Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #164713 > unrolled thread

History--early remote on-line computer access

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

Contents

  History--early remote on-line computer access hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:33 -0700
    Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-06-07 02:30 -0300
      Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 16:49 +0000
      Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 10:44 -0700
      Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-07 13:47 -0400
      Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 10:54 -0700
      Re: History--early remote on-line computer access hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-07 13:17 -0700
        Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-08 00:23 +0200
        Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-06-07 19:22 -0500
          Re: History--early remote on-line computer access hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 12:11 -0700
        Re: History--early remote on-line computer access jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:25 +0000
          Re: History--early remote on-line computer access "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-11 10:37 -0500
            Re: History--early remote on-line computer access jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-12 12:27 +0000
              Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-16 17:11 -0400
                Re: History--early remote on-line computer access usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 07:37 +0000
                  Re: History--early remote on-line computer access Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-17 16:53 -0400
        Re: History--early remote on-line computer access JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 10:35 -0500
        Re: History--early remote on-line computer access "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-06-18 08:35 -0400
    Re:History--early remote on-line computer access Sarr Blumson  <sarr.blumson@alum.dartmouth.org> - 2016-06-07 12:20 -0400

#164713 — History--early remote on-line computer access

The NYT of 11/28/1962, pg 57, reported that users remotely
accessed a Honeywell computer via terminals.  No card
punching in advance was necessary.

They utilized a Western Union Telex terminal, a Teletype model
32 (three row Baudot* machine).

The computer was located at a Honeywell site in Newton, MA.
Users were located in Minneapolis, New York City, and Boston.

While computers had remote batch access in the 1950s, I
wonder if this 1962 attempt was the first on-line interactive
effort.


* Presumably the computer had to convert the Baudot
Letters and Figures shift codes inward and outward, but
that wasn't too hard to do via software.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#164720

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> The NYT of 11/28/1962, pg 57, reported that users remotely
> accessed a Honeywell computer via terminals.  No card
> punching in advance was necessary.
> 
> They utilized a Western Union Telex terminal, a Teletype model
> 32 (three row Baudot* machine).
> 
> The computer was located at a Honeywell site in Newton, MA.
> Users were located in Minneapolis, New York City, and Boston.
> 
> While computers had remote batch access in the 1950s, I
> wonder if this 1962 attempt was the first on-line interactive
> effort.

A friend who had a summer job at MIT in '63 worked at a hardcopy
terminal connected to a (the? :-) central computer. (time share? I'm
not sure of the correct term for the tech used.) When a higher
priority job ran, the terminal would print WAIT and become
unresponsive for a bit.

Her permanent colleagues reported that during the Cuban missle crisis,
all the terminals connected to the computer printed WAIT and went
quiet.  People usually squirreled away in dim rooms encoutered each
other wandering the halls, WAITing and WAITing, finally went home for
the night.  Only twigged to the cause when they listened to the news.

Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
over some kind of data link from D.C.

Told to me in '63.  Others afc'ers may have more informed
recollections.

> * Presumably the computer had to convert the Baudot
> Letters and Figures shift codes inward and outward, but
> that wasn't too hard to do via software.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#164739

On 2016-06-07, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> A friend who had a summer job at MIT in '63 worked at a hardcopy
> terminal connected to a (the? :-) central computer. (time share? I'm
> not sure of the correct term for the tech used.) When a higher
> priority job ran, the terminal would print WAIT and become
> unresponsive for a bit.

This is in contrast with modern systems, which conserve CPU cycles
by omitting the WAIT message.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

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

#164740

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:
> A friend who had a summer job at MIT in '63 worked at a hardcopy
> terminal connected to a (the? :-) central computer. (time share? I'm
> not sure of the correct term for the tech used.) When a higher
> priority job ran, the terminal would print WAIT and become
> unresponsive for a bit.

from early on (mid-60s) CMS did something of the reverse (apparently
inherited from CTSS) ... as it received service ... it would send down
tilt/rotate code to 2741 ... which wouldn't actually print anything
... just "wiggle" the selectric typeball. You could specify the BLIP
function ... change the "wiggle" to actually print character ... like
"#" and get something like modern "progress".

ctss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Time-Sharing_System
also references
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_CP/CMS

talks about begating Multics, CP/CMS and most other time-sharing
systems. I've joked about completely replacing original CP67/CMS
scheduling (as undergraduate in the 60s) that I conjectured it may have
come from CTSS ... because a couple decades later found something
similar in UNIX ... and assumed it may have traced back to common CTSS
heritage.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare

some past posts
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#12 360 Architecture, Multics, ... was (Re: X86 ultimate CISC? No.)
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#56 wrt code first, document later
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#71 Early attempts at console humor?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#72 Early attempts at console humor?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#16 Early attempts at console humor?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#18 Early attempts at console humor?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#39 S/360 undocumented instructions?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#40 MAD Programming Language
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#28 When nerds were nerds
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#12 pointless embedded systems
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#37 PDP-10 and Vax, was System/360--50 years--the future?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#33 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#39 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#63 NYT:  N.S.A. Chief Says Phone Logs Halted Terror Threats
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#7 What Makes a Tax System Bizarre?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#11 Royal Pardon For Turing
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#91 IBM Data Processing Center and Pi

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

#164741

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Mike Spencer wrote:

>
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> The NYT of 11/28/1962, pg 57, reported that users remotely
>> accessed a Honeywell computer via terminals.  No card
>> punching in advance was necessary.
>>
>> They utilized a Western Union Telex terminal, a Teletype model
>> 32 (three row Baudot* machine).
>>
>> The computer was located at a Honeywell site in Newton, MA.
>> Users were located in Minneapolis, New York City, and Boston.
>>
>> While computers had remote batch access in the 1950s, I
>> wonder if this 1962 attempt was the first on-line interactive
>> effort.
>
> A friend who had a summer job at MIT in '63 worked at a hardcopy
> terminal connected to a (the? :-) central computer. (time share? I'm
> not sure of the correct term for the tech used.) When a higher
> priority job ran, the terminal would print WAIT and become
> unresponsive for a bit.
>
When I was using Microware OS-9 (multi-user/multitasking, unix-like) on
the Radio Shack Color computer, I didn't have the luxury of "wait".  Most 
of the time all was fine, except when I printed something. The Color 
COmputer off the shelf used software to convert to and from serial, and I 
had a printer hooked up there.  And that would use up the processor.

So when I flipped to another screen to get back to the word processor, the 
whole thing slowed down so much that I'd see the cursor moving around the 
screen, when usually it was instantaneous so you just saw it flip from 
point to point.  You couldn't do anything while that printer was printing.

But, it ran at 1 or 2MHz, had 64K or 512K of RAM (depending on which Color 
Computer model), and I last used it in 1993.

   Michael

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

#164742

for other topic drift, there is recent, closed, relatively small "the
real history of online" on facebook ... some of my (archived) posts
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#33 The Network Nation, Revised Edition
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#34 The Network Nation, Revised Edition
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#36 The Network Nation, Revised Edition
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#37 First Non-Trivial Program You Developed
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#39 The Network Nation, Revised Edition
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#40 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

#164747

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:


[snip]
> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
> over some kind of data link from D.C.

I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.

MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
I don't know how far along they got.  Compsci people criticized
IBM for failing to include certain features for timesharing in
the original S/360 announcement.  IBM rushed to provide it, and
found that it was a lot harder than the theorists claimed.  Serving
a few users with simple stuff could be done, however, complex work
by a lot of users was too much for the machines of that era.  (The
IBM S/360 history goes into detail on this.)

So, I doubt at that time the Pentagon had any _on-line_ connection
to the MIT machine.

What is possible is that MIT was asked to do some computer work
for the Pentagon via conventional means, and that work tied up
the machine.


The Cuban missile crisis was unsettling.  In school, we had
frequent air raid drills.  Our 'shelter' was simply going
into the hallway, which didn't seem a lot of protection.

Then, we had a city wide air raid drill.  We'd get printed
cards explaining the various siren codes and what to do.
There were two special radio stations to tune to for info.

We were not to use the telephone.  Early on, they discovered
that an air raid drill inspired lots of people to use the 
phone, which crashed the telephone network.  I think today,
people should be instructed not to use the phone (landline or
mobile) during major emergencies because the system still gets
overloaded and true urgent calls can't get through.

For years after, city sirens would be tested every Wednesday 
at noon.  I don't know if they still bother, or if the sirens
even still work.

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

#164775

In article <c9e91d7a-78fd-4364-a038-d645292abeff@googlegroups.com>,
 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>
>I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>
>MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
>I don't know how far along they got.  Compsci people criticized
>IBM for failing to include certain features for timesharing in
>the original S/360 announcement.  IBM rushed to provide it, and
>found that it was a lot harder than the theorists claimed.  Serving
>a few users with simple stuff could be done, however, complex work
>by a lot of users was too much for the machines of that era.  (The
>IBM S/360 history goes into detail on this.)
>
>So, I doubt at that time the Pentagon had any _on-line_ connection
>to the MIT machine.
>
>What is possible is that MIT was asked to do some computer work
>for the Pentagon via conventional means, and that work tied up
>the machine.
>
>
>The Cuban missile crisis was unsettling.  In school, we had
>frequent air raid drills.  Our 'shelter' was simply going
>into the hallway, which didn't seem a lot of protection.
>
>Then, we had a city wide air raid drill.  We'd get printed
>cards explaining the various siren codes and what to do.
>There were two special radio stations to tune to for info.
>
>We were not to use the telephone.  Early on, they discovered
>that an air raid drill inspired lots of people to use the 
>phone, which crashed the telephone network.  I think today,
>people should be instructed not to use the phone (landline or
>mobile) during major emergencies because the system still gets
>overloaded and true urgent calls can't get through.
>
>For years after, city sirens would be tested every Wednesday 
>at noon.  I don't know if they still bother, or if the sirens
>even still work.


Still happens 3-4 times a year. Wednesdays 12 noon.

Wednesdays 11-13 is also the official time to test emergency
response on phone networks (112/911). This is about the quietest
time all week for all the blue light responders. And they have
double shifts in this time frame to handle the test traffic.

You are instructed to say clearly "this is a test" as soon as
the responder answers when you are testing 112/911 calling. 
They will just hang up if they have too much to do. Otherwise
they will go through a protocol of validating caller id etc.

-- mrr

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

#164779

On 6/7/2016 3:17 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>
> I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>
> MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
> I don't know how far along they got.  Compsci people criticized
> IBM for failing to include certain features for timesharing in
> the original S/360 announcement.  IBM rushed to provide it, and
> found that it was a lot harder than the theorists claimed.  Serving
> a few users with simple stuff could be done, however, complex work
> by a lot of users was too much for the machines of that era.  (The
> IBM S/360 history goes into detail on this.)
>
> So, I doubt at that time the Pentagon had any _on-line_ connection
> to the MIT machine.
>
> What is possible is that MIT was asked to do some computer work
> for the Pentagon via conventional means, and that work tied up
> the machine.
>
>
> The Cuban missile crisis was unsettling.  In school, we had
> frequent air raid drills.  Our 'shelter' was simply going
> into the hallway, which didn't seem a lot of protection.
>
> Then, we had a city wide air raid drill.  We'd get printed
> cards explaining the various siren codes and what to do.
> There were two special radio stations to tune to for info.
>
> We were not to use the telephone.  Early on, they discovered
> that an air raid drill inspired lots of people to use the
> phone, which crashed the telephone network.  I think today,
> people should be instructed not to use the phone (landline or
> mobile) during major emergencies because the system still gets
> overloaded and true urgent calls can't get through.
>
> For years after, city sirens would be tested every Wednesday
> at noon.  I don't know if they still bother, or if the sirens
> even still work.
>
They still do here. Not sure they do in the winter and it might just 
be the first Wednesday of the month, but it's to test tornado 
warnings. There may be a siren code for air raid (I think it used to 
be undulating pitch rather than steady pitch) but bad weather is the 
real-life warnings now. The weather radio alarm goes off Wednesday 
noon, too.

Originally the air raid alarm might have been useful, when at worst it 
would have been a single Hiroshima-size bomb and blast effects would 
have covered a much larger area than ground zero. Later, it was 
security theatre (like TSA screenings), not particularly effective but 
it reassured the public (while at the same time reminding the public 
to stay scared enough to support the work of the security 
bureaucracy), and everybody's ass was covered. Later still, it was 
just silly, a dozen nukes spread around the city wouldn't leave 
anything after they went off, and I expect building superintendents 
started bitching about the space that bomb shelters took up.

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

#164827

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:23:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:

> > For years after, city sirens would be tested every Wednesday
> > at noon.  I don't know if they still bother, or if the sirens
> > even still work.
> >
> They still do here. Not sure they do in the winter and it might just 
> be the first Wednesday of the month, but it's to test tornado 
> warnings. There may be a siren code for air raid (I think it used to 
> be undulating pitch rather than steady pitch) but bad weather is the 
> real-life warnings now. The weather radio alarm goes off Wednesday 
> noon, too.

People from Kansas tell me that tornado sirens are a major item.
Buildings have shelters, and when the sirens go off, everyone
goes to a shelter.

Every night for months, ABC News has reported on severe weather
in Texas and the mid west--unusually severe floods and tornadoes.



> Originally the air raid alarm might have been useful, when at worst it 
> would have been a single Hiroshima-size bomb and blast effects would 
> have covered a much larger area than ground zero. Later, it was 
> security theatre (like TSA screenings), not particularly effective but 
> it reassured the public (while at the same time reminding the public 
> to stay scared enough to support the work of the security 
> bureaucracy), and everybody's ass was covered. Later still, it was 
> just silly, a dozen nukes spread around the city wouldn't leave 
> anything after they went off, and I expect building superintendents 
> started bitching about the space that bomb shelters took up.

As an aside, in the 1960s, Western Union installed an atomic
bomb alarm system.  These were monitors atop poles that were
designed to detect the bright flash from an atomic blast, and
only that source (ignoring lightning, reflected sunlight, etc).
They would be able to transmit an alarm before being destroyed.
(I'll dig out the URL for the technical reference if anyone is
interested).

Presumably the system has been dismantled, but I don't know
how long it remained in service.  Fortunately, it was never
tested in actual service.

I think today satellites are able to detect an atomic blast.
Based on news reports, they can detect far smaller explosions,
such as a plane being blown up.

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

#164796

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>
> I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>
> MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
> I don't know how far along they got.

One of them became TOPS-10.

<snip>

/BAH

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

#164914

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM000534C33DB80337@aca41ec1.ipt.aol.com...
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>>
>> I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>>
>> MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
>> I don't know how far along they got.
>
> One of them became TOPS-10.
>

I always thought that TWENEX from BBN is what became TOPS-10...

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#164941

Charles Richmond wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000534C33DB80337@aca41ec1.ipt.aol.com...
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>>>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>>>
>>> I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>>>
>>> MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
>>> I don't know how far along they got.
>>
>> One of them became TOPS-10.
>>
>
> I always thought that TWENEX from BBN is what became TOPS-10...
>
TENEX became TOPS-20.

/BAH

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

#165341

jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

> Charles Richmond wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM000534C33DB80337@aca41ec1.ipt.aol.com...
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>>>>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>>>>
>>>> I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>>>>
>>>> MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
>>>> I don't know how far along they got.
>>>
>>> One of them became TOPS-10.
>>>
>>
>> I always thought that TWENEX from BBN is what became TOPS-10...
>>
> TENEX became TOPS-20.
> 
> /BAH

And thus the misnomer "Twenex", alluding to the mistaken notion that code could
be written for both OSes at once without conditionals.

Tops-10 is the direct descendant of the PDP-6 monitor.

-- 
Rich Alderson                                   news@alderson.users.panix.com
    the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
    to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...

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

#165380

On 16 Jun 2016 17:11:28 -0400, Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com>
wrote:
>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PM000534C33DB80337@aca41ec1.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>>>>>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>>>>>
>>>>> I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>>>>>
>>>>> MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
>>>>> I don't know how far along they got.
>>>>
>>>> One of them became TOPS-10.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I always thought that TWENEX from BBN is what became TOPS-10...
>>>
>> TENEX became TOPS-20.
>> 
>> /BAH
>
>And thus the misnomer "Twenex", alluding to the mistaken notion that code could
>be written for both OSes at once without conditionals.

"Twenex" was a joke name for TOPS-20.  I never heard anyone suggest that it
meant anything else.

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

#165426

usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:

> On 16 Jun 2016 17:11:28 -0400, Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com>
> wrote:

>> And thus the misnomer "Twenex", alluding to the mistaken notion that code
>> could be written for both OSes at once without conditionals.

> "Twenex" was a joke name for TOPS-20.  I never heard anyone suggest that it
> meant anything else.

It was taken seriously by some of the AI hackers of my acquaintance.

-- 
Rich Alderson                                   news@alderson.users.panix.com
    the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
    to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...

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

#164814

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:17:06 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>> over some kind of data link from D.C.
>
>I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.
>
>MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
>I don't know how far along they got.  Compsci people criticized
>IBM for failing to include certain features for timesharing in
>the original S/360 announcement.  IBM rushed to provide it, and
>found that it was a lot harder than the theorists claimed.  Serving
>a few users with simple stuff could be done, however, complex work
>by a lot of users was too much for the machines of that era.  (The
>IBM S/360 history goes into detail on this.)
>
>So, I doubt at that time the Pentagon had any _on-line_ connection
>to the MIT machine.
>
>What is possible is that MIT was asked to do some computer work
>for the Pentagon via conventional means, and that work tied up
>the machine.
>
>
>The Cuban missile crisis was unsettling.  In school, we had
>frequent air raid drills.  Our 'shelter' was simply going
>into the hallway, which didn't seem a lot of protection.
>
>Then, we had a city wide air raid drill.  We'd get printed
>cards explaining the various siren codes and what to do.
>There were two special radio stations to tune to for info.
>
>We were not to use the telephone.  Early on, they discovered
>that an air raid drill inspired lots of people to use the 
>phone, which crashed the telephone network.  I think today,
>people should be instructed not to use the phone (landline or
>mobile) during major emergencies because the system still gets
>overloaded and true urgent calls can't get through.

During hurricanes, people are instructed by radio and tv stations to
not use the telephones. At least along the Gulf of Mexico, not sure
about the US east coast.

>For years after, city sirens would be tested every Wednesday 
>at noon.  I don't know if they still bother, or if the sirens
>even still work.

I've heard of counties that test sirens once a month to make sure they
work in case tornadoes show up.

-- 
JimP.

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

#165490

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:37:17 AM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:

 [snip]
>> Allegedly, this was because the Pentagon had coopted *all* the cycles
>> over some kind of data link from D.C.

> I strongly doubt that happened, in that context.

> MIT was doing experiments with time sharing in that era, although
> I don't know how far along they got.  Compsci people criticized
> IBM for failing to include certain features for timesharing in
> the original S/360 announcement.  IBM rushed to provide it, and
> found that it was a lot harder than the theorists claimed.  Serving
> a few users with simple stuff could be done, however, complex work
> by a lot of users was too much for the machines of that era.  (The
> IBM S/360 history goes into detail on this.)

I left MIT in June 1963, but at that time (IIRC, of course) there were two 
competing time-sharing projects running, one using the 7090 and the other on 
a PDP-1. Neither was anywhere near operational status at the time I left.

One interesting side effect of the development effort was that the 7090 
(normally running FMS; IBSYS was still on the horizon) could be used for 
batch work while the TS testing was running - but only 16K memory (in 36-bit 
words) was available, too little for the full FORTRAN compiler...but the MAD 
compiler was able to run with no problems.

On the PDP-1 the TS project (or so I was told; I had nothing to do with it) 
obtained a drum, with 32 tracks available.  One track was immediately 
dedicated to Spacewar, so the load tape for it shrank from perhaps 1.5 
inches width (fanfold) to perhaps two feet long and not worth folding.

Joe 

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

#164738

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Wrote in message:
> The NYT of 11/28/1962, pg 57, reported that users remotely
> accessed a Honeywell computer via terminals.  No card
> punching in advance was necessary.
> 
> They utilized a Western Union Telex terminal, a Teletype model
> 32 (three row Baudot* machine).
> 
> The computer was located at a Honeywell site in Newton, MA.
> Users were located in Minneapolis, New York City, and Boston.
> 
> While computers had remote batch access in the 1950s, I
> wonder if this 1962 attempt was the first on-line interactive
> effort.
> 
> 
> * Presumably the computer had to convert the Baudot
> Letters and Figures shift codes inward and outward, but
> that wasn't too hard to do via software.

George Stibitz used a teletype to demo one of the early Bell Labs
 relay computers from Hanover, NH in September 1940.


http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4395946/Stibitz-
demonstrates-remote-computing--September-11--1940

-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web