Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218654 > unrolled thread

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Started by	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
First post	2021-09-05 09:55 +0000
Last post	2021-10-08 07:27 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 224 — 41 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →

#218712

From	snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Date	2021-09-06 21:05 +0100
Message-ID	<1pf3rqe.eavsck1olohm8N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>
In reply to	#218710

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 11:44:57 -0600
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 9/6/21 2:14 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > > Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet radio)
> > > was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the future) but
> > > it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking kernel to
> > > run them under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version but 64K is
> > > awfully tight for TCP/IP.
> > 
> > Was it Usenet (UUCP / NNTP) or FTP proper?  Or was it other non-standard
> > services that provided similar function to the proper services?
> 
>       It was the real thing, there was a pretty good TCP/IP stack in there
> and a multi-tasking kernel, the applications were pluggable at build time
> but most settled on a variant of Elm for email backed by an SMTP server,
> Tin for USENET (NNRP) and I forget where the usual ftp client originated.
> When Demon Internet first started offering dial up connections with a
> static IP address KA9Q was the standard offering for messy dos.

It worked very well; I began by using KA9Q too, in 1994 with Demon. 

-- 
^Ï^     <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218715

From	Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date	2021-09-06 14:54 -0600
Message-ID	<sh5vd5$393$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to	#218710

On 9/6/21 1:07 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> It was the real thing, there was a pretty good TCP/IP stack in there 
> and a multi-tasking kernel, the applications were pluggable at build 
> time but most settled on a variant of Elm for email backed by an 
> SMTP server, Tin for USENET (NNRP) and I forget where the usual ftp 
> client originated.  When Demon Internet first started offering dial 
> up connections with a static IP address KA9Q was the standard offering 
> for messy dos.

Interesting.

Thank you for confirming.

TIL :-)



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219040

From	lawrence@cluon.com (Lawrence Statton (NK1G))
Date	2021-09-25 18:48 -0500
Message-ID	<87ilyo43oy.fsf@cluon.com>
In reply to	#218701

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 9/6/21 2:14 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet
>> radio) was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the
>> future) but it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking
>> kernel to run them under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version
>> but 64K is awfully tight for TCP/IP.
>
> Was it Usenet (UUCP / NNTP) or FTP proper?  Or was it other
> non-standard services that provided similar function to the proper
> services?
>

It was a full TCP/IP stack for late-80s-vintage IBM PC Hardware.  The
'dominant' transport was IP-over-AX.25, but it also could use early
Ethernet drivers, and there was a version that supported SL/IP (but I
don't recall ever seeing a PPP implementation)

It included 'application' support for FTP, SMTP transport,a mail
client called Bdale's Mailer, and a complete TELNET client
implementation.  It also provided a keyboard-to-keyboard-chat feature as
a TELNET server.

--NK1G

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219056

From	Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date	2021-09-26 10:55 -0600
Message-ID	<siq8u9$kub$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to	#219040

On 9/25/21 5:48 PM, Lawrence Statton (NK1G) wrote:
> It was a full TCP/IP stack for late-80s-vintage IBM PC Hardware. 
> The 'dominant' transport was IP-over-AX.25, but it also could use 
> early Ethernet drivers, and there was a version that supported SL/IP 
> (but I don't recall ever seeing a PPP implementation)

Thank you for the clarification Lawrence.

I had wondered if you might be referring to similar functionality that 
many BBS packages provided using different technology.  But you have 
satisfactorily clarified my misunderstanding.

> It included 'application' support for FTP, SMTP transport,a mail client 
> called Bdale's Mailer, and a complete TELNET client implementation. 
> It also provided a keyboard-to-keyboard-chat feature as a TELNET 
> server.

Interesting.

Thank you again.

-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219058

From	John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Date	2021-09-26 19:50 +0000
Message-ID	<siqita$2r85$1@gal.iecc.com>
In reply to	#219040

According to Lawrence Statton (NK1G) <lawrence@cluon.com>:
>[KA9Q] was a full TCP/IP stack for late-80s-vintage IBM PC Hardware.  The
>'dominant' transport was IP-over-AX.25, but it also could use early
>Ethernet drivers, and there was a version that supported SL/IP (but I
>don't recall ever seeing a PPP implementation)

In 1990 I used a couple of old PCs and Wavelan proto-wifi cards to set up a connection
from my house in Cambridge MA to a friend's house a block away and share his connection
to the local Internet co-op.  It was quite the kludge, with a yagi antenna sticking out
of an attic window but it worked great.

I believe I used PC-ROUTE, packet drivers for the Ethernet card and perhaps an NDIS
shim for the Wavelan, but I don't think I had to write any software.

-- 
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]

#219495

From	D Gillies <dwgillies@gmail.com>
Date	2021-10-22 00:36 -0700
Message-ID	<5ad7d370-6fff-4bf9-8a69-ef6bb7cd389cn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#218692

I wrote a multi-connection TCP for the IBM PC  (called PC/IP which became FTP Software) in 1984.  With a 4K control block (2K send, 2K receive), it could run finger with 7 tcp connections at a time on a 64K IBM PC circa x 10 different flavors of TCP (Multics, Tenex, Tops-10, PDP v7 Unix, BSD 4.15 which had a terrible TCP Bug, etc.).  Our project was the first one to put the IBM PC on the Arpanet as a full network citizen, including FTP, which needed my protocol stack.

https://people.ece.ubc.ca/~gillies/pages/9802net.html

- Don Gillies, class of '84
Palo Alto, CA, USA

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 06:30:46 -0000 (UTC) 
> Jason Evans <jse...@mailfence.com> wrote: 
> 
> > On Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:06:43 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: 
> > 
> > > You can run Unix from a teletype. Not something anyone in their right 
> > > mind wants to do these days but you can do it. 
> > 
> > Linux via ham radio RTTY would be stupid and awesome, lol.
> Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet 
> radio) was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the future) but 
> it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking kernel to run them 
> under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version but 64K is awfully tight for 
> TCP/IP. 
> 
> It was awesome and far from stupid. 
> 
> -- 
> Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays 
> C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun 
> The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see 
> You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219496

From	D Gillies <dwgillies@gmail.com>
Date	2021-10-22 00:42 -0700
Message-ID	<b9969131-ceaf-4482-85c1-3ffe6d345904n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#219495

KA9Q (by Phil Karn) was written in 1985, and I met him when we both worked at Qualcomm Corporate R&D in the early 2000's.  Mine was open source and multi-threaded (using an MIT explicity-give-up-the-processor threading package) because it was a part of my bachelor's thesis (a full Mail Security Proxy).  I think Phil - being part of the Ham Radio community - probably did a better job of sharing his code and it became the more well-known stack in the hobbyist community, but was not as commercially successful.

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219500

From	"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-l3l-this>
Date	2021-10-22 08:02 -0700
Message-ID	<6172D30B.289.news.afc@realitycheckbbs.org>
In reply to	#219496

  To: D Gillies
-=> D Gillies wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

 DG> KA9Q (by Phil Karn) was written in 1985, and I met him when we both
 DG> worked at Qualcomm Corporate R&D in the early 2000's.

That must have been a heckuva place to work back then. I was a huge fan of 
Eudora, as were most in the '90s. I was amazed at how much we could do with 
text-based address books and mbox formatted email on a Windows/Mac client.

         kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
                     | http://realitycheckbbs.org
                     | 1:218/700@fidonet



			


... I hear he can kill people with an init string.
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.19a-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
 *  realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218700

From	Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date	2021-09-06 11:42 -0600
Message-ID	<sh5k4g$hnc$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to	#218688

On 9/6/21 12:30 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
> Linux via ham radio RTTY would be stupid and awesome, lol.

It's not ham radio RTTY, but it is darned close.

Link - Curious Marc tweets from a TTY.
  - https://twitter.com/curious_marc/status/1253216773370867717



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219148

From	711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart>
Date	2021-09-30 08:34 -0500
Message-ID	<sj4ed6$a4e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#218688

On 9/6/21 1:30 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:06:43 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
>> You can run Unix from a teletype.  Not something anyone in their right
>> mind wants to do these days but you can do it.
> 
> Linux via ham radio RTTY would be stupid and awesome, lol.
> 

I've been poking around for packet radio equipment. I want to automate
backups of some critical data files to a solar-powered rig located
several miles from my home office without requiring Internet to do it. A
very simple CLI debian netinstall would probably get the job done.

Any decent, modern packet radio requires a more modern computer board.
Anything legacy is going to be really slow and potentially unreliable.

I've even thought about a LIDAR setup, although those are quite pricey
right now.

-- 
███████████████████████████████████
█░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░███
█░░███████░░█░░████░░███░░████░░███        [chan] 711
█░░░░░░░██░░█░░░░██░░███░░░░██░░███        spooky mart
██████░░██░░███░░██░░█████░░██░░███        always open
██████░░██░░███░░██░░█████░░██░░███        stay spooky
██████░░██░░█░░░░██░░░░█░░░░██░░░░█        https://bitmessage.org
██████░░██░░█░░██████░░█░░██████░░█
██████░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█
███████████████████████████████████

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218703

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-09-06 10:56 -0700
Message-ID	<864743696.652643204.498921.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#218682

Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
> On 9/5/2021 5:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.
>> 
>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
>> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is
>> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>> 
>> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
>> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command
>> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?
>> 
>> These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group.
>> 
>> Jason
> 
> 
> I have an IBM Datamaster/System 23 in my basement that is functional 
> with its original dot matrix printer.  I'd have to imagine it can still 
> do some basic functions like some kind of word processing.  I have boxes 
> and boxes of 8" floppies as well.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/23_Datamaster
> 

This is kind of a bizarre question. Any computer could be used for ‘real
work” today. They did their thing years ago, and could still do,the same
kinds of things today: statistics, engineering calculations, payroll,
inventory, etc. I was going to say the IBM 1130, but just realized all
could. Obviously no internet, and things like graphics  and relational
databases that require gobs of memory would be out.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218722

From	Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-06 20:27 -0700
Message-ID	<fe3c3be3-c13d-40be-837b-d8719909f051n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#218703

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:56:11 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote:
> Michael Trew <michae...@att.net> wrote: 
> > On 9/5/2021 5:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote: 
> >> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking. 
> >> 
> >> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD 
> >> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is 
> >> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job? 
> >> 
> >> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64 
> >> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command 
> >> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work? 
> >> 
> >> These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group. 
> >> 
> >> Jason 
> > 
> > 
> > I have an IBM Datamaster/System 23 in my basement that is functional 
> > with its original dot matrix printer. I'd have to imagine it can still 
> > do some basic functions like some kind of word processing. I have boxes 
> > and boxes of 8" floppies as well. 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/23_Datamaster 
> >
> This is kind of a bizarre question. Any computer could be used for ‘real 
> work” today. They did their thing years ago, and could still do,the same 
> kinds of things today: statistics, engineering calculations, payroll, 
> inventory, etc. I was going to say the IBM 1130, but just realized all 
> could. Obviously no internet, and things like graphics and relational 
> databases that require gobs of memory would be out.

Early computers had "gobs of memory" via endless numbers of
punch cards, endless lengths of paper tape and/or magnetic tape.
Some even had graphics. Yesterday I came across a subroutine for
DEUCE, written in 1955, that rotated the display by 90 degrees.
On that same computer was an animated version of a mouse
finding its way around a maze; also of "hickory dickory dock"
with sound effects; and noughts and crosses [tic-tac-toe].

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218714

From	Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date	2021-09-06 16:11 -0400
Message-ID	<878s09o44w.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to	#218682

On Sun, 05 Sep 2021 22:54:18 -0400, Michael Trew wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2021 5:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.
>>
>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
>> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is
>> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>>
>> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
>> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command
>> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?
>>
>> These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group.
>>
>> Jason
>
>
> I have an IBM Datamaster/System 23 in my basement that is functional
> with its original dot matrix printer.  I'd have to imagine it can
> still do some basic functions like some kind of word processing.  I
> have boxes and boxes of 8" floppies as well.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/23_Datamaster

Read about this long ago. Is considered by many to be the "first
PC". Reminds me on the Apple Lisa which went the right direction but was
too expensive. So the little less capable but more successful McIntosh
was released.
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218737

From	Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net>
Date	2021-09-07 11:34 -0400
Message-ID	<sh80pa$n5j$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218714

On 9/6/2021 4:11 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2021 22:54:18 -0400, Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>> On 9/5/2021 5:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>>> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.
>>>
>>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
>>> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is
>>> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>>>
>>> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
>>> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command
>>> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?
>>>
>>> These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>
>>
>> I have an IBM Datamaster/System 23 in my basement that is functional
>> with its original dot matrix printer.  I'd have to imagine it can
>> still do some basic functions like some kind of word processing.  I
>> have boxes and boxes of 8" floppies as well.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/23_Datamaster
>
> Read about this long ago. Is considered by many to be the "first
> PC". Reminds me on the Apple Lisa which went the right direction but was
> too expensive. So the little less capable but more successful McIntosh
> was released.

I have most all of the manuals as well.  It was used as a database in a 
radio station in the early 80's.  I never actually sat down and figured 
out how it works, but it does boot when you flip the switch; numbers 
come up on the green screen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218738

From	drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone)
Date	2021-09-07 11:14 -0500
Message-ID	<W_udnbeFZrR7Eqr8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#218737

 > I have most all of the manuals as well.  It was used as a database in a 
 > radio station in the early 80's.  I never actually sat down and figured 
 > out how it works, but it does boot when you flip the switch; numbers 
 > come up on the green screen.

User programming is done in BASIC.  It's a curious implementation, with
a lot of fairly powerful stuff for business applications, statement
labels, some sort-of cursor editing of statements.  Most IBM supplied
utilities are not in BASIC; I think it may have been possible for some
ecosystem developers to get the tooling to do assembler or maybe
compiled development.

There were two types of base machine: the all-in-one type, and a floor
standing one with separate screen and keyboard.  Peripherals included
several printers, a twinax-based network for interconnecting stations,
and a hard disk unit that could be shared across the network.  8085
processor, paged address space so that the machine can (and does) have
well over 64k of RAM, and quite a bit of ROM too.

IBM sold various software for them, including a menu-driven application
development system that wrote BASIC applications.  There was at least
a small third party ecosystem.

De

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218721

From	John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Date	2021-09-06 03:39 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnsjb3bh.33d9s.jgoerzen@slrnh.complete.org>
In reply to	#218654

On 2021-09-05, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is

... that fits...

> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?

So I'm going to be "that guy" that says "it depends on what you mean by
computer."

So I have a DEC vt510 that I do still use.  It has a serial connection to a
Raspberry Pi, from which I can ssh wherever.  I actually enjoy using it as a
"focus mode" break.  It was sold as an ANSI terminal.  Is it a computer?  Well,
it has an 8080 in it IIRC.  I do actually use it for doing work on my job from
time to time too.

I also have a Linux box, more modern, that is a Micro PC I used to do backups.
It doesn't permit ssh or such for security reasons.  My only way into it is via
serial console or local console.  So the vt510 can hook up to that and it is
then doing actual work too.  I also have older terminals.

What about older general-purpose machines?  I've seen plenty of DOS still
kicking around.  Various industrial machinery still uses DOS machines as
controllers or programmers.  A lot of time they are running on more modern
hardware, but also a lot of time they wouldn't NEED to be; that's just what is
out there.  So that takes us back firmly into the 80s.

The DEC PDP-10 was introduced in 1966 and was famously used by CompuServe up
until at least 2007, 41 years later.

Here's an article from 2008 about how Seattle still uses DEC VAXes (released
1977):
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/dinosaur-computer-stalls-seattle-schools-plans/

Here's an article from just last year about how Kansas is still using a
mainframe from 1977 to manage unemployment claims:
https://www.kctv5.com/coronavirus/kansas-department-of-labor-mainframe-is-from-1977/article_40459370-7ac4-11ea-b4db-df529463a7d4.html

No word on what precise type of mainframe that is.
https://www.dol.ks.gov/documents/20121/85583/KDOL+Modernization+Timeline.pdf/d186de09-851b-d996-d235-ad6fb9286fcb?version=1.0&t=1620335465573
gives a clue that it may be some sort of IBM something.
https://governor.kansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GintherTaxCouncilKDOT.pdf
hints that it may be an IBM System 370/Model 145.

> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command 
> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?

The display resolution may be tricky, but an old IBM PC certainly would.

- John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218725

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-07 01:03 -0400
Message-ID	<ujsdjgtpbshv5eelceharhft14na4gtrmp@4ax.com>
In reply to	#218721

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 03:39:29 -0000 (UTC), John Goerzen
<jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:

>On 2021-09-05, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
>> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is
>
>... that fits...
>
>> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>
>So I'm going to be "that guy" that says "it depends on what you mean by
>computer."
>
>So I have a DEC vt510 that I do still use.  It has a serial connection to a
>Raspberry Pi, from which I can ssh wherever.  I actually enjoy using it as a
>"focus mode" break.  It was sold as an ANSI terminal.  Is it a computer?  Well,
>it has an 8080 in it IIRC.  I do actually use it for doing work on my job from
>time to time too.
>
>I also have a Linux box, more modern, that is a Micro PC I used to do backups.
>It doesn't permit ssh or such for security reasons.  My only way into it is via
>serial console or local console.  So the vt510 can hook up to that and it is
>then doing actual work too.  I also have older terminals.
>
>What about older general-purpose machines?  I've seen plenty of DOS still
>kicking around.  Various industrial machinery still uses DOS machines as
>controllers or programmers.  A lot of time they are running on more modern
>hardware, but also a lot of time they wouldn't NEED to be; that's just what is
>out there.  So that takes us back firmly into the 80s.
>
>The DEC PDP-10 was introduced in 1966 and was famously used by CompuServe up
>until at least 2007, 41 years later.
>
>Here's an article from 2008 about how Seattle still uses DEC VAXes (released
>1977):
>https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/dinosaur-computer-stalls-seattle-schools-plans/
>
>Here's an article from just last year about how Kansas is still using a
>mainframe from 1977 to manage unemployment claims:
>https://www.kctv5.com/coronavirus/kansas-department-of-labor-mainframe-is-from-1977/article_40459370-7ac4-11ea-b4db-df529463a7d4.html
>
>No word on what precise type of mainframe that is.
>https://www.dol.ks.gov/documents/20121/85583/KDOL+Modernization+Timeline.pdf/d186de09-851b-d996-d235-ad6fb9286fcb?version=1.0&t=1620335465573
>gives a clue that it may be some sort of IBM something.
>https://governor.kansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GintherTaxCouncilKDOT.pdf
>hints that it may be an IBM System 370/Model 145.

I'd be very surprised if it actually was.  When did IBM end
maintenance on those?

>> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
>> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command 
>> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?
>
>The display resolution may be tricky, but an old IBM PC certainly would.
>
>- John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218760

From	John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Date	2021-09-07 13:06 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnsjeou8.4mvc.jgoerzen@slrnh.complete.org>
In reply to	#218725

On 2021-09-07, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>https://governor.kansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GintherTaxCouncilKDOT.pdf
>>hints that it may be an IBM System 370/Model 145.
>
> I'd be very surprised if it actually was.  When did IBM end
> maintenance on those?

I have no more information, other than that link claims "The Kansas UI System
runs on a Mainframe that was installed in 1977."

Is it possible the hardware was upgraded to something that can emulate the
370/145, and that difference was lost on a non-technical author?  Sure.

I have known other places to run mainframes an absurdly long time.  I've seen it
in universities and, of course, there's the famous CompuServe PDP-10 story -
though presumably they had more technical know-how to keep their PDP-10s alive.
You are right; it does seem farfetched.

... so I did some more digging, and found
https://ldh.la.gov/assets/medicaid/mmis/docs/IVVRProcurementLibrary/Section3RelevantCorporateExperienceCorporateFinancialCondition.doc
which claims that the "legacy UI system applications run on the Kansas
Department of Administration's OBM OS/390 mainframe."

I know little of IBM's mainframe lineup, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/390 claims that the System/390 has some
level of compatibility with the S/370.

- John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218761

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-08 00:00 -0400
Message-ID	<atcgjg10kp9hd5umn36lrph2u8b9gu6fe1@4ax.com>
In reply to	#218760

On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 13:06:16 -0000 (UTC), John Goerzen
<jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:

>On 2021-09-07, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>https://governor.kansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GintherTaxCouncilKDOT.pdf
>>>hints that it may be an IBM System 370/Model 145.
>>
>> I'd be very surprised if it actually was.  When did IBM end
>> maintenance on those?
>
>I have no more information, other than that link claims "The Kansas UI System
>runs on a Mainframe that was installed in 1977."
>
>Is it possible the hardware was upgraded to something that can emulate the
>370/145, and that difference was lost on a non-technical author?  Sure.

A brand new Z can emulate the 370/145.  So can my Raspberry Pi if I
don't expect any performance.

>I have known other places to run mainframes an absurdly long time.  I've seen it
>in universities and, of course, there's the famous CompuServe PDP-10 story -
>though presumably they had more technical know-how to keep their PDP-10s alive.
>You are right; it does seem farfetched.
>
>... so I did some more digging, and found
>https://ldh.la.gov/assets/medicaid/mmis/docs/IVVRProcurementLibrary/Section3RelevantCorporateExperienceCorporateFinancialCondition.doc
>which claims that the "legacy UI system applications run on the Kansas
>Department of Administration's OBM OS/390 mainframe."
>
>I know little of IBM's mainframe lineup, but
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/390 claims that the System/390 has some
>level of compatibility with the S/370.

From the 360 on, application-level backwards compatibility has been
maintained.  I occasionally encounter code today that has dated
comments from the '70s.  The OS is tuned for the specific hardware and
new features are provided, but application programmers don't generally
deal with that.

We just transferred our entire system to new hardware, was done over a
weekend.  That's a system that manages a Fortune 100 financial
services company.

A common misconception among people who don't work with mainframes is
that the mainframe you have today is the same as the one that was
installed in the mid '60s.  They don't understand that the modern
mainframe is just that, with numerous cores, vast quantities of RAM,
and very high clock speeds that can be sustained under any workload.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218762

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-09-08 08:10 +0100
Message-ID	<20210908081036.f0b52c876f0a2cb381b73cff@eircom.net>
In reply to	#218761

On Wed, 08 Sep 2021 00:00:04 -0400
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> We just transferred our entire system to new hardware, was done over a
> weekend.  That's a system that manages a Fortune 100 financial
> services company.

	In some circles they just throw new hardware into the racks and tell
the virtual swarm coordinator that runs their systems where to find the new
hardware or tell the coordinator to stop using an obsolete machine so they
can pull it. The systems never notice.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →

csiph-web

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Contents

#218712

#218715

#219040

#219056

#219058

#219495

#219496

#219500

#218700

#219148

#218703

#218722

#218714

#218737

#218738

#218721

#218725

#218760

#218761

#218762