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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162501 > unrolled thread

Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)?

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-04-15 07:16 -0700
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-15 17:16 +0200
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 19:55 +1000
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-21 11:10 +0100
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 22:17 -0400
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-15 14:03 -0700
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-17 10:36 -0400
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-17 15:46 +0100
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-04-17 09:52 -0600
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-04-17 17:18 -0700
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-22 11:01 -0400
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-26 08:22 +0100
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-26 08:20 +0100
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-19 11:44 -0700
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-20 01:36 +0000
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-20 16:58 -0700
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:52 +0000
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-21 12:37 -0700
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 16:25 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 17:35 -0400
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 21:51 +0000
                    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 20:58 -0400
                      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 11:34 -0400
                        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:53 -0700
                      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:45 -0700
                    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 11:34 -0400
                      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:55 -0700
                      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:18 +0000
                    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:38 -0700
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 21:21 -0400
                    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 22:21 -0400
                    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-04-21 21:53 -0700
                    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 15:22 +0000
                      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-22 17:55 +0000
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:31 -0700
                    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 10:43 -0400
                      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-23 12:48 -0700
                        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-23 16:21 -0400
                          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 18:12 -0400
                            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 20:44 -0500
                              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-04-24 09:09 +0000
                          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-25 15:08 +0000
                          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-25 13:39 -0700
                        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 18:07 -0400
                          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-25 13:48 -0700
                            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 17:33 -0400
                              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 19:47 -0400
                                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 22:56 -0400
                              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-04-26 17:51 -0500
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 21:40 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-21 22:31 -0400
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 15:22 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-22 07:15 +0100
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-22 14:44 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:16 -0700
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 17:10 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 22:38 -0700
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-23 16:28 +0000
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 12:35 -0400
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-21 12:41 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 16:25 -0400
                  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:18 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#162501 — Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)?

On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
> the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
> System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?

The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people didn't 
see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was already 
on the way out.

Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated the 
saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the 
world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with them 
until they gave up on cards entirely.

John Savard

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#162505

In article <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
>> the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
>> System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
>
>The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people didn't 
>see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was already 
>on the way out.
>
>Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated the 
>saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the 
>world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with them 
>until they gave up on cards entirely.

I have the impression that the suits used cards, the production engineers 
used paper tape, and everyone else used 9" magtapes.

-- mrr

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

#162788

"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g6d7uc-quf.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
>>> the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
>>> System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
>>
>>The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people 
>>didn't
>>see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was 
>>already
>>on the way out.
>>
>>Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated 
>>the
>>saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the
>>world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with 
>>them
>>until they gave up on cards entirely.
>
> I have the impression that the suits used cards, the production engineers
> used paper tape, and everyone else used 9" magtapes.

Nope. I used them all, simultaneously too.

Paper tape was more viable for the earlier data loggers
before direct connection or floppys were viable and
vastly cheaper than 9" mag tape that was never viable
for anything except very large scale data loggers.

Cards were much more viable than paper tape for the
dinosaurs who found them easier to understand than
screen editors.

 

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

#162790

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:55:49 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:g6d7uc-quf.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>> In article <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
>>>> the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
>>>> System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
>>>
>>>The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people 
>>>didn't
>>>see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was 
>>>already
>>>on the way out.
>>>
>>>Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated 
>>>the
>>>saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the
>>>world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with 
>>>them
>>>until they gave up on cards entirely.
>>
>> I have the impression that the suits used cards, the production engineers
>> used paper tape, and everyone else used 9" magtapes.
>
>Nope. I used them all, simultaneously too.
>
>Paper tape was more viable for the earlier data loggers
>before direct connection or floppys were viable and
>vastly cheaper than 9" mag tape that was never viable
>for anything except very large scale data loggers.
>
>Cards were much more viable than paper tape for the
>dinosaurs who found them easier to understand than
>screen editors.
>
> 

I used them all at the same time. Paper tape was more difficult to
shuffle than cards! After dropping a box of cards it was quite
difficult to get them back into order.

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

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

#162839

In article <md9hhbpsqrlircfuc5mcchj2dgpito7ube@4ax.com>, 
steve@easynn.com says...
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:55:49 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
> >news:g6d7uc-quf.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> >> In article <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
> >>>> the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
> >>>> System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
> >>>
> >>>The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people 
> >>>didn't
> >>>see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was 
> >>>already
> >>>on the way out.
> >>>
> >>>Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated 
> >>>the
> >>>saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the
> >>>world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with 
> >>>them
> >>>until they gave up on cards entirely.
> >>
> >> I have the impression that the suits used cards, the production engineers
> >> used paper tape, and everyone else used 9" magtapes.
> >
> >Nope. I used them all, simultaneously too.
> >
> >Paper tape was more viable for the earlier data loggers
> >before direct connection or floppys were viable and
> >vastly cheaper than 9" mag tape that was never viable
> >for anything except very large scale data loggers.
> >
> >Cards were much more viable than paper tape for the
> >dinosaurs who found them easier to understand than
> >screen editors.
> >
> > 
> 
> I used them all at the same time. Paper tape was more difficult to
> shuffle than cards! After dropping a box of cards it was quite
> difficult to get them back into order.

That's what sequence numbers are for--run 'em through the sorter and 
you're back in business.

Neat thing about cards is that you can change the code just by swapping 
cards in and out.
> 
> Steve

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

#162526

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people didn't 
> see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was already 
> on the way out.

The System/3 was introduced in 1969.  At that point in time,
electro-mechanical devices were still cheaper than electronic--
that would change radically in the next ten years--but in _1969_
the punched card still reigned supreme for data entry.

In 1970 IBM introduced the 129 keypunch machine.

As mentioned, the Bell System's use of the ancient step-by-step
Strowger switched _peaked_ in 1974.  It took a long time for ESS
to replace it.

During the 1970s, key to tape and key to disk systems would be
developed that were cost-effective competitors to the punched-card
and keypunch machines.  It would take until about 1980 that
they were widely deployed.

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

#162609

In article <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 
> > Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
> > the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
> > System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
> 
> The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people 
> didn't 
> see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was 
> already 
> on the way out.
> 
> Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated the 
> saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the 
> world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with 
> them 
> until they gave up on cards entirely.
> 
> John Savard

A lot of systems were constrained by the 80 column limit. For example 
the use of two and even one digit year numbers. And we like it. 

You had punched cards? When I was a boy we had to use clay tablets.

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

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

#162613

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:36:22 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> 
>
>You had punched cards? When I was a boy we had to use clay tablets.

I found the clay media produced too many pottery errors?

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

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

#162625

On 04/17/2016 08:46 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:36:22 -0400, Walter Bushell<proto@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article<e7c4c27b-04ac-435a-a74a-c3b403c5ded1@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>> You had punched cards? When I was a boy we had to use clay tablets.
>
> I found the clay media produced too many pottery errors?
>

Especially, on noisy lines when there were many dropped pots.

-- 
Dave Pitts             PULLMAN: Travel and sleep in safety and comfort.
dpitts@cozx.com

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

#162644

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 9:36:22 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
>  Quadibloc wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc... wrote:
> > 
> > > Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
> > > the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
> > > System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
> > 
> > The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people 
> > didn't 
> > see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was 
> > already 
> > on the way out.
> > 
> > Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated the 
> > saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set the 
> > world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed with 
> > them 
> > until they gave up on cards entirely.
> > 
> > John Savard
> 
> A lot of systems were constrained by the 80 column limit. For example 
> the use of two and even one digit year numbers. And we like it. 
> 
> You had punched cards? When I was a boy we had to use clay tablets.

You had clay?    We only had rocks.

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

#162860

In article <8c35ceaa-7d8e-4a75-a520-a296444f7f7e@googlegroups.com>,
 Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 9:36:22 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
> >  Quadibloc wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc... wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?  Were
> > > > the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller card?  Did
> > > > System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80 column card?
> > > 
> > > The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many people 
> > > didn't 
> > > see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card was 
> > > already 
> > > on the way out.
> > > 
> > > Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt appreciated 
> > > the 
> > > saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't set 
> > > the 
> > > world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often stayed 
> > > with 
> > > them 
> > > until they gave up on cards entirely.
> > > 
> > > John Savard
> > 
> > A lot of systems were constrained by the 80 column limit. For example 
> > the use of two and even one digit year numbers. And we like it. 
> > 
> > You had punched cards? When I was a boy we had to use clay tablets.
> 
> You had clay?    We only had rocks.

In my first job we had to create the Solar System so we could have rocks.

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

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

#162944

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:01:43 -0400
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <8c35ceaa-7d8e-4a75-a520-a296444f7f7e@googlegroups.com>,
>  Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 9:36:22 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > >  Quadibloc wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc... wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?
> > > > > Were the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller
> > > > > card?  Did System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80
> > > > > column card?
> > > > 
> > > > The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many
> > > > people didn't 
> > > > see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card
> > > > was already 
> > > > on the way out.
> > > > 
> > > > Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt
> > > > appreciated the 
> > > > saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't
> > > > set the 
> > > > world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often
> > > > stayed with 
> > > > them 
> > > > until they gave up on cards entirely.
> > > > 
> > > > John Savard
> > > 
> > > A lot of systems were constrained by the 80 column limit. For example 
> > > the use of two and even one digit year numbers. And we like it. 
> > > 
> > > You had punched cards? When I was a boy we had to use clay tablets.
> > 
> > You had clay?    We only had rocks.
> 
> In my first job we had to create the Solar System so we could have rocks.

	But that's nothing to the old-timer on the team. When he started he
had *nothing* and he had t' jiggle it to make the photons for us, but
before that he had to create himself.

	Now that's bootstrapping.

-- 
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]

#162945

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:01:43 -0400
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <8c35ceaa-7d8e-4a75-a520-a296444f7f7e@googlegroups.com>,
>  Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 9:36:22 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > >  Quadibloc wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-6, hanc... wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Would anyone know how the 96 column card worked out in practice?
> > > > > Were the machines reliable?  Did the users like the smaller
> > > > > card?  Did System/360 users want it to replace the bigger 80
> > > > > column card?
> > > > 
> > > > The 80-column card was so much the established standard that many
> > > > people didn't 
> > > > see a point in changing. And when it was introduced, the punch card
> > > > was already 
> > > > on the way out.
> > > > 
> > > > Even so, a lot of businesses did make use of it, and no doubt
> > > > appreciated the 
> > > > saving in storage space. So it was a modest success, but it didn't
> > > > set the 
> > > > world on fire - places that used 80-column cards already often
> > > > stayed with 
> > > > them 
> > > > until they gave up on cards entirely.
> > > > 
> > > > John Savard
> > > 
> > > A lot of systems were constrained by the 80 column limit. For example 
> > > the use of two and even one digit year numbers. And we like it. 
> > > 
> > > You had punched cards? When I was a boy we had to use clay tablets.
> > 
> > You had clay?    We only had rocks.
> 
> In my first job we had to create the Solar System so we could have rocks.

	Furrfu! Newcomers! We had to condense photons to get the particles
to make the atoms.

-- 
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]

#162729

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 10:36:22 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:

> A lot of systems were constrained by the 80 column limit. For example 
> the use of two and even one digit year numbers. And we like it. 

It wasn't just the size of the punched card that constrained 
old systems; it was also the limited core memory and small
sizes of disk and tape.

Punched card systems often required more than one card to hold
all data, and the machines could handle sequence numbers.  

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

#162744

On 2016-04-19, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 10:36:22 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>> A lot of systems were constrained by the 80 column limit. For example 
>> the use of two and even one digit year numbers. And we like it. 
>
> It wasn't just the size of the punched card that constrained 
> old systems; it was also the limited core memory and small
> sizes of disk and tape.
>
> Punched card systems often required more than one card to hold
> all data, and the machines could handle sequence numbers.  

Sorting and merging were quite sophisticated, even on card-only
systems.  Unfortunately, it's become a lost art.  (Take a look
at the hijinks Excel gets up to, for instance.)

-- 
/~\  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]

#162777

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 9:37:16 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
 
> Sorting and merging were quite sophisticated, even on card-only
> systems.  Unfortunately, it's become a lost art.  (Take a look
> at the hijinks Excel gets up to, for instance.)

The IBM history mentions that the S/3 product line included an
offline card sorter, the last card device developed by IBM.
(Cards could also be sorted by the S/3 "multi function" card
reader.)

As to MERGE, I must admit that over my career I can't remember
any time that I actually used the MERGE command, while I utilized
the SORT command several times a day.

ROSCOE had a SORT command for the workspace that was most useful.
I'm surprised TSO didn't have that.  (ROSCOE also had a JCL and
COBOL syntax checker, too.)

In tab days, the collator was a key piece of equipment to merge
cards from different files together.  I believe one important
function was to match permanent file cards with detail transaction
cards.  That is, matching the header information (e.g. name, SSN,
wage rate, etc) with time cards to create a check, then to detach
the permanent cards.

In thinking about it, processing a payroll by tab machine must have
been quite slow and cumbersome, given the various steps and controls.
However, _for a large volume run_, it was still faster than clerks
banging away on NCR bookkeeping machines.  (bitsavers has patent
info on some NCR machines, which includes detail descriptions of
how they worked.   While the machines did some calculations, I think
the multiplication had to be done first by other machine or by hand
and then merely posted on the NCR machine.  I think the NCR machine
basically was a fancy typewriter, printing out a check and separate
register tapes.


As to Excel, one frustration is that the toolbar has TWO sort
commands.  One only does a column, separating it from the rest
of the row, which seems a bad function (at least to me.)  The
other is a true sort, which includes sub-totals and control
breaks.   The true sort is actually quite powerful and, once
you get used to using it, can whip out a nice clean report
very quickly, far faster than even a report generator on the
mainframe like Easytrieve or DYL280.

I will cede that the AS/400 had a nice utility package.

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

#162783

On 2016-04-20, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> In tab days, the collator was a key piece of equipment to merge
> cards from different files together.  I believe one important
> function was to match permanent file cards with detail transaction
> cards.  That is, matching the header information (e.g. name, SSN,
> wage rate, etc) with time cards to create a check, then to detach
> the permanent cards.

That's about right.  The ultimate, though, was if you had multiple
card readers.  Then you could dispense with the collator: you didn't
have to merge the cards together beforehand, or use a sorter to
separate them afterwards.

My first job was in a shop with three card readers.  For a typical
accounts receivable run you'd put the customer name deck into one
reader, the current month's transaction deck into another, and the
balance forward cards from last month into the third (preferably
the slowest since that deck was smallest).  The program would read
all three decks, merging as required, grind out the statements, and
punch a new set of balance forward cards for next month.

> As to Excel, one frustration is that the toolbar has TWO sort
> commands.  One only does a column, separating it from the rest
> of the row, which seems a bad function (at least to me.)  The
> other is a true sort, which includes sub-totals and control
> breaks.   The true sort is actually quite powerful and, once
> you get used to using it, can whip out a nice clean report
> very quickly, far faster than even a report generator on the
> mainframe like Easytrieve or DYL280.

My pet peeve is the bizarre ideas Excel has about sorting.
I mean, putting blanks _after_ everything else instead of
ahead - completely ignoring the characters' collating sequence?
And then there's its insistence on meddling with anything that
looks remotely like a date or numeric field.  I store dates
internally in year-month-day format so that they sort easily,
but Excel decrees that everything must be month-day-year and
swizzles the field - and then has the nerve to ask, "Would you
like to save the changes you've made?"  And don't get me started
about phone numbers that come out like 6.04942E+09 - or what
happens to a field that just happens to be all numeric digits
with a leading zero, e.g. a phone number like 01144xxxxxxxxx.
Forget about putting the data in quotes, like the CSV standard
calls for - Excel looks inside and mucks with the data anyway.

I spend a lot of time "Excel-proofing" my CSV files.

-- 
/~\  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]

#162817

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:53:52 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:


> My pet peeve is the bizarre ideas Excel has about sorting.
> I mean, putting blanks _after_ everything else instead of
> ahead - completely ignoring the characters' collating sequence?
> And then there's its insistence on meddling with anything that
> looks remotely like a date or numeric field.  I store dates
> internally in year-month-day format so that they sort easily,
> but Excel decrees that everything must be month-day-year and
> swizzles the field - and then has the nerve to ask, "Would you
> like to save the changes you've made?"  And don't get me started
> about phone numbers that come out like 6.04942E+09 - or what
> happens to a field that just happens to be all numeric digits
> with a leading zero, e.g. a phone number like 01144xxxxxxxxx.
> Forget about putting the data in quotes, like the CSV standard
> calls for - Excel looks inside and mucks with the data anyway.

Maybe I was using an old version of Excel, but I did not have
any problem with it adding leading or trailing spaces, and it
kept the date as YMD.  If I had a numeric field that I wanted
treated as text, like a phone number, I did have to tell it that
column of cells was text, but then it was ok.

Perhaps there were automated features I was lucky enough to
have turned off.  It is frustrating!

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

#162822

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-20, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 
>> In tab days, the collator was a key piece of equipment to merge
>> cards from different files together.  I believe one important
>> function was to match permanent file cards with detail transaction
>> cards.  That is, matching the header information (e.g. name, SSN,
>> wage rate, etc) with time cards to create a check, then to detach
>> the permanent cards.
> 
> That's about right.  The ultimate, though, was if you had multiple
> card readers.  Then you could dispense with the collator: you didn't
> have to merge the cards together beforehand, or use a sorter to
> separate them afterwards.
> 
> My first job was in a shop with three card readers.  

Wow, I never saw a place with more than one!

For a typical
> accounts receivable run you'd put the customer name deck into one
> reader, the current month's transaction deck into another, and the
> balance forward cards from last month into the third (preferably
> the slowest since that deck was smallest).  The program would read
> all three decks, merging as required, grind out the statements, and
> punch a new set of balance forward cards for next month.
> 
>> As to Excel, one frustration is that the toolbar has TWO sort
>> commands.  One only does a column, separating it from the rest
>> of the row, which seems a bad function (at least to me.)  The
>> other is a true sort, which includes sub-totals and control
>> breaks.   The true sort is actually quite powerful and, once
>> you get used to using it, can whip out a nice clean report
>> very quickly, far faster than even a report generator on the
>> mainframe like Easytrieve or DYL280.
> 
> My pet peeve is the bizarre ideas Excel has about sorting.
> I mean, putting blanks _after_ everything else instead of
> ahead - completely ignoring the characters' collating sequence?
> And then there's its insistence on meddling with anything that
> looks remotely like a date or numeric field.  I store dates
> internally in year-month-day format so that they sort easily,
> but Excel decrees that everything must be month-day-year and
> swizzles the field - and then has the nerve to ask, "Would you
> like to save the changes you've made?"  And don't get me started
> about phone numbers that come out like 6.04942E+09 - or what
> happens to a field that just happens to be all numeric digits
> with a leading zero, e.g. a phone number like 01144xxxxxxxxx.
> Forget about putting the data in quotes, like the CSV standard
> calls for - Excel looks inside and mucks with the data anyway.
> 
> I spend a lot of time "Excel-proofing" my CSV files.
> 

Like everything else microsoft Excel thinks it knows what you want better
than you do.  That's why I hate ll their stuff.  I spent a while some time
ago turning off all the automatic stuff in word because it was driving my
wife nuts.  I think OO has most of the same options, but they're _off_ by
default.

-- 
Pete

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

#162825

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-04-20, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In tab days, the collator was a key piece of equipment to merge
>>> cards from different files together.  I believe one important
>>> function was to match permanent file cards with detail transaction
>>> cards.  That is, matching the header information (e.g. name, SSN,
>>> wage rate, etc) with time cards to create a check, then to detach
>>> the permanent cards.
>> 
>> That's about right.  The ultimate, though, was if you had multiple
>> card readers.  Then you could dispense with the collator: you didn't
>> have to merge the cards together beforehand, or use a sorter to
>> separate them afterwards.
>> 
>> My first job was in a shop with three card readers.  
>
> Wow, I never saw a place with more than one!

2540 and a 2501.
The 2501 never got much use.
I always felt the 2501 was a favor for the salesman.

>> For a typical
>> accounts receivable run you'd put the customer name deck into one
>> reader, the current month's transaction deck into another, and the
>> balance forward cards from last month into the third (preferably
>> the slowest since that deck was smallest).  The program would read
>> all three decks, merging as required, grind out the statements, and
>> punch a new set of balance forward cards for next month.

Sounds like your EAM procedures got moved to the computer without
redesign.

I had a lot of designs handed to me that involved punching out
new cards.  Somehow I managed to resist all that nonsense.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web