Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #236265 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-31 21:38 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-11-02 13:58 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 307 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 04:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-01 10:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:35 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:50 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 20:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-03 16:38 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 08:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 02:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 19:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 18:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 16:45 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 21:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 02:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 04:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 14:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 06:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-05 19:37 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 21:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 04:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 23:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-06 08:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-06 07:41 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-06 14:30 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 06:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-07 01:12 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 03:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:03 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-04 19:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 01:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:41 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:11 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 11:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:02 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 18:06 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 22:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 22:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 23:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-04 08:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 01:20 +0000
[OT] Fujitsu Horizon (was: Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 08:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fujitsu Horizon Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-05 09:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 09:09 -0700
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 22:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 19:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 16:57 +0800
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 04:48 +0800
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-06 06:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 08:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 09:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-06 06:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 10:43 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-04 19:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 19:04 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 03:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-05 06:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-06 15:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 11:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:40 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 19:02 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-05 15:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 19:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 19:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 03:23 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 10:53 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 22:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 00:14 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 01:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 12:27 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:22 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-05 15:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-06 06:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-06 23:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 11:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:37 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 22:49 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-07 14:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 13:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-08 02:56 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 21:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-07 20:03 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-07 20:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 21:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 19:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 03:33 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 15:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 21:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:01 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-07 16:04 -1000
NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 05:59 -0800
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 08:11 -1000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 21:31 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 13:45 -0800
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 12:21 -1000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 23:51 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-08 20:33 -0700
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 22:59 -0500
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-09 07:32 -1000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-09 21:20 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 22:07 -0500
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2026-11-10 10:37 +0100
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-10 12:22 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-10 06:31 -0800
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:14 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 07:35 -0700
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-10 07:29 -1000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-10 07:55 -1000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 12:19 -0700
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 12:16 -0700
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-10 07:09 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-10 07:27 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2026-11-10 10:50 +0100
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 07:37 -0700
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:18 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-10 10:45 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:16 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-09 04:42 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 10:01 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 11:08 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-09 15:59 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-09 09:38 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 08:32 -1000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 21:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 11:55 -1000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 00:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 20:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 04:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 10:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 00:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 01:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-05 15:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 19:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 09:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:27 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 09:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:52 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 08:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:42 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:43 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 21:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:32 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-11-04 11:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 18:52 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 05:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-05 18:43 -0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-06 06:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-11-06 21:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 04:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-11-06 21:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-07 01:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-07 05:00 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-07 04:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-07 05:39 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 11:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 06:25 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 22:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 19:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-04 01:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:50 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-03 19:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 02:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-03 05:28 -0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 03:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 04:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 04:05 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 23:05 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 04:15 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-04 00:14 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 18:24 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 06:21 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 07:10 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-04 07:00 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 18:28 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-11-04 16:50 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-06 03:02 +0100
Re: [OT] what's a byte, was mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-06 02:44 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-05 19:57 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-05 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-05 16:01 -0700
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:06 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-06 02:50 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-06 15:25 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-11-04 16:44 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-06 17:30 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-07 04:33 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:30 -0700
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-07 19:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 15:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:59 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 03:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 19:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 03:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 02:07 +0000
Re: [OT] highly reliable upgradable mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 03:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 17:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:36 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-03 07:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-03 05:44 -0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:38 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-03 22:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:58 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-05 17:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-03 21:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-02 15:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:16 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:58 +0000
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 20:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11co38u$37o9q$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #236644 |
In alt.folklore.computers Peter Flass <Peter@iron-spring.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/26 04:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 07/11/2026 04:09, c186282 wrote:
>>> ASM was also *the* way for the older micro-controllers
>>> for a long time. However some of the optimized 'C'
>>> compilers can now rival ASM for speed and size and
>>> you don't have to hand-code bit-banging serial either
>>
>> At some point I idly compiled some gcc C to assembler . I spent a
>> pointless half hour trying to work out if I could have done it better.
>>
>> I couldn't..
>>
>> In terms of modern micros I wouldn't even bother unless I couldn't do it
>> in 'C'.
>>
>
> But then you add all the cruft that GCC drags in and you're back where
> you started (size-wise, at least). When PCs were new I used a compiler
> called "Aztec C" that had almost no overhead in excess libraries,
> start-up code, etc., unless you asked for them.
gcc drags very little and that mostly because you use constructs
that really need it. That is if you use floating point you may
need floating point emulation library, when you use division of
64 bit numbers you may need approriate library routine. gcc
compiled code may call memcpy, but frequently will do the job
using inline code.
Anyway, it is easy to get LED blinker in around 500 bytes of object
code and substantial functionality in 1-2 KB of object code.
Note that most of overhead is due to hardware: modern micro need
table of interrupt vectors which takes about half of LED blinker.
You need to configure clocks and peripherials that takes most of
the remainder. In my code there in no overhead that could be
directly attributed to gcc.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 21:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11co6km$3r41p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236644 |
On 07/11/2026 14:37, Peter Flass wrote: > On 11/7/26 04:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 07/11/2026 04:09, c186282 wrote: >>> ASM was also *the* way for the older micro-controllers >>> for a long time. However some of the optimized 'C' >>> compilers can now rival ASM for speed and size and >>> you don't have to hand-code bit-banging serial either >> >> At some point I idly compiled some gcc C to assembler . I spent a >> pointless half hour trying to work out if I could have done it better. >> >> I couldn't.. >> >> In terms of modern micros I wouldn't even bother unless I couldn't do >> it in 'C'. >> > > But then you add all the cruft that GCC drags in and you're back where > you started (size-wise, at least). Hardly. > When PCs were new I used a compiler > called "Aztec C" that had almost no overhead in excess libraries, > start-up code, etc., unless you asked for them. > Well in general you DO ask for them -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 01:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nla18dF6ec9U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #236656 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 21:53:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 07/11/2026 14:37, Peter Flass wrote: >> On 11/7/26 04:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 07/11/2026 04:09, c186282 wrote: >>>> ASM was also *the* way for the older micro-controllers >>>> for a long time. However some of the optimized 'C' compilers can >>>> now rival ASM for speed and size and you don't have to hand-code >>>> bit-banging serial either >>> >>> At some point I idly compiled some gcc C to assembler . I spent a >>> pointless half hour trying to work out if I could have done it better. >>> >>> I couldn't.. >>> >>> In terms of modern micros I wouldn't even bother unless I couldn't do >>> it in 'C'. >>> >>> >> But then you add all the cruft that GCC drags in and you're back where >> you started (size-wise, at least). > Hardly. > > >> When PCs were new I used a compiler called "Aztec C" that had almost no >> overhead in excess libraries, start-up code, etc., unless you asked for >> them. >> > Well in general you DO ask for them I fixed a 20 year old bug that was caused by the programmer deciding adding '-lm' to the compilation would be too heavy. iirc his version of hypot() worked most of the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 11:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cf4ns$k0n0$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236425 |
On 04/11/2026 02:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-11-03 12:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> >> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. > > Wow! - I'd have thought that assembler programmers should > meanwhile be at "best" a niche, and systems programming > with "C" (or similar). > You don't know what IBM assembler is, do you? > But, yes. It was now for long a problem getting staff for > legacy things. Those companies who are too inert to adapt > [to the technical evolution] will pay, suffer, or demise. > You don't really know what you are talking about, do you? > Janis > >> [...] > -- The difference bweteen a psychopath and a saint is that the psychpoath takes what he can and gives only what he must, but the saint gives everything he can and takes only what he needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 19:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cfufr$85p2$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236465 |
On 2026-11-04 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/11/2026 02:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 2026-11-03 12:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>> >>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >> >> Wow! - I'd have thought that assembler programmers should >> meanwhile be at "best" a niche, and systems programming >> with "C" (or similar). >> > You don't know what IBM assembler is, do you? "IBM assembler" specifically? No. - I know (and programmed in) a couple other "high-level" macro-assemblers. - Do you imply that the "IBM assembler" is somehow special, and so different that it would somehow invalidate what I said? > >> But, yes. It was now for long a problem getting staff for >> legacy things. Those companies who are too inert to adapt >> [to the technical evolution] will pay, suffer, or demise. >> > You don't really know what you are talking about, do you? I certainly do. - But, given your post, I doubt you intend to contribute any substance and prefer just playing the troll. (With your stance I don't think it's worthwhile to respond to you in future.) Good luck. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 03:33 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <WLLGS.16066$mbb2.6521@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #236493 |
On 11/5/2026 2:45 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-11-04 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 04/11/2026 02:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 2026-11-03 12:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>>> >>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>> >>> Wow! - I'd have thought that assembler programmers should >>> meanwhile be at "best" a niche, and systems programming >>> with "C" (or similar). >>> >> You don't know what IBM assembler is, do you? > > "IBM assembler" specifically? No. - I know (and programmed in) a > couple other "high-level" macro-assemblers. - Do you imply that > the "IBM assembler" is somehow special, and so different that it > would somehow invalidate what I said? > >> >>> But, yes. It was now for long a problem getting staff for >>> legacy things. Those companies who are too inert to adapt >>> [to the technical evolution] will pay, suffer, or demise. >>> >> You don't really know what you are talking about, do you? > > I certainly do. - But, given your post, I doubt you intend to > contribute any substance and prefer just playing the troll. > (With your stance I don't think it's worthwhile to respond to > you in future.) Good luck. > > Janis Dear philosopher of nature, I am delighted you've met one of the trolls of comp.lang.c -- though that group was not cross posted this time -- and you have been found wanting. Of what, I'm not sure, because from my point of view, it's Janis whose lack of social skills has deteriorated this discussion into mud-slinging. Do I have something to say on this subject? No, not really; I just find it amusing when trolls accuse other people of being trolls, and then, presumably, killfile the person. Consider it "trash taking itself out." Best wishes, and happy philosophering of natural phenomena! -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 21:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cir2m$1votj$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236495 |
On 04/11/2026 19:33, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > Do I have something to say on this subject? No, not really; I just find > it amusing when trolls accuse other people of being trolls, and then, > presumably, killfile the person. Consider it "trash taking itself out." > > > Best wishes, and happy philosophering of natural phenomena! Thank you. -- “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 00:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cb55p$2e740$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236301 |
On 2026-11-02 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 02/11/2026 08:41, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 2026-11-02 07:28, c186282 wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> WOULD love one or two of those big black IBM >>> mainframe units. Not sure what I'd DO with >>> them, but they'd be SO cool ! >> >> :-) >> >> There's a couple hardware types I'd have liked to have - >> and I'd also not know what to do with them but to wallow >> in memories. >> >>> Anyway they do >>> have plenty of customers - govt/uni and big >>> industry. Sometimes you NEED a 'mainframe'. >> >> Hmm.. - "need" - really? >> >> During the 1990's we switched our big telcos from mainframes >> to Unix servers. The huge sports halls where the mainframes >> had been running were almost empty then. It was just more >> economic to run Unix servers (mainframe support was costly, >> as was just running them), also more ecologic (though I'm >> not sure that this mattered that much in practice, but costs >> of electricity might have been an issue), and the much less >> required physical space as said. Basically all cost factors. >> >> Also computing centers switched. Our LRZ, formerly running >> a CDC 175, is meanwhile running various Unix clusters for >> "super computing". Our university also said goodbye to its >> TR440 and is providing mainly Linux systems to its students >> for the scientific oriented departments. >> > Yes. The transition from mainframe, to Unix clusters and then to blade > servers shrunk machine rooms to almost nothing, amnd high speed internet > moved them to cloud centres > >> The only "need" for a mainframe I observed in some financial >> business area, where they were still running their legacy >> software on mainframes obviously with "no chance" to migrate, >> or not wanting to take the risk and cost (as long as the old >> machinery is doing its task). But it's also difficult to get >> spares, and to find people who can and are willing to operate >> them. (But that information is now a bit dated and things may >> have meanwhile changed even in that business area.) >> > That's not quite true. What specifically are you referring to here? That I observed mainframes still in use in commercial contexts? Or my speculation that this might meanwhile have changed? Or that the reason for not having done a change was something else? I've worked in several business areas were mainframes had been used. * The computing centers I was aware of changed their architectures from mainframe architectures to clusters. * The telcos down-scaled the [amount of] metal, yet increased their throughput by switching away from mainframes. They made the change because they also needed a lot contemporary new functions supported and it was far too costly and much more effort to do that on legacy mainframe hardware. * The business area I worked in where there were still running some mainframes did so primarily because of the mentioned reasons. That was 20 years ago, so that's the reason why I said that things "may" have meanwhile changed. If they need to runs (similar to the telcos) significant amounts of new functions they have to do the calculation whether it pays to do that on the old systems. And they have to take into consideration whether they have (or can find) programmers for old legacy languages as far as the legacy software is concerned; two decades ago we didn't find any COBOL programmers for those tasks and I'd expect that the situation got even worse meanwhile. * Most (all?) internet providers I've heard of aren't using mainframes but built their systems architecture based on (often Linux-)clusters. There must be reasons to change a running mainframe system. As said, such a transition process can be risky and is costly (without instant gain of any new functions). The reasons I've heard from the financial sectors, i.e. not to switch, were exactly those. I'm also a bit astonished about your mention of using mainframes for efficient I/O. Networking clusters appear to me to be much better able than a single mainframe instance. The older mainframe architectures we used also had a lot of peripheral processors to specifically handle the I/O. (But of course I can, as I did, just report about the (certainly non- singular) cases I was involved in or heard from reliable sources.) Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 21:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <qG2dnU1Og6OE3nT3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #236340 |
On 11/2/26 18:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-11-02 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 02/11/2026 08:41, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 2026-11-02 07:28, c186282 wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> WOULD love one or two of those big black IBM >>>> mainframe units. Not sure what I'd DO with >>>> them, but they'd be SO cool ! >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> There's a couple hardware types I'd have liked to have - >>> and I'd also not know what to do with them but to wallow >>> in memories. >>> >>>> Anyway they do >>>> have plenty of customers - govt/uni and big >>>> industry. Sometimes you NEED a 'mainframe'. >>> >>> Hmm.. - "need" - really? >>> >>> During the 1990's we switched our big telcos from mainframes >>> to Unix servers. The huge sports halls where the mainframes >>> had been running were almost empty then. It was just more >>> economic to run Unix servers (mainframe support was costly, >>> as was just running them), also more ecologic (though I'm >>> not sure that this mattered that much in practice, but costs >>> of electricity might have been an issue), and the much less >>> required physical space as said. Basically all cost factors. >>> >>> Also computing centers switched. Our LRZ, formerly running >>> a CDC 175, is meanwhile running various Unix clusters for >>> "super computing". Our university also said goodbye to its >>> TR440 and is providing mainly Linux systems to its students >>> for the scientific oriented departments. >>> >> Yes. The transition from mainframe, to Unix clusters and then to blade >> servers shrunk machine rooms to almost nothing, amnd high speed >> internet moved them to cloud centres >> >>> The only "need" for a mainframe I observed in some financial >>> business area, where they were still running their legacy >>> software on mainframes obviously with "no chance" to migrate, >>> or not wanting to take the risk and cost (as long as the old >>> machinery is doing its task). But it's also difficult to get >>> spares, and to find people who can and are willing to operate >>> them. (But that information is now a bit dated and things may >>> have meanwhile changed even in that business area.) >>> >> That's not quite true. > > What specifically are you referring to here? > That I observed mainframes still in use in commercial contexts? > Or my speculation that this might meanwhile have changed? > Or that the reason for not having done a change was something else? > > I've worked in several business areas were mainframes had been used. > * The computing centers I was aware of changed their architectures > from mainframe architectures to clusters. > * The telcos down-scaled the [amount of] metal, yet increased their > throughput by switching away from mainframes. They made the change > because they also needed a lot contemporary new functions supported > and it was far too costly and much more effort to do that on legacy > mainframe hardware. > * The business area I worked in where there were still running some > mainframes did so primarily because of the mentioned reasons. That > was 20 years ago, so that's the reason why I said that things "may" > have meanwhile changed. If they need to runs (similar to the telcos) > significant amounts of new functions they have to do the calculation > whether it pays to do that on the old systems. And they have to take > into consideration whether they have (or can find) programmers for > old legacy languages as far as the legacy software is concerned; two > decades ago we didn't find any COBOL programmers for those tasks and > I'd expect that the situation got even worse meanwhile. > * Most (all?) internet providers I've heard of aren't using mainframes > but built their systems architecture based on (often Linux-)clusters. > > There must be reasons to change a running mainframe system. As said, > such a transition process can be risky and is costly (without instant > gain of any new functions). The reasons I've heard from the financial > sectors, i.e. not to switch, were exactly those. > > I'm also a bit astonished about your mention of using mainframes for > efficient I/O. Networking clusters appear to me to be much better able > than a single mainframe instance. The older mainframe architectures we > used also had a lot of peripheral processors to specifically handle > the I/O. > > (But of course I can, as I did, just report about the (certainly non- > singular) cases I was involved in or heard from reliable sources.) > > Janis > >> [...] > "Mainframes" do still have their places - major computing/comm performance. Govt, science, big international biz. This may change sooner or later - all replaced by 'cluster' and "Global AI". But not yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 15:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <sSmGS.36642$8SW5.33648@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #236343 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >On 11/2/26 18:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 2026-11-02 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> I'm also a bit astonished about your mention of using mainframes for >> efficient I/O. Networking clusters appear to me to be much better able >> than a single mainframe instance. The older mainframe architectures we >> used also had a lot of peripheral processors to specifically handle >> the I/O. >> >> (But of course I can, as I did, just report about the (certainly non- >> singular) cases I was involved in or heard from reliable sources.) >> >> Janis >> >>> [...] >> > > "Mainframes" do still have their places - major > computing/comm performance. Govt, science, big > international biz. Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting mainframes of any flavor. > > This may change sooner or later - all replaced > by 'cluster' and "Global AI". Clusters were two decades ago. Today it is all virtualization, particularly in the cloud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdg33$47sq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236378 |
On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are
> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys
> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting
> mainframes of any flavor.
"Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends
highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such
as the z16 and z17 cycles):
Global Mainframe Market Size:
Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025.
Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026.
Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by
2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly
5.95% to 7.05%.
IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations:
Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4
mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67%
year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture.
Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term
42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large
capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward
supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred
purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing
shortly after the quarter)."
So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident
armchair experts
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."
- Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 21:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <lusGS.39243$p_X5.14705@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #236388 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are >> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys >> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting >> mainframes of any flavor. > >"Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends >highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such >as the z16 and z17 cycles): > >Global Mainframe Market Size: > > Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025. > Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026. > Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by >2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly >5.95% to 7.05%. > >IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations: > Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4 >mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67% >year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture. > Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term >42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large >capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward >supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred >purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing >shortly after the quarter)." > >So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >armchair experts Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing customers, not new customers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkv3t9FeeegU13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #236398 |
On 2026-11-03 22:37, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are
>>> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys
>>> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting
>>> mainframes of any flavor.
>>
>> "Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends
>> highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such
>> as the z16 and z17 cycles):
>>
>> Global Mainframe Market Size:
>>
>> Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025.
>> Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026.
>> Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by
>> 2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly
>> 5.95% to 7.05%.
>>
>> IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations:
>> Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4
>> mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67%
>> year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture.
>> Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term
>> 42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large
>> capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward
>> supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred
>> purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing
>> shortly after the quarter)."
>>
>> So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident
>> armchair experts
>
> Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing
> customers, not new customers.
I don't expect new banks, either.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdmjs$63m2$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236403 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 23:01:13 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > I don't expect new banks, either. New banks do keep coming along. <https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/361054511/rbnz-registers-revolut-nzs-first-digi-only-bank> Also, you think banks don’t use more modern tools, like Python? Yes, Python. <https://calpaterson.com/bank-python.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 11:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cf3pj$k0n0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236403 |
On 03/11/2026 22:01, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>> >>> So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >>> armchair experts >> >> Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing >> customers, not new customers. > > I don't expect new banks, either. Exactly, though it would be nice to have one or two -- “when things get difficult you just have to lie” ― Jean Claud Jüncker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdohi$4hqr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236398 |
On 03/11/2026 21:37, Scott Lurndal wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >> On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are >>> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys >>> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting >>> mainframes of any flavor. >> >> "Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends >> highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such >> as the z16 and z17 cycles): >> >> Global Mainframe Market Size: >> >> Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025. >> Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026. >> Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by >> 2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly >> 5.95% to 7.05%. >> >> IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations: >> Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4 >> mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67% >> year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture. >> Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term >> 42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large >> capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward >> supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred >> purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing >> shortly after the quarter)." >> >> So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >> armchair experts > > Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing > customers, not new customers. I think all this shows is that IBM is able to force expensive hardware refresh by ending support for old machines and old versions of software so if you need Payment Card Industry compliance you need supported software. I would say most users need PCI compliance so have no choice other than to upgrade or migrate and most feel migration will be more expensive and carry more risk... .. mind I seem to remember that the recent price rises in VMWare meant that migration from there to Linux on "Z" would be a cost effective move... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdp62$7e97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236411 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 22:51:30 +0000, David Wade wrote: > I think all this shows is that IBM is able to force expensive > hardware refresh by ending support for old machines and old versions > of software so if you need Payment Card Industry compliance you need > supported software. I don’t think that’s true. I have hooked up various clients to various payment systems over the years, and there was never a need for any particular piece of proprietary software at our end. (Well, the very first time I looked at a payment system, over a quarter century ago, SSL/TLS had not yet become popular, and this bank required a connection via the proprietary “Firewall/1” package, which only ran on Windows NT/Server. But I never heard back about proceeding with that, and that kind of thing is ancient history now.) In fact, the last one I set up, the payment company offered example code for implementing their protocol in a range of languages. They had kept things quite simple, while being careful about security, all credit to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <-vCcnZTRg-gPMXf3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #236412 |
On 11/3/26 18:02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 22:51:30 +0000, David Wade wrote: > >> I think all this shows is that IBM is able to force expensive >> hardware refresh by ending support for old machines and old versions >> of software so if you need Payment Card Industry compliance you need >> supported software. > > I don’t think that’s true. I have hooked up various clients to various > payment systems over the years, and there was never a need for any > particular piece of proprietary software at our end. IBM *tends* to Do It Right. Don't discount them. Yea, yea ... 'Dilbert' made fun of them, and not always for bad reasons, but the corp remains alive and well and profitable even to this day so it must be doing *something* right. IBM is 'diverse' - hardware/software/systems/ development/etc. A good recipe for long-term survival. Many baskets. A lot of 'other people's tech' pays royalties to IBM for the underlying real tech. KEEP the corp in my portfolio.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdp6v$1qa8$3@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #236398 |
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>: >>So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >>armchair experts > >Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing >customers, not new customers. IBM has two markets for z mainframes, the legacy S/360/370/390 market and high performance linux servers which they call LinuxONE. I agree they're not likely to have new legacy customers but I'd be surprised that they put all that effort into LinuxONE without expecting to get new customers out of it. They just announced that the next generation of z will have a partnership with ARM so the processors can run ARM64 code as well as the three legacy 360 modes. That tells me they're trying to get customers who already have the ARM code running in the cloud at AWS or Azure. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nwGdnQ4H8bb7MHf3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #236413 |
On 11/3/26 18:02, John Levine wrote: > According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>: >>> So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >>> armchair experts >> >> Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing >> customers, not new customers. > > IBM has two markets for z mainframes, the legacy S/360/370/390 market > and high performance linux servers which they call LinuxONE. > > I agree they're not likely to have new legacy customers but I'd be surprised > that they put all that effort into LinuxONE without expecting to get new > customers out of it. Apparently DO have/gain many customers. > They just announced that the next generation of z will have a > partnership with ARM so the processors can run ARM64 code as well as > the three legacy 360 modes. That tells me they're trying to get > customers who already have the ARM code running in the cloud at AWS or > Azure. The 'mainframe' era is nearly over - to be replaced by cluster/distributed/AI. However IBM is already into all that, WILL make money. Many baskets ... How To Survive/Thrive. Hmmmm ... do remember when IBM was "typewriters" ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web