Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218117 > unrolled thread
| Started by | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 134 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 16:08 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:14 -0600
Re: s/3, s/34, s/36, and so forth not iBM System/3 FORTRAN John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-27 01:27 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-29 22:47 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 12:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 13:04 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-06-29 21:33 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-30 15:56 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-06-30 22:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-01 05:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 06:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-01 13:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-03 01:19 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-03 10:14 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 10:43 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@situ.com - 2021-11-02 07:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-02 09:26 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-02 05:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2021-11-02 15:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@hugin.membrane.com - 2021-11-16 01:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 11:25 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:34 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 15:56 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 20:57 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-02 18:26 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-05 13:39 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 14:51 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:06 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 17:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:41 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 13:30 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-10 13:29 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 17:13 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-11 13:58 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:03 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:19 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:50 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 22:40 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 23:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-17 19:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 21:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-18 15:20 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:05 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-21 05:29 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-21 11:08 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:16 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:09 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:49 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 14:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-14 10:03 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:42 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-14 00:39 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:20 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-30 07:57 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 02:23 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 21:23 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 18:46 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 20:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-07-01 19:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-11-02 08:54 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-10-05 22:56 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-05 23:13 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 03:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 12:32 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-10-06 14:11 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:00 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:49 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 17:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-07 06:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 13:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:18 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:45 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:23 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:10 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:36 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 10:32 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-04 09:13 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-07 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-07 21:19 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 17:06 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-08 05:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 19:39 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2021-06-30 17:58 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-18 14:31 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-18 16:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:47 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:40 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:20 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-06-27 11:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-06-27 13:40 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-06-27 16:00 -0500
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-17 09:47 -0800
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-17 18:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-11-17 22:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-18 01:00 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-18 01:51 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-18 06:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 16:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sb83bn$iap$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #218177 |
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes: > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:00:37 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: >> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: >> >> > undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> writes: >> > >> >> Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortra= >> >> n? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast= >> >> majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. >> > >> > RPG III. RPG II is the System/360 version. >> Not the way I remember it, and Wikipedia agrees with me. >> RPG II on S/3, S/34, S/36 >> >> RPG III on S/38, AS/400. >> >> RPG IV for OS/400. > > Yes. > > Then they came out with a Visual RPG. > > I don't know what is done these days on the i series machines or > whatever has succeeded the AS/400. Indeed, IBM's website is very > vague about their product lines, now talking about "solutions". Makes > and models are very vague. (Cars are like that too, these days, > Toyota offers a Corolla, but then they offer many trim lines that are > confusing. Same with Camry). > > > >> I had to rescue a failing RPG project on a Sys/34. >> One of the first things we did was order the COBOL compiler. >> I don't have any impression of the speed of the processor, just >> that it was always fast enough for our application. > > I think the COBOL language on the AS/400 was nice. But I'm not sure how well it ran. We had COBOL on a AS/400 but it ran very slow. It may have been the machine was just underpowered for what we wanted to do on it, I didn't get into the details. > > I was not a big fan of the AS/400 line. But I must admit its users > loved it. There used to be a magazine, Midrange Computing, almost a > cult following. And I must guess that setting up a new installation > cold was probably easier with an AS/400 from a Z series, probably a > lot of stuff was automated, and far less configuration and system > programming was needed. Of course, if the site got big enough, then > performance may have become an issue--large sites have do need some > configuration to keep things orderly. (And there was an AS/400 > Performance Manual). This same company with the S/34 had a pretty large mainframe. Every month the mainframe would do a manufacturing cost calculation. This run was well known for taking forever to complete. Sometimes a day or 2. I implemented my own costing algorithms on the S/34 and we'd complete the calculation in 15 or 20 minutes. I think I just had a better algorithm but I never considered the machine slow. I was not a fan of the direction the AS/400 (and S/38) went off in. I liked the S/34 because of it's simplicity. The AS/400 retained the good parts but had too much stuff you'd only find on an AS/400. I once ported a load of S/34 code to a Wang/VS system. Easy. If I was starting with an AS/400 it might not have been so easy. The COBOL compiler was a dream. Never once did I confront a dump. We put S/34s in 4 plants and a central office. The existing clerical staff was able to do everything the system needed for day to day operation. Nothing like a mainframe. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 15:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sb85na$v2g$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #218183 |
On 6/26/21 2:40 PM, Dan Espen wrote: > The existing clerical staff was able to do everything the system > needed for day to day operation. Nothing like a mainframe. Yep. IMHO AS/400s a.k.a. i/Series were notorious for putting them in offices, connect a number of terminals and mostly forgetting about them. State Farm had an AS/400 in every single agent's office in the U.S.A. from the mid '90s through at least 2010. (I don't know about after that.) They would link back to mainframes in multi (many) state regional offices via leased line and / or dial up connections. My understanding is that the '400s were almost set them and forget them. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-27 11:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210627112810.23c49a389e476a960b3f2507@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #218185 |
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 15:20:04 -0600 Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: > On 6/26/21 2:40 PM, Dan Espen wrote: > > The existing clerical staff was able to do everything the system > > needed for day to day operation. Nothing like a mainframe. > > Yep. IMHO AS/400s a.k.a. i/Series were notorious for putting them in > offices, connect a number of terminals and mostly forgetting about them. > > State Farm had an AS/400 in every single agent's office in the U.S.A. > from the mid '90s through at least 2010. (I don't know about after > that.) They would link back to mainframes in multi (many) state > regional offices via leased line and / or dial up connections. My > understanding is that the '400s were almost set them and forget them. > > Does anyone recall these computers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_8100 -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-27 13:40 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <87sg12j2qb.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #218190 |
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes: > Does anyone recall these computers? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_8100 communication group greatly underpowered line of UC processors ... also used in 37x5 boxes (science center had tried to get them to use significantly better peachtree processor developed for series/1 in 37x5 boxes). Later, at one point Evans asks my wife to audit 8100 ... short time later, 8100 was "decommitted". -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1248498284.646619220.724461.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218190 |
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 15:20:04 -0600 > Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: > >> On 6/26/21 2:40 PM, Dan Espen wrote: >>> The existing clerical staff was able to do everything the system >>> needed for day to day operation. Nothing like a mainframe. >> >> Yep. IMHO AS/400s a.k.a. i/Series were notorious for putting them in >> offices, connect a number of terminals and mostly forgetting about them. >> >> State Farm had an AS/400 in every single agent's office in the U.S.A. >> from the mid '90s through at least 2010. (I don't know about after >> that.) They would link back to mainframes in multi (many) state >> regional offices via leased line and / or dial up connections. My >> understanding is that the '400s were almost set them and forget them. >> >> > Does anyone recall these computers? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_8100 > Vaguely recall reading about it, never worked on it. Sounded like a real fog to me, I think you had to compile its programs on the mainframe. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-27 16:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Zv-dnTluTf9Pe0X9nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #218185 |
> State Farm had an AS/400 in every single agent's office in the U.S.A. > from the mid '90s through at least 2010. (I don't know about after > that.) They would link back to mainframes in multi (many) state > regional offices via leased line and / or dial up connections. My > understanding is that the '400s were almost set them and forget them. Last I was in my agent's office (year and a half? covid...), they were still using 5250 emulation for at least some applications, but I don't know where it connected. De
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <243335425.646618718.663730.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218177 |
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:00:37 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: >> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: >> >>> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> writes: >>> >>>> Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortra= >>>> n? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast= >>>> majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. >>> >>> RPG III. RPG II is the System/360 version. >> Not the way I remember it, and Wikipedia agrees with me. >> RPG II on S/3, S/34, S/36 >> >> RPG III on S/38, AS/400. >> >> RPG IV for OS/400. > > Yes. > > Then they came out with a Visual RPG. > > I don't know what is done these days on the i series machines or whatever > has succeeded the AS/400. Indeed, IBM's website is very vague about > their product lines, now talking about "solutions". Makes and models are > very vague. (Cars are like that too, these days, Toyota offers a > Corolla, but then they offer many trim lines that are confusing. Same with Camry). > This is an unfortunate trend that the remaining computer manufacturers started some years ago. At one point I was looking for some documentation from UNISYS, and it was like an archeological dig to find it. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19deb56a-ad54-4352-918b-f80eb0784b3an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218117 |
I was just looking through some old issues of Datamation for something else, and I saw an ad for PI*FORT. This was claimed to be a "more accurate" Fortran than IBM's for the System/3. Why? It did its arithmetic in decimal, so results wouldn't look funny! John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fwblJ.34634$6a3.1331@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #219731 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >I was just looking through some old issues of Datamation for something else, and I saw an ad for PI*FORT. >This was claimed to be a "more accurate" Fortran than IBM's for the System/3. >Why? It did its arithmetic in decimal, so results wouldn't look funny! > One might point out that decimal floating point is inherently more _precise_ than binary floating point, and thus, likely more _accurate_ in certain boundary cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sn3vli$afr$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #219732 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> schrieb: > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>I was just looking through some old issues of Datamation for something else, and I saw an ad for PI*FORT. >>This was claimed to be a "more accurate" Fortran than IBM's for the System/3. >>Why? It did its arithmetic in decimal, so results wouldn't look funny! >> > > One might point out that decimal floating point is inherently more > _precise_ than binary floating point, and thus, likely more _accurate_ > in certain boundary cases. One might point that out, but then one would have to state the basis of that comparison. If you base this on the number of digits, this is undoubtedly true - a deciaml digit can carry much more information than a binary digit. If you base it on the information that you can, for example, store in a 64-bit word, then your claim needs some more explanation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 01:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8BhlJ.3004$aF1.1217@fx98.iad> |
| In reply to | #219736 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> schrieb: >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>>I was just looking through some old issues of Datamation for something else, and I saw an ad for PI*FORT. >>>This was claimed to be a "more accurate" Fortran than IBM's for the System/3. >>>Why? It did its arithmetic in decimal, so results wouldn't look funny! >>> >> >> One might point out that decimal floating point is inherently more >> _precise_ than binary floating point, and thus, likely more _accurate_ >> in certain boundary cases. > >One might point that out, but then one would have to state >the basis of that comparison. > >If you base this on the number of digits, this is undoubtedly true - >a deciaml digit can carry much more information than a binary digit. > >If you base it on the information that you can, for example, >store in a 64-bit word, then your claim needs some more explanation. Binary floating point cannot precisely represent all valid decimal floating point numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 01:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sn4bie$g4n$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #219743 |
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>: >Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> schrieb: >>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>>>I was just looking through some old issues of Datamation for something else, and I saw an ad for PI*FORT. >>>>This was claimed to be a "more accurate" Fortran than IBM's for the System/3. >>>>Why? It did its arithmetic in decimal, so results wouldn't look funny! >>> >>> One might point out that decimal floating point is inherently more >>> _precise_ than binary floating point, and thus, likely more _accurate_ >>> in certain boundary cases. >> >>One might point that out, but then one would have to state >>the basis of that comparison. ... >Binary floating point cannot precisely represent all valid >decimal floating point numbers. That is true, but it is irrelevant. With sufficient bits you can get accurate results and rounding using binary arithmetic, and add 0.1 and 0.1 and get 0.2. It was old news when I was taking numerical analysis classes in the 1970s. It is certainly easier to do decimal rounding with a decimal representation but that's not the same question. -- 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 | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 06:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211118060637.5d20f6c99e6f2c3ba61a7f6c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #219743 |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 01:00:52 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Binary floating point cannot precisely represent all valid > decimal floating point numbers. Neither binary nor decimal can represent precisely all the valid duo-decimal floating point numbers - but nobody uses duo-decimal floating point. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sn3gbm$h7f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #219731 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > I was just looking through some old issues of Datamation for something else, and I saw an ad for PI*FORT. > This was claimed to be a "more accurate" Fortran than IBM's for the System/3. > Why? It did its arithmetic in decimal, so results wouldn't look funny! > > John Savard Also did arithmetic in binary. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web