaguage for the TOPS-20 command processor (the EXEC), all came from outside of DEC. I'm sure there are many more examples that aren't coming to mind at the moment. The charge that DEC had a culture of "NIH" simply isn't true. >>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? There essentially weren't any outside networking standards at the beginning of the 1970s. It was still very early days in computer networking, and people were still figuring out what worked well and what didn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8124e98-04da-4f9e-8caf-5e3f752b4d54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164536 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 3:26:57 AM UTC-4, Questor wrote: > There essentially weren't any outside networking standards at the beginning of > the 1970s. It was still very early days in computer networking, and people were > still figuring out what worked well and what didn't. In addition, what worked well in one location didn't necessarily work well in another location. Configurations varied widely in those days. Heck, back then when we had a S/360-40, another site wanted to borrow time on it. They also had a S/360-40. Should've been no big deal, right? But even with two very similar machines, there was the need to do a lot of tinkering for their software to run on our machine due to various site config differences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5752402d.1491865@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164315 |
On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >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. I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience (and Ken Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 and later use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional enough to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC business. That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little basis in reality. DEC neither invented nor perfected timesharing. I, like many thousands of other people, wanted a computer before we even used one, let alone experienced timesharing ala DEC. Many of us even tried to build our own. (Or in my case, at least a piece of one.) Thanks in part to Moore's Observation, there has been a clear trend of building smaller, less expensive, yet more powerful computers. In retrospect, the emergence of the PC seems inevitable. If anything DEC retarded the PC business. Ken Olsen famously underestimated the desirability of the home computer. Nor did they foresee the popularity of PCs in business. DEC didn't lead that market, they trailed it. Then they tried to play catch-up and failed. And it did nothing to advance that business by pushing its vision of timesharing into the 1980s. At best, DEC is but one thread in a tapestry -- and its a thread that the founders tried unsuccessfully to snip.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 11:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <niu9bb$6ag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164453 |
"Questor" <usenet@only.tnx> wrote in message news:5752402d.1491865@nntp2.rawbw.com... > > At best, DEC is but one thread in a tapestry They tried to stitch up their customers????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005347417D822CD@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164453 |
Questor wrote: > On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>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. > > I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience (and Ken > Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 and later > use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional enough > to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC business. > That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little basis in > reality. <snip> PDP-10, especially TOPS-10, timesharing was an important part of the evolution. 100Ks of kiddies who got their first taste of "personal computing" on a general timesharing machine. Now go look at the history of Msoft and THINK about it. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5753d4d6.26125416@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164476 |
On 4 Jun 2016 13:44:55 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Questor wrote: >> On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>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. >> >> I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience (and >Ken >> Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 and >later >> use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional >enough >> to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC >business. >> That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little basis in >> reality. > ><snip> > >PDP-10, especially TOPS-10, timesharing was an important part of the >evolution. 100Ks of kiddies who got their first taste of "personal >computing" on a general timesharing machine. Now go look at the >history of Msoft and THINK about it. Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was demonstrably way behind in the PC business. Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534885A329004@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164542 |
Questor wrote: > On 4 Jun 2016 13:44:55 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Questor wrote: >>> On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>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. >>> >>> I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience (and >>Ken >>> Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 and >>later >>> use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional >>enough >>> to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC >>business. >>> That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little basis in >>> reality. >> >><snip> >> >>PDP-10, especially TOPS-10, timesharing was an important part of the >>evolution. 100Ks of kiddies who got their first taste of "personal >>computing" on a general timesharing machine. Now go look at the >>history of Msoft and THINK about it. > > Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is > utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was > demonstrably way behind in the PC business. I'm talking about incentives. I'm not talking about how we sold or didn't sell systems. The experiences of the kiddies created a hunger or lust for owning their own machines or using their own code. > > Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. > And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using > batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who > had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own > computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise. > And people in the 60s and 70s went to work for the manufacturers if they had the hunger for playing with machines which were too expensive to own, rent or buy time. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 23:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <cbhe2d-33h.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164575 |
In article <PM000534885A329004@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Questor wrote: >> On 4 Jun 2016 13:44:55 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Questor wrote: >>>> On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience (and >>>Ken >>>> Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 and >>>later >>>> use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional >>>enough >>>> to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC >>>business. >>>> That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little basis >in >>>> reality. >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>PDP-10, especially TOPS-10, timesharing was an important part of the >>>evolution. 100Ks of kiddies who got their first taste of "personal >>>computing" on a general timesharing machine. Now go look at the >>>history of Msoft and THINK about it. >> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business. > >I'm talking about incentives. I'm not talking about how we sold or didn't >sell systems. The experiences of the kiddies created a hunger or lust >for owning their own machines or using their own code. Come on. Related to CTSS you were just "more of the same, only better". You were not the only game in town that had timesharing. You had IBM, several of the 7 dwarfs, the mincomputer vendors from ca 1975 onwards, and then you had unix and Multics as outliers; up until Multics effctively folded ca 1980 and unix flourished. >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. >> And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using >> batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who >> had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own >> computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise. >> > >And people in the 60s and 70s went to work for the manufacturers if they >had the hunger for playing with machines which were too expensive to >own, rent or buy time. Or, they went for the large service bureus. Like me. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005349BD86DEE74@aca407c0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164633 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM000534885A329004@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Questor wrote: >>> On 4 Jun 2016 13:44:55 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Questor wrote: >>>>> On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience (and >>>>Ken >>>>> Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 and >>>>later >>>>> use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional >>>>enough >>>>> to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC >>>>business. >>>>> That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little basis >>in >>>>> reality. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>PDP-10, especially TOPS-10, timesharing was an important part of the >>>>evolution. 100Ks of kiddies who got their first taste of "personal >>>>computing" on a general timesharing machine. Now go look at the >>>>history of Msoft and THINK about it. >>> >>> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is >>> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was >>> demonstrably way behind in the PC business. >> >>I'm talking about incentives. I'm not talking about how we sold or didn't >>sell systems. The experiences of the kiddies created a hunger or lust >>for owning their own machines or using their own code. > > Come on. Related to CTSS you were just "more of the same, only better". > > You were not the only game in town that had timesharing. You had IBM, > several of the 7 dwarfs, the mincomputer vendors from ca 1975 onwards, > and then you had unix and Multics as outliers; up until Multics effctively > folded ca 1980 and unix flourished. > >>> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. >>> And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using >>> batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who >>> had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own >>> computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise. >>> >> >>And people in the 60s and 70s went to work for the manufacturers if they >>had the hunger for playing with machines which were too expensive to >>own, rent or buy time. > > Or, they went for the large service bureus. Like me. Were you able to mount/dismount disks, tapes, print hard copy listings, plots and punch cards? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57573594.21337051@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164665 |
On 6 Jun 2016 13:35:07 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM000534885A329004@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Questor wrote: >>>> On 4 Jun 2016 13:44:55 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>Questor wrote: >>>>>> On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>> I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience >(and >>>>>Ken >>>>>> Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 >and >>>>>later >>>>>> use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional >>>>>enough >>>>>> to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC >>>>>business. >>>>>> That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little >basis >>>in >>>>>> reality. >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>PDP-10, especially TOPS-10, timesharing was an important part of the >>>>>evolution. 100Ks of kiddies who got their first taste of "personal >>>>>computing" on a general timesharing machine. Now go look at the >>>>>history of Msoft and THINK about it. >>>> >>>> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is >>>> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was >>>> demonstrably way behind in the PC business. >>> >>>I'm talking about incentives. I'm not talking about how we sold or didn't >>>sell systems. The experiences of the kiddies created a hunger or lust >>>for owning their own machines or using their own code. >> >> Come on. Related to CTSS you were just "more of the same, only better". >> >> You were not the only game in town that had timesharing. You had IBM, >> several of the 7 dwarfs, the mincomputer vendors from ca 1975 onwards, >> and then you had unix and Multics as outliers; up until Multics effctively >> folded ca 1980 and unix flourished. >> >>>> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. >>>> And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was >using >>>> batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people >who >>>> had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own >>>> computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise. >>>> >>> >>>And people in the 60s and 70s went to work for the manufacturers if they >>>had the hunger for playing with machines which were too expensive to >>>own, rent or buy time. >> >> Or, they went for the large service bureus. Like me. > >Were you able to mount/dismount disks, tapes, print hard copy listings, >plots and punch cards? Of course -- within the confines of the equipment available. (I.e., you can't schedule a plot if the service doesn't have a plotter.) Naturally, all these actions were performed by the operators, not the end users. One of DEC's biggest -10 customers was a timesharing service -- ADP. And there were several groups inside DEC that did the same thing. You don't seem to know much about how -10s were operated outside your engineering bubble. The overwhelming majority of people who used them never set foot inside a machine room.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web