Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 176 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 05:05 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-20 13:57 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:26 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 10:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-25 18:13 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-25 21:35 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:28 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 17:49 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:29 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-21 12:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:36 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 09:38 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 11:07 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 11:35 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 12:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:52 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-23 23:16 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 00:21 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-24 13:23 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 15:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-24 22:37 +0200
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 15:53 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 16:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-26 16:24 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 16:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 16:33 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 06:49 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:02 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:18 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:39 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-26 16:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:36 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:41 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:26 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 22:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-27 12:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-27 09:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:38 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 08:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:43 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 19:05 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-28 16:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 05:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:37 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-27 18:48 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 08:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:37 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 12:19 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 11:08 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 18:46 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 17:58 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-28 22:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 17:39 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 22:52 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-29 15:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 16:47 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 12:04 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 05:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:21 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:48 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 14:47 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:09 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:18 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-29 18:02 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:28 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:42 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:49 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:57 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-30 08:39 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-31 09:36 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:38 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 10:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:23 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:44 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 12:25 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:32 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 11:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-01 12:48 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 12:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:07 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:52 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:48 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:31 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-01 23:55 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-02 14:59 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 13:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:29 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:53 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:24 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:20 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 18:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:50 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:33 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:55 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:18 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 20:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:37 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-11-03 06:56 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:14 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-30 20:50 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:05 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:29 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:51 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-26 09:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:28 -0700
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-26 17:19 +0000
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-26 17:02 -0400
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:40 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:34 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-27 07:00 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2015-10-27 10:15 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-27 20:09 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:42 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:22 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:23 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 16:09 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 19:31 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-26 13:10 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:45 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000523526764E1ED@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153523 |
Lawrence Statton wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. >> >> And that requires a file. > > No, it doesn't. It requires someone to remove the old board, and plug > the new board in its place. We manufactured those boards. Therefore, we had to have a file to dump onto those boards. > > It is *possible* (but unlikely) that FS could have merely replaced all > of the ROMs on the board, but that is a very unlikely scenario based on > the relative costs of doing that kind of work in the field versus at the > repair depot. > I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than fixed on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca5eecdc-a4e6-4a7f-bbee-0557d3f8fbb9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153596 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: > I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than fixed > on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit repaired back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized circuit cards and SLT chips.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052366B57816F7@aca4804e.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153649 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than fixed >> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. > > IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit repaired back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized circuit cards and SLT chips. > > I was talking about when FS stopped fixing in the field and the usual methods to fix a problem was to swap a board and ship the offending board back to corporate. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n15eqd$sdu$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #153649 |
On 30/10/2015 19:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than fixed >> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. > > IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit repaired back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized circuit cards and SLT chips. > > Thinking about it if the Ferranti Pegasus from 1954 was designed to have a large number of identical boards , so according to Simon Lavington's book tells be a Pegasus 1 had 444 boards of 20 different types. The CPU proper uses only five types of board. Judging by the bin of spares that is next to the Peagsus in MOSI the Pegasus was fixed by board swapping. In fact there was considerable presure to quickly fix a machine that was down and loosing money, so the ability to quickly fix machines came early. Designing machines with large numbers of identical login boards also made sense. Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 11:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d9muviFf2ooU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153738 |
"David Wade" wrote: > On 30/10/2015 19:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than >>> fixed >>> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. >> >> IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other >> components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective >> unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit >> repaired back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized >> circuit cards and SLT chips. >> >> > Thinking about it if the Ferranti Pegasus from 1954 was designed to have a > large number of identical boards , so according to Simon Lavington's book > tells be a Pegasus 1 had 444 boards of 20 different types. The CPU proper > uses only five types of board. Judging by the bin of spares that is next > to the Peagsus in MOSI the Pegasus was fixed by board swapping. > > In fact there was considerable presure to quickly fix a machine that was > down and loosing money, so the ability to quickly fix machines came early. > > Designing machines with large numbers of identical login boards also made > sense. Replacement of cards was the standard method by the 1955 at least. The field engineers I knew were *capable* of fixing the cards but card swapping returned the system to useful work sooner. I really don't have any idea what happened in the industry between 1945 and, say, 1955. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the field, a lot of the failed cards were simply discarded on some product lines. It seems cheaper than setting up an elaborate repair facility and procedures, especially for everyone smaller than IBM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 12:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1511011243300.7886@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153741 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Osmium wrote: > "David Wade" wrote: > >> On 30/10/2015 19:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than fixed >>>> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. >>> >>> IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other >>> components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective >>> unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit repaired >>> back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized circuit cards >>> and SLT chips. >>> >>> >> Thinking about it if the Ferranti Pegasus from 1954 was designed to have a >> large number of identical boards , so according to Simon Lavington's book >> tells be a Pegasus 1 had 444 boards of 20 different types. The CPU proper >> uses only five types of board. Judging by the bin of spares that is next to >> the Peagsus in MOSI the Pegasus was fixed by board swapping. >> >> In fact there was considerable presure to quickly fix a machine that was >> down and loosing money, so the ability to quickly fix machines came early. >> >> Designing machines with large numbers of identical login boards also made >> sense. > > Replacement of cards was the standard method by the 1955 at least. The field > engineers I knew were *capable* of fixing the cards but card swapping > returned the system to useful work sooner. I really don't have any idea what > happened in the industry between 1945 and, say, 1955. > > I wouldn't be surprised if, in the field, a lot of the failed cards were > simply discarded on some product lines. It seems cheaper than setting up an > elaborate repair facility and procedures, especially for everyone smaller > than IBM. > Given the cost of the computer, it makes sense to have modules and get things going again really fast. One time at an amateur radio club auction, I got a bag of modules, it was my understanding they were from a computer, but I have no idea and I think they are all gone. They had a circuit board, and then a metal panel attached at 90degrees. There were tube sockets on that panel. I can't remember what was in place for plugging into somewhere. A good source of parts, especially those tube sockets, so I doubt I have any remaining to look at now that I might have a better understanding of it. But at the time, the early seventies, there were lots of boards being sold surplus as "computer boards". Not sure if they were or weren't, I remember one local place had a bunch of such boards, lots of transistors and resistors, for 99cents. If you're mass producing the boards (and circuit boards with transistors certainly made that easy), the cost of manufacturing goes down, but the effort to repair goes up (as we've seen with more recent products). So at some point there probably is a tradeoff, it being cheaper to manufactur a new board than repair the old. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153741 |
Osmium wrote: > "David Wade" wrote: > >> On 30/10/2015 19:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than >>>> fixed >>>> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. >>> >>> IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other >>> components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective >>> unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit >>> repaired back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized >>> circuit cards and SLT chips. >>> >>> >> Thinking about it if the Ferranti Pegasus from 1954 was designed to have a >> large number of identical boards , so according to Simon Lavington's book >> tells be a Pegasus 1 had 444 boards of 20 different types. The CPU proper >> uses only five types of board. Judging by the bin of spares that is next >> to the Peagsus in MOSI the Pegasus was fixed by board swapping. >> >> In fact there was considerable presure to quickly fix a machine that was >> down and loosing money, so the ability to quickly fix machines came early. >> >> Designing machines with large numbers of identical login boards also made >> sense. > > Replacement of cards was the standard method by the 1955 at least. The > field engineers I knew were *capable* of fixing the cards but card swapping > returned the system to useful work sooner. I really don't have any idea what > happened in the industry between 1945 and, say, 1955. Boards were swapped if the system had to be up and running ASAP _and_ Field Service had a replacement part. If the system didn't need to be up, the FS person would try to fix the board. If it did need to be up, the board was fixed on-site or in the local office later. Only the unfixable boards would have been shpped back to corporate. > > I wouldn't be surprised if, in the field, a lot of the failed cards were > simply discarded on some product lines. It seems cheaper than setting up an > elaborate repair facility and procedures, especially for everyone smaller > than IBM. Discarding boards created a lot of accounting tasks to get the asset off the books. It was better to fix it, than to dump it. [I'm talking about back then; now people throw everything away.] /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 07:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9pukdF8624U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153770 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com... > Osmium wrote: >> "David Wade" wrote: >> >>> On 30/10/2015 19:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than >>>>> fixed >>>>> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. >>>> >>>> IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other >>>> components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a >>>> defective >>>> unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit >>>> repaired back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized >>>> circuit cards and SLT chips. >>>> >>>> >>> Thinking about it if the Ferranti Pegasus from 1954 was designed to have >>> a >>> large number of identical boards , so according to Simon Lavington's >>> book >>> tells be a Pegasus 1 had 444 boards of 20 different types. The CPU >>> proper >>> uses only five types of board. Judging by the bin of spares that is next >>> to the Peagsus in MOSI the Pegasus was fixed by board swapping. >>> >>> In fact there was considerable presure to quickly fix a machine that was >>> down and loosing money, so the ability to quickly fix machines came >>> early. >>> >>> Designing machines with large numbers of identical login boards also >>> made >>> sense. >> >> Replacement of cards was the standard method by the 1955 at least. The >> field engineers I knew were *capable* of fixing the cards but card >> swapping >> returned the system to useful work sooner. I really don't have any idea >> what >> happened in the industry between 1945 and, say, 1955. > > Boards were swapped if the system had to be up and running ASAP _and_ > Field Service had a replacement part. If the system didn't need to be up, > the FS person would try to fix the board. If it did need to be up, the > board was fixed on-site or in the local office later. Only the unfixable > boards would have been shpped back to corporate. > >> >> I wouldn't be surprised if, in the field, a lot of the failed cards were >> simply discarded on some product lines. It seems cheaper than setting up >> an >> elaborate repair facility and procedures, especially for everyone smaller >> than IBM. > > Discarding boards created a lot of accounting tasks to get > the asset off the books. It was better to fix it, than to dump it. Bullshit. What matters is whether the accounting paper shuffling was less work than fixing the board and it usually was with all but the simpler fixes particularly when anyone can do the paperwork and only the most skilled can do the fixing. > [I'm talking about back then; now people throw everything away.] You don’t have a clue how FS actually did things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000523A2B315E9F3@aca41ca4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153821 |
Rod Speed wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com... <snip> > > You don’t have a clue how FS actually did things. > And you don't know what you're talking about. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 08:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9sm14FthnkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153854 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM000523A2B315E9F3@aca41ca4.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com... > > <snip> > >> >> You don’t have a clue how FS actually did things. >> > And you don't know what you're talking about. How odd that I watched how FS did things. You never did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000523B7944E4250@aca40489.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153873 |
Rod Speed wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM000523A2B315E9F3@aca41ca4.ipt.aol.com... >> Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com... >> >> <snip> >> >>> >>> You don’t have a clue how FS actually did things. >>> >> And you don't know what you're talking about. > > How odd that I watched how FS did things. > > You never did. You may have watched someone fix the hardware. You didn't see all the work required for that guy to do his job. Nor were you aware of all the work required after that guy did his job. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 08:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9vd07Fk3t3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153908 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM000523B7944E4250@aca40489.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM000523A2B315E9F3@aca41ca4.ipt.aol.com... >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com... >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> >>>> You don’t have a clue how FS actually did things. >>>> >>> And you don't know what you're talking about. >> >> How odd that I watched how FS did things. >> >> You never did. > You may have watched someone fix the hardware. I fixed all the hardware except with the one machine which was on a DEC maintenance contract, the smallest and least capable machine of the lot, an 11/10AD > You didn't see all the work required for that guy to do his job. Wrong. That fool was so completely incompetent that I had to watch him like a hawk because he was absolutely guaranteed to fuck things up completely. He couldn’t even manage to replace the main transformer in a massive great drum printer which had every single terminal and wire labelled and put the correct wire on the correct terminal. And it was fucking hilarious watching him swap every fucking thing except the 6' high rack and STILL not manage to fix it. Turns out the spare board had a very similar fault to the one with the actual fault and that wasn’t obvious until you looked very closely, something he couldn’t manage and I had to work out what the problem was for him. > Nor were you aware of all the work > required after that guy did his job. Wrong again. I did in fact decide whether to use those facilitys myself with the hardware I did identify as faulty, decide whether to fix it myself or to get DEC to repair the module the same way FS does with a faulty module. You don’t have a fucking clue about what I actually did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 07:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <omargc-1l.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #153966 |
In article <d9vd07Fk3t3U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >news:PM000523B7944E4250@aca40489.ipt.aol.com... >> Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM000523A2B315E9F3@aca41ca4.ipt.aol.com... >>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com... >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You don’t have a clue how FS actually did things. >>>>> >>>> And you don't know what you're talking about. >>> >>> How odd that I watched how FS did things. >>> >>> You never did. > >> You may have watched someone fix the hardware. > >I fixed all the hardware except with the one machine >which was on a DEC maintenance contract, the smallest >and least capable machine of the lot, an 11/10AD > >> You didn't see all the work required for that guy to do his job. > >Wrong. That fool was so completely incompetent >that I had to watch him like a hawk because he was >absolutely guaranteed to fuck things up completely. >He couldn’t even manage to replace the main >transformer in a massive great drum printer which >had every single terminal and wire labelled and >put the correct wire on the correct terminal. > >And it was fucking hilarious watching him swap >every fucking thing except the 6' high rack and >STILL not manage to fix it. Turns out the spare >board had a very similar fault to the one with >the actual fault and that wasn’t obvious until you >looked very closely, something he couldn’t manage >and I had to work out what the problem was for him. Q: How do you identify the DEC FS guy with a flat tire at the roadside? A: He swaps the tires out one by one to see which one is flat. Q: How do you identify the DEC FS guy that has run out of gas at the roadside? A: He swaps the tires out one by one to see which one is flat. Sorry if you have heard it before. We, way up here in the boonies, managed to train our two FS guys quite well, though. >> Nor were you aware of all the work >> required after that guy did his job. > >Wrong again. I did in fact decide whether to use >those facilitys myself with the hardware I did identify >as faulty, decide whether to fix it myself or to get >DEC to repair the module the same way FS does >with a faulty module. > >You don’t have a fucking clue about what I actually did. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 06:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <da1p4iF7u11U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153989 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:omargc-1l.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <d9vd07Fk3t3U1@mid.individual.net>, > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>news:PM000523B7944E4250@aca40489.ipt.aol.com... >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM000523A2B315E9F3@aca41ca4.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:PM0005238EE27C1115@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You don’t have a clue how FS actually did things. >>>>>> >>>>> And you don't know what you're talking about. >>>> >>>> How odd that I watched how FS did things. >>>> >>>> You never did. >> >>> You may have watched someone fix the hardware. >> >>I fixed all the hardware except with the one machine >>which was on a DEC maintenance contract, the smallest >>and least capable machine of the lot, an 11/10AD >> >>> You didn't see all the work required for that guy to do his job. >> >>Wrong. That fool was so completely incompetent >>that I had to watch him like a hawk because he was >>absolutely guaranteed to fuck things up completely. >>He couldn’t even manage to replace the main >>transformer in a massive great drum printer which >>had every single terminal and wire labelled and >>put the correct wire on the correct terminal. >> >>And it was fucking hilarious watching him swap >>every fucking thing except the 6' high rack and >>STILL not manage to fix it. Turns out the spare >>board had a very similar fault to the one with >>the actual fault and that wasn’t obvious until you >>looked very closely, something he couldn’t manage >>and I had to work out what the problem was for him. > > Q: How do you identify the DEC FS guy with a flat tire at > the roadside? > > A: He swaps the tires out one by one to see which one is flat. > > Q: How do you identify the DEC FS guy that has run out of > gas at the roadside? > > A: He swaps the tires out one by one to see which one is flat. > > Sorry if you have heard it before. > > We, way up here in the boonies, managed to train our two FS > guys quite well, though. That one was completely untrainable. Lots of cars written off too. One of the other ones was so trainable that DEC eventually had to shaft him themselves after he got us to have a look at the system DEC had under contract down the road so he didn’t have to come out from the state capital by plane himself. >>> Nor were you aware of all the work >>> required after that guy did his job. >>Wrong again. I did in fact decide whether to use >>those facilitys myself with the hardware I did identify >>as faulty, decide whether to fix it myself or to get >>DEC to repair the module the same way FS does >>with a faulty module. >> >>You don’t have a fucking clue about what I actually did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a27beeed-334d-41b3-946d-d21168ed20c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153741 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-5, Osmium wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised if, in the field, a lot of the failed cards were > simply discarded on some product lines. It seems cheaper than setting up an > elaborate repair facility and procedures, especially for everyone smaller > than IBM. I think it depended on the cost of the components and repair. Just guessing, I suspect IBM did try to repair it's one-tube and five-tube circuit cards. They were big heavy things, with exposed wiring and soldered joints. I suspect they were hand made. It probably wasn't too hard for a technician at a workbench to play around with test gear, isolate a bad resistor, and replace it. On the other hand, their next circuit was SMS, which were printed circuits manufactured in high volume by automated machines. For those, I suspect bad ones were just discarded. Some bad ones returned from the field may have been studied to determine common failure points. As an aside, in 1948 the Bell System introduced the 555 and 556 cord switchboards. While they were functionally the same as older boards, the innards were designed as pluggable modules that could be popped in and out for repair or expansion. These were relay based, not electronic. So, pluggable technology certai pre-dates electronics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 23:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d6cbf60-43df-4f47-940c-ae7656bc5bbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153738 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 9:32:14 AM UTC-7, g4ugm wrote: > On 30/10/2015 19:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than fixed > >> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. > > IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other > > components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective > > unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit repaired > > back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized circuit cards > > and SLT chips. > Thinking about it if the Ferranti Pegasus from 1954 was designed to have > a large number of identical boards , so according to Simon Lavington's > book tells be a Pegasus 1 had 444 boards of 20 different types. The CPU > proper uses only five types of board. Judging by the bin of spares that > is next to the Peagsus in MOSI the Pegasus was fixed by board swapping. > In fact there was considerable presure to quickly fix a machine that was > down and loosing money, so the ability to quickly fix machines came early. > Designing machines with large numbers of identical login boards also > made sense. This of course reminds me: wasn't the Cray I designed to use only exactly four different types of logic chip? Ah, yes, my memory does serve me correctly - and I was able to find, online, original sources for this information. 95% of the chips were of *one* type: A chip containing one 5-input NAND gate and one 4-input NAND gate. Ah, that kind of chip counts as _two_ of the kinds of chip in the Cray-I, as a high-speed version and a lower-speed version of that chip were used!! Even the low-speed version had a delay of less than one nanosecond. The remaining *two* types of chip were: A bipolar register chip with a 6 nanosecond cycle time containing sixteen 4-bit entries, and A bipolar memory chip containing 1024 bits of data with a 50 nanosecond cycle time. All four types of chip were in 16-pin packages, and were ECL chips "supplied by both Fairchild and Motorola". Hmm. Another primary source amends that. The dual NAND gate is given as having a 750 picosecond propagation delay. Instead of a different speed of that, the fourth chip type is given as a dual D-type flip-flop. In addition, the RAM is now 4,096 bits, and it's in an 18-bit package instead of a 16-bit package. Oh, wait: this source is referring to the four chips in the CRAY-1S, which, being a different beast, is allowed to be slightly different. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec3584bf-bf2f-4e0b-9136-f7435a8224da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153762 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:55:08 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > This of course reminds me: wasn't the Cray I designed to use only exactly four > different types of logic chip? This was a big challenge in developing the earliest IBM machines, and is discussed in detail in the IBM history. When IBM developed its initial computers, it already had extensive experience maintaining customer equiment and it knew full well the electronic machines had to be easily maintaintable to keep costs down and provide reliable service. (Also, easy to manufacture). But there was a conflict between its circuit designers in the lab, manufacturing engineers in the factory, and service personnel. The designers kept demanding more circuits, saying it would improve performance as opposed to forcing other circuits to do the job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 14:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n18imo$dqi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153738 |
"David Wade" <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n15eqd$sdu$1@news.albasani.net... > On 30/10/2015 19:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:54:18 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> I don't remember when CPU boards started to be replaced rather than >>> fixed >>> on site. My guess would early 80s but I'm not sure. >> >> IBM developed pluggable circuit cards (tube plus resistors and other >> components) for tube units back in the late 1940s. This way a defective >> unit could be removed and replaced quicly, and the defective unit >> repaired back at the factory. This continued with SMS transistorized >> circuit cards and SLT chips. >> >> > Thinking about it if the Ferranti Pegasus from 1954 was designed to have a > large number of identical boards , so according to Simon Lavington's book > tells be a Pegasus 1 had 444 boards of 20 different types. The CPU proper > uses only five types of board. Judging by the bin of spares that is next > to the Peagsus in MOSI the Pegasus was fixed by board swapping. > > In fact there was considerable presure to quickly fix a machine that was > down and loosing money, so the ability to quickly fix machines came early. > > Designing machines with large numbers of identical login boards also made > sense. > Even the ENIAC was built with multi-tube "modules" that were replaced and repaired... instead of replacing individual tubes in the machine. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 05:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9f5kfFg573U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153512 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005233ED1260AF8@aca42db5.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052329BD057935@aca4145e.ipt.aol.com... >>> Charles Richmond wrote: >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM000523155F10ED51@aca410a7.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>>> Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure >>>>>>> don't remember the filenames. >>>>>> >>>>>> Microcode isn't (necessarily) stored in files. It's a way to >>>>>> implement >>>>>> the >>>>>> computer's instruction set, and is still built into the hardware in >>>>>> most >>>>> cases. >>>>>> If it is loaded externally, a special mechanism is needed so that it >>>>>> can >>>>> happen >>>>>> when the computer doesn't even work yet. (Thus, as an example, one >>>>>> IBM >>>>>> 370 >>>>>> model loaded the microcode from the first 8-inch floppy disk - it >>>>>> wasn't >>>>>> in >>>>> a >>>>>> file on one of the 3330 hard drives hooked to it.) >>>>> >>>>> You forget that I worked for the manufacturer. If it was a file, I >>>>> had >>>>> to package it on the distribution tapes so that a cold start could be >>>>> done. That includes the -11s we used for the KL front end and remote >>>>> stations. If it was burnt in on the manufacturing floor, then Field >>>>> Service had to have some way to access it which also included part >>>>> of my packaging of the diagnositc packs. I simply don't remember >>>>> a filename for that function. >>>>> >>>> >>>> BAH, were you in the plant where the CPUs were built??? Microcode is >>>> usually just an integral part of the CPU itself. Microcode >>>> orchestrates >>>> the >>>> steps that the CPU takes internally... to accomplish each machine >>>> language >>>> instruction. The microcode for a PDP-10 processor would *not* be >>>> distributed with the OS files. >>> >>> The KL microcode was distributed with the OS. It was a file. >>>> >>>> From what I have seen on the internet, the KS10 processor was >>>> implemented >>>> with microcode. >>> >>> And that was a file also. >>> >>> If there is no microcode file, how would it get fixed? >> >> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > > And that requires a file. But not a file that you ever got to see. The massive great wire wrap panels required a file too, but you never got to see those files either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 13:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87y4em4xej.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153434 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > And that was a file also. > > If there is no microcode file, how would it get fixed? > It depends on how the microcode is implemented. For the machines where the microcode was effectively embedded in the hardware, you swapped out the module(s) that contained the microcode. For CPUs with masked-in microcode ROMS (like the LSI-11 machines), you recalled and replaced the entire CPU. In fact, a good candidate as a bright-line test for the "difference between a microprocessor and minicomputer" is "Can you change out the microcode by replacing a component of the CPU, or is the CPU sufficiently monolothic that replacing the microcode replaces the entirety" There is an entire generation of computer users who think the Processor is A chip (or maybe a couple of chips stuck into a module, like some of the early Pentium family) and the thought of the CPU being multiple boards - one containing the ALU, and one containing the registers, and another containing the sequencer is entirely outside their reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web