Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #150402 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-25 13:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-30 10:42 -0900 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 112 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 13:24 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2015-08-25 13:35 -0800
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 23:19 +0100
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-08-25 17:36 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-08-25 19:41 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 09:16 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 09:47 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-26 10:00 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:18 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:37 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-27 08:31 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 14:41 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 20:17 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:59 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:01 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-29 13:46 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-26 21:00 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 19:41 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 07:28 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 12:47 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 20:17 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 23:02 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 09:38 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 07:47 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 19:24 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:42 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:57 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:54 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-30 18:44 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:19 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-27 18:58 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 17:57 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 17:59 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 18:26 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 14:57 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-28 14:09 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:38 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 06:06 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 15:22 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:49 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 15:51 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:28 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:34 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-10-28 22:11 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:59 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:31 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 20:07 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 03:57 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 10:20 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 04:51 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 07:08 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 12:29 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-31 12:04 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 06:11 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-31 12:37 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 13:20 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:18 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 10:41 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-31 15:21 +0100
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 15:13 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-31 12:49 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:04 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 07:48 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-01 13:56 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-01 18:33 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-10-31 11:30 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:15 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 02:55 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 07:36 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:33 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-29 18:03 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-29 11:44 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 16:03 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:15 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 21:51 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:20 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 07:28 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-30 14:57 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:26 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:32 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 23:10 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 19:09 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 16:35 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:35 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 12:05 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 12:22 -0700
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:15 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-30 17:31 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-30 17:44 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-30 23:38 -0400
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:08 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-11-03 16:44 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-11-05 15:28 -0600
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-05 17:05 -0500
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-26 22:12 +0100
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-16 18:48 -0800
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2015-11-25 16:00 +0000
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-30 09:43 -0800
Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2015-11-30 10:42 -0900
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0rdj10174g@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153471 |
On 2015-10-28, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > news:7f2abd0e-3b74-45fa-ae99-c8479baa8276@googlegroups.com... > >> [snip...] [snip...] >> [snip...] >> >> I didn't realize that this was what they meant by "tape picker" - I was >> envisaging a system for automated loading of 9-track tapes. Or that >> honeycomb device IBM made later on. > > The word "honeycomb" seems to touch something in my memory. I thin the > honeycomb device is what I was refering to. I had thought that a cell in > the honeycomb would hold a small length of tape. Help me out here... Definitely the IBM 3850. Try googling for it. -- /~\ 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]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VvidnXApjPVGrKzLnZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153419 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 5:58:52 PM UTC-6, Jon Elson wrote: >> But, they would occasionally >> mispick a card and tear it up, and then you had a real mess. > > And, of course, loss of data is the one intolerable thing in the mainframe > world. > > IBM probably made the device because NCR had something similar in its CRAM > device, and so they could not stand to see some other company offering a > capability they didn't have. > > I didn't realize that this was what they meant by "tape picker" - I was > envisaging a system for automated loading of 9-track tapes. Or that > honeycomb device IBM made later on. Yes, that came much later, it was an automated tape library system. Each tape held quite a bit of data. I don't think these were commonly seen on 360's, but on larger 370 installations. I think that's the 3850, and I believe it was considered to be quite reliable. The data cell cards were about the size of an IBM punch card, and so you can imagine the amount of data held on one of those using 1960's technology was not great. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 06:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <289355670.467719000.255358.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153416 |
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote: > Charles Richmond wrote: > > >> At a PPoE, the financial department had a large IBM mainframe. This >> department also had a "tape picker". If a disk file "aged out", then it >> was transferred to a small piece of mag tape and place in some kind of >> pigeon >> hole. If later this file was accessed, the "tape picker" would have to >> restore the file to actual disk before you could use it. That could take >> between 2 and 5 minutes. >> > That was an IBM 2321 data cell drive. Completely ingenious, and also > completely Rube Goldberg! While they did hold a log of data that rarely > needed access, they were NOT foolproof. You RARELY ever needed to touch it, > so foolproof is not really the correct term. But, they would occasionally > mispick a card and tear it up, and then you had a real mess. I think a LOT > of people were VERY glad when the darn things were withdrawn from service. > And, my understanding is that NO user installations begged IBM to continue > support for them. > Or maybe a 3850 Mass Storage System? http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/mss.html -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0p7vr12cpd@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153404 |
On 2015-10-27, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > My theory is: Things get easier and easier... until eventually those things > are *not* worth doing anymore. Being the cynic that I am, after watching what's happened to the industry, I have an alternate theory: things get harder and harder... until eventually those things are not worth doing anymore. (That's when I throw out the newfangled solutions and go back to something that works.) -- /~\ 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]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0ramc$358$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153422 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:n0p7vr12cpd@news7.newsguy.com... > On 2015-10-27, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > >> My theory is: Things get easier and easier... until eventually those >> things >> are *not* worth doing anymore. > > Being the cynic that I am, after watching what's happened to the industry, > I have an alternate theory: things get harder and harder... until > eventually > those things are not worth doing anymore. (That's when I throw out the > newfangled solutions and go back to something that works.) > Charlie, I think *my* theory makes more sense. Something always starts out being hard, like making a watch that will work. Eventually, watches are made very well. Then the digital plastic watch phase and the quarts crystal watches become cheap and take over. Now hardly anyone wears a watch at all. In the beginning when things were hard, it was very important to get them to work right. Now that it's easy, no one cares. A similar development course can be traced for many things. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f5ed788-8a4c-4c94-bcab-3e6dc1d8d08f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153475 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 4:22:40 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > Charlie, I think *my* theory makes more sense. Something always starts out > being hard, like making a watch that will work. Eventually, watches are > made very well. Then the digital plastic watch phase and the quarts crystal > watches become cheap and take over. Now hardly anyone wears a watch at all. > In the beginning when things were hard, it was very important to get them to > work right. Now that it's easy, no one cares. > A similar development course can be traced for many things. I think in many cases newer technology replaces the old. That is, the old technology is taken as far as it could go, then is replaced. For instance, passenger railroad service reached their peak in speed and comfort in the 1950s, but then jet plane and interstate highway service made trains obsolete. The telephone company kept exploring ways to improve electro-mechanical switching and analog transmission until digital electronics made it all obsolete. Note that for years the telephone company was working to improve pay telephone service and efficiency--a ton of stuff was done behind the scenes--but then cell phones made them mostly obsolete. As to wrist watches, I think basically the cell phone replaced them. Part of it is a fashion trend--a wrist watch was always both a functional item AND a fashion accessory. Plenty of people still wear watches, and they make plenty of fancy ones, too. The mainframe computer was supposed to be gone, but S/360's successors are still kicking strong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6aecf717-8370-4a24-ab1e-bd8761891862@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153479 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:49:31 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > The mainframe computer was supposed to be gone, but S/360's successors are > still kicking strong. IBM cheated. Seriously. Of course a computer that fills a room, and is no more powerful than a microcomputer built around a single Pentium chip, is very much obsolete today. But computers aren't obsolete. There was a difficult period when 8-bit and then early 16-bit microchips were cheap, but a more powerful computer still had to have its CPU built out of multiple integrated circuits. Some microcomputers, instead of sitting on the desktop, are servers. IBM today builds servers that are more reliable than others, and which run System/370 software. Servers aren't obsolete, and the 370 architecture is just as good an architecture to build chips around as the 68020 architecture - and a darn sight better than the 386 architecture. So there's no reason for the boxes IBM builds, and sells as mainframes, to be considered obsolete. They're built with up-to-date technology, and they do things well that people still want done, and done well. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 19:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f2767f2-2f72-46ac-bfdd-e3de83ff6e32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153495 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 6:51:23 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: [snip] > So there's no reason for the boxes IBM builds, and sells as mainframes, to be > considered obsolete. They're built with up-to-date technology, and they do > things well that people still want done, and done well. Basically, some years ago they said people would no longer want the mainframe solutions, and instead want client-server. It was predicted that the S/360 software (e.g. COBOL, CICS) would no longer be wanted. Indeed, a substantial number of S/360 applications have been retired. Some were old and easily replaced by a PC spreadsheet or database that was easier to use. (They were written on S/360 since that was the company's computer at the time.) Others were complex applications replaced by complex client server systems with perhaps hairy Java and Oracle. However, as you said, it has turned out, "they do things well that people still want done, and done well." Happy 51½ birthday S/360!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0rf1p02sgt@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153475 |
On 2015-10-28, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message > news:n0p7vr12cpd@news7.newsguy.com... > >> On 2015-10-27, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >> >>> My theory is: Things get easier and easier... until eventually those >>> things are *not* worth doing anymore. >> >> Being the cynic that I am, after watching what's happened to the industry, >> I have an alternate theory: things get harder and harder... until >> eventually those things are not worth doing anymore. (That's when >> I throw out the newfangled solutions and go back to something that works.) > > Charlie, I think *my* theory makes more sense. Something always starts out > being hard, like making a watch that will work. Eventually, watches are > made very well. Then the digital plastic watch phase and the quarts crystal > watches become cheap and take over. Now hardly anyone wears a watch at all. > In the beginning when things were hard, it was very important to get them to > work right. Now that it's easy, no one cares. > > A similar development course can be traced for many things. Aw, you missed my "cynic" warning above. But there is a bit of truth to it. Whenever I see someone pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and dragging and - damn, where did I drop it? - to do something I could do in half a dozen keystrokes - while all the time proclaiming how _easy_ those GUIs are to use, I wonder how much we've really advanced. OK, here's a more practical example. I used to do underwater photography with a trusty old Nikonos V, and got results good enough to be published. Yes, film has its drawbacks - you can't change a roll underwater, for instance. So just before we went on a dive trip to Mexico I bought a housed point & shoot camera. It was no fun at all. I had no TTL, I couldn't turn off the damned auto-focus, and I wound up with a dreadful bunch of fuzzy, badly exposed snapshots. It was so frustrating trying to make the camera do what I wanted that I retired from underwater photography. I wasn't willing to lay out big bucks for a new camera that might be able to do what I wanted. Nor was I willing to climb that learning curve all over again. It wasn't worth doing anymore. I've noticed that more and more, the problem with technology is not so much getting something to do what you want, as keeping the damned gadget from doing what you don't want. -- /~\ 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]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gjh23bd8i7njfuul7a5saac472ismhqeol@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #153487 |
On 28 Oct 2015 21:34:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: <aside> >I've noticed that more and more, the problem with technology is not so much >getting something to do what you want, as keeping the damned gadget from >doing what you don't want. My current unfavourite is my bathroom/bedroom scales. It seems not want to bother me with small changes in my weight of less than a pound. In this case it measures correctly, checks against the last value, and lies to me. Carl Goldsworthy -- I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10457$irr$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #153492 |
On 28/10/2015 22:11, Ibmekon wrote: > On 28 Oct 2015 21:34:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> > wrote: > > <aside> > >> I've noticed that more and more, the problem with technology is not so much >> getting something to do what you want, as keeping the damned gadget from >> doing what you don't want. > > My current unfavourite is my bathroom/bedroom scales. > > It seems not want to bother me with small changes in my weight of less > than a pound. > In this case it measures correctly, checks against the last value, and > lies to me. > > > Carl Goldsworthy > -- > I intend to live forever. > So far, so good. > I have Weight Watchers scales. Expensive but show changes of 1/4 of a pound...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9XMYx.809$CP7.258@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #153616 |
David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> writes: >On 28/10/2015 22:11, Ibmekon wrote: >> On 28 Oct 2015 21:34:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> <aside> >> >>> I've noticed that more and more, the problem with technology is not so much >>> getting something to do what you want, as keeping the damned gadget from >>> doing what you don't want. >> >> My current unfavourite is my bathroom/bedroom scales. >> >> It seems not want to bother me with small changes in my weight of less >> than a pound. >> In this case it measures correctly, checks against the last value, and >> lies to me. >> >> >> Carl Goldsworthy >> -- >> I intend to live forever. >> So far, so good. >> >I have Weight Watchers scales. Expensive but show changes of 1/4 of a >pound... My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound. The accuracy on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 20:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11860205-bd6a-4a4b-8ecd-6050408dfb61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153622 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:31:03 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound. The accuracy > on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound. My WW displays only in 0.5 pound increments, but that's good enough for me. As to accuracy, not helping is that the cat sneaks up behind me and puts his paws on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 03:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d9jhk6Fj34sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153622 |
"Scott Lurndal" wrote: > My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound. The accuracy > on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound. I lost 8.96 grams per day in October!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 10:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20151031102054.30ed5772f3d0d48acc3e3020@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153671 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 03:57:25 -0600 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > "Scott Lurndal" wrote: > > > My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound. The > > accuracy on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound. > > I lost 8.96 grams per day in October! So a bit over half a pound in total. I don't really understand how anyone weighs themselves to that kind of precision, the weight shown on my scales varies depending on where I put my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a good penc. -- 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]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 04:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d9jkp7Fjs4vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153673 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" wrote: > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > >> "Scott Lurndal" wrote: >> >> > My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound. The >> > accuracy on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound. >> >> I lost 8.96 grams per day in October! > > So a bit over half a pound in total. > > I don't really understand how anyone weighs themselves to that kind > of precision, the weight shown on my scales varies depending on where I > put > my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a good > penc. Sometimes a double-precision number is no more accurate than a single-precision number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 07:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <414915095.467982073.688215.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153673 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 03:57:25 -0600 > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > >> "Scott Lurndal" wrote: >> >>> My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound. The >>> accuracy on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound. >> >> I lost 8.96 grams per day in October! > > So a bit over half a pound in total. > > I don't really understand how anyone weighs themselves to that kind > of precision, the weight shown on my scales varies depending on where I put > my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a good > penc. > I figure anything up to half a pound a day is just noise. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20151031122946.bc496f250f47dde59633b1fa@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153675 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:08:13 -0400 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 03:57:25 -0600 > > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> "Scott Lurndal" wrote: > >> > >>> My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound. The > >>> accuracy on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound. > >> > >> I lost 8.96 grams per day in October! > > > > So a bit over half a pound in total. > > > > I don't really understand how anyone weighs themselves to that > > kind of precision, the weight shown on my scales varies depending on > > where I put my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by > > having a good penc. > > > > I figure anything up to half a pound a day is just noise. Drink a pint of BA and you've put on a pound and a quarter untill you cvff. -- 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]
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <84bnbfutv6.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #153673 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a good > penc. A what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 06:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d9jpgbFl16hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153680 |
"David Hume" wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > > >> my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a good >> penc. > > A what? Those darn spell checkers introduce so much undecipherable noise. My guess is pee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web