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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#162909

On 2016-04-24, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:

[83 lines snipped]

     1	> Most sites like that you can contact the admin and they will reset.

Sigh.

-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 41st day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#162923

On 2016-04-23, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Also, take  look at a lot of web applications.  It doesn't take long to
> find numerous examples of atrocious design - lack of appropriate help,
> impenetrable navigation, sites that force you to go back several steps to
> make a simple correction, etc.

But they're so _pretty_!

-- 
/~\  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]

#162927

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 4:21:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

> Also, take  look at a lot of web applications.  It doesn't take long to
> find numerous examples of atrocious design - lack of appropriate help,
> impenetrable navigation, sites that force you to go back several steps to
> make a simple correction, etc.

Or sites that flog your computer to death as they do their thing.

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

#162906

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 10:43:13 AM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote:
>
>> > Management likes control and predictability, and they had more
>> > of that in the tab world than with electronic computers.
>> 
>> Sounds like you're making excuses for those idiots.
>
> Certainly, many managers are idiots.  However, managers do
> have a different perspective--and responsibility--on the 
> situation than the workers, so it is understandable they
> would make different decisions.
>
>
>> Your argument about disk being unpredictable (especially
>> compared to card systems) is clearly wrong.
>
> Computer mainframe hardware was significantly less reliable 
> than it is today.  Today, it is extremely rare for our 
> mainframe and CICS applications to be unavailable.  Forty
> years ago, outages (for various reasons) were common.  The
> 360-40, 158 and supporting peripherals and operating systems
> did not have the reliability as today's systems.

That does not change the fact that a IBM 14xx with a 1311 drive
could and did operate for years without ever reporting a disk
error.

The only disk failure I ever saw was the one I caused by
using a rag to slow down the drive rotation for a quick pack
change.  The rag touched the heads and that was it for the drive.
Only took a few hours to fix.

> If you go back to pre-S/360 days, the hardware was even less
> reliable.  Yes, an electronic computer had advantages over
> electro-mechanical card machines, but in those days it was
> understandable for a manager to be nervous.

I started before S/360.
The machines I worked with were way more reliable than the old
EAM stuff.

> Also, in those days, there was a shortage of competent qualified
> programmers.  Histories (various books by MIT Press) report
> that sometimes industry got stuck with academics who developed
> notoriously poor systems, that didn't have good controls nor 
> backup, and proved to be a mess in actual service.  Author
> Alvin Townsend (Up the Organization) also wrote about this.
>
> Unfortunately, back then many managers were at the mercy
> of the new fellows--it was so new then few had the experience--
> and managers weren't equipped to accurately judge if someone
> was just bullsh** or not.

All true.

>> All of my experience showed new, well designed automation
>> could be error proof compared to card shuffling EAM based
>> systems.
>
> The key word was "well designed".  

Yes, well designed included not punching out cards,
no requiring pre-sort, etc.

> Our first assignment in my college computer class was to 
> bring in an example of a poor computer system.  Every
> kid brought in not one, but multiple examples of systems
> that they personally had trouble with.  Clearly, there were
> lots of systems out there that, for whatever reason, were
> not "well designed".

This must have been the age of online systems.
There are so many to choose from.

> Fast forward to the present, I know of an expensive Oracle 
> system that was supposed to replace a mainframe system.  Ten 
> years later, the mainframe app remains in service in parallel 
> since certain sub-functions were never developed, and 
> certain things still do not work properly.

Not surprised.  I put together many 14xx systems with internal
business logic that your average COBOLer could stumble over.
Just because a "legacy" system is old doesn't mean that it
isn't full of finely crafted business logic.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#162928

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 6:07:27 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote:

> That does not change the fact that a IBM 14xx with a 1311 drive
> could and did operate for years without ever reporting a disk
> error.

Some examples...

Our 2314 locked up and our entire S/360 was dead until the C/E
could come to reset it.  Lost a morning's production.

Our 3705 locked up after a momentary power surge.  Took forever
to restart; in the meantime, the entire 3270 network was down.

Our I/O controller locked up for a few days until they fixed it.

 
> I started before S/360.
> The machines I worked with were way more reliable than the old
> EAM stuff.

Ok, but with EAM stuff you could pull out the offending card,
visually examine it, and restart things relatively easily.  Not
as easily done with electronic computers.  People here have reported
using a special fluid and ironing filings to view mag tape contents.

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

#162931

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 6:07:27 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote:
>
>> That does not change the fact that a IBM 14xx with a 1311 drive
>> could and did operate for years without ever reporting a disk
>> error.
>
> Some examples...
>
> Our 2314 locked up and our entire S/360 was dead until the C/E
> could come to reset it.  Lost a morning's production.
>
> Our 3705 locked up after a momentary power surge.  Took forever
> to restart; in the meantime, the entire 3270 network was down.
>
> Our I/O controller locked up for a few days until they fixed it.
>  
>> I started before S/360.
>> The machines I worked with were way more reliable than the old
>> EAM stuff.
>
> Ok, but with EAM stuff you could pull out the offending card,
> visually examine it, and restart things relatively easily.

A mangled card is easy to fix.  An actual broken EAM machine
was just as hard to fix as a computer.

> Not as easily done with electronic computers.  People here have reported
> using a special fluid and ironing filings to view mag tape contents.

I've read that iron filings story a couple of times here.
Never heard the story anywhere else, even a second hand recounting.
That kind of action should not be necessary.  That's what
backups are for.

I once had to guide a site through backup restore and the first
generation backups were no good.  Took quite a while but we
got the data back by going back another generation.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#162935

"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> D_J_E wrote:

[hardware reliability]

>> Ok, but with EAM stuff you could pull out the offending card,
>> visually examine it, and restart things relatively easily.

> A mangled card is easy to fix.  An actual broken EAM machine
> was just as hard to fix as a computer.

>> Not as easily done with electronic computers.  People here have reported
>> using a special fluid and ironing filings to view mag tape contents.

> I've read that iron filings story a couple of times here.
> Never heard the story anywhere else, even a second hand recounting.

I think you'll find the instructions for "developing" mag tape in some of 
the IBM CE manuals.  Especially with the earlly mag tapes which ran at 200 
bpi it wasn't that difficult to read the data using a half-decent magnifying 
glass, although (rather obviously) the difficulty rating went up as 
densities increased.

My recollection is that the IBM procedures instructed the CE to empty a 
sealed cup of very fine iron filings into a (can?) of solvent, then brush 
the resulting suspension onto the tape.

What I can attest to is that tape developer was used when splicing early 2" 
videotape - which was for a while the only way to edit it.  You clamp the 
tape holding one side of the splice oxide-up in a heavy splicing block, 
develop it, locate the center of the video frame boundary using a built-in 
microscope, then clamp the tape in place and cut it with a razor blade. 
Turn a knob that pushes the end of that tape out of the way while 
maintaining its position and repeat the procedure with the tape for the 
other side of the splice.  Now clean off the develper material, raise the 
tape on both sides of the not-yet-created splice, put adhesive splicing tape 
(gummy side up) directly where the splice will be, drop the tape ends onto 
the splicing tape, cut off the ends of the splicing tape, and rub to 
complete the splice.

Not exactly a task that can be done quickly.

And, if the Internet can be believed, you can still buy a ready-made bottle 
of magnetic developer. Look at the site www.magneticdeveloper.com .  No, I 
never heard of them until this evening when I was looking to see if 
Bitsavers had a CE manual that talked about developing tape (as far as I can 
tell, it doesn't).

> That kind of action should not be necessary.  That's what
> backups are for.

I'm guessing that developing tape to look for drive problems went out of 
favor by perhaps the middle 1960s.

Joe 

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

#162941

"Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> writes:

> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>> D_J_E wrote:
>
> [hardware reliability]
>
>>> Ok, but with EAM stuff you could pull out the offending card,
>>> visually examine it, and restart things relatively easily.
>
>> A mangled card is easy to fix.  An actual broken EAM machine
>> was just as hard to fix as a computer.
>
>>> Not as easily done with electronic computers.  People here have reported
>>> using a special fluid and ironing filings to view mag tape contents.
>
>> I've read that iron filings story a couple of times here.
>> Never heard the story anywhere else, even a second hand recounting.
>
> I think you'll find the instructions for "developing" mag tape in some of 
> the IBM CE manuals.  Especially with the earlly mag tapes which ran at 200 
> bpi it wasn't that difficult to read the data using a half-decent magnifying 
> glass, although (rather obviously) the difficulty rating went up as 
> densities increased.

Earliest drives I used where IBM 729s
able to read/write 200, 556, and 800 CPI.

I never saw any tape at anything other than 800 CPI.

The iron filing technique would have a resolution problem.

My second job was a 1440 with disks.
I was hooked on disk systems after that.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#162969

Dan Espen wrote:


> I've read that iron filings story a couple of times here.
> Never heard the story anywhere else, even a second hand recounting.
> That kind of action should not be necessary.  That's what
> backups are for.
One brand was Magna-See, a fast-evaporating solvent and microscopic iron 
dust.  It came in a metal can with a large diameter cap.  You shook the can, 
removed the cap and dipped a loop of tape into the can, and then luwered one 
end of the loop while raising the other, exposing the required length of 
tape to the fluid.  Then, you removed it and let the solvent dry.

Another kind came in an eye-dropper type bottle, you just dripped it on the 
tape.

To preserve the results, you could put Scothc magic tape over the mag tape 
and then press it onto white card stock.

Worked great up to 800 BPI.

Here's an interesting thing I observed, about 40 years ago.  We had a 
360/50, and it was possible, but tricky, to put tape drives on the 
multiplexer channel.  We had some tapes generated on the 360 that we could 
not read on our PDP-11.  So, I did the magna-see trick, and found there were 
little gaps in the data.  Now, the standard for 800 BPI NRZI recording was 
that the data was supposed to be recorded at a uniform 800 characters/inch, 
and the only gap permitted was a 2 character-time gap before the CRC and LRC 
characters at the end of the data.  So, our PDP-11 controller saw those 
little gaps and assumed the CRC would follow.  But, apparently, these tapes 
were perfectly readable on the 360.  So, I'm guessing that the IBM 2803/2804 
used a different method to identify the end of the data record.  If all data 
passed through a 2 character FIFO, then you could wait for a very long gap 
(like 10 characters or so) before deciding the data had ended.  The two 
characters caught in the FIFO would then be the CRC and LRC.

The problem with putting tape drives on the 360 multiplexer is it did NOT 
guarantee service of data requests within any particular time.  So, if all 
you have is card equipment, it should work, but if you have a 1403 printer, 
that could use up enough data cycles that the tape request might not be 
serviced within a single character time of the tape drive.

Jon

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

#162826

On 2016-04-21, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> My first job was in a shop with three card readers.  
>
> Wow, I never saw a place with more than one!

In addition to the Univac 9300's standard 600-cpm card reader,
we had a 1001, a freestanding unit which looked something like
an IBM 2540 except that it had two card readers instead of a
reader and a punch.  Both feeds could run simultaneously, each
reading 1000 cards per minute.  We fed a _lot_ of cards.  :-)

-- 
/~\  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]

#162841

In article 
<1329586485.482962777.917121.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septembe
r.org>,
 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Like everything else microsoft Excel thinks it knows what you want better
> than you do.

"It's automatic."  -- It does things you don't want.

I worked for Interactive Marketing Services. The joke was that 
"interactive" means "manual".

-- 
 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]

#162864

On 2016-04-22, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <1329586485.482962777.917121.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Like everything else microsoft Excel thinks it knows what you want better
>> than you do.
>
> "It's automatic."  -- It does things you don't want.

Yes, I've noticed lately that the most common problem is no longer getting
software to do what you want, but stopping it from doing what you don't want.

> I worked for Interactive Marketing Services. The joke was that 
> "interactive" means "manual".

I've been saying that for a while.  I wonder who stole it from whom.

Let's flip a coin... ha! it landed on edge.

OK, I'll call it "independent creation."  :-)

-- 
/~\  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]

#162854

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:25:14 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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!

A place I worked had four mainframes. Each one had its own card
reader.

Steve

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

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

#162859

Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> writes:
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:25:14 -0400, Peter Flass
><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>A place I worked had four mainframes. Each one had its own card
>reader.
>

The pasadena plant had about 30 medium systems, a B6800, and a B7900
for software development, customer support, MIS and hardware engineering.

Probably a dozen or so card readers, shared via a peripheral switch
between the hosts.  A couple of punches, likewise shared via a peripheral
switch.

http://www.lurndal.org/images/unisys_pasadena.jpg

The table-top cardreaders in the foreground are 300CPM.

http://vseries.lurndal.org/doku.php?id=dlps:card_reader

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

#162879

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

> 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.

I always hated getting new releases of M/S products because I'd
have to go in and adjust all the defaults to the way I liked them.
(I also don't like using other people's PC's for that reason.)  It
got especially frustrating when the application, like MS-Word, changed
significantly, and the options and other controls were in different
menus.  The last version, I think 2003, was significantly different
and annoying.

At home I have MS-Word 6.0, which I like just fine.  However, I don't
know if it will run on a new PC, and I need to get one soon.

Pretty slick--and sleazy--of M/S to change their products so one
is f***ing FORCED to buy new software, even if the old products
run just fine.

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

#162892

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I always hated getting new releases of M/S products because I'd
> have to go in and adjust all the defaults to the way I liked them.
> (I also don't like using other people's PC's for that reason.)  It
> got especially frustrating when the application, like MS-Word, changed
> significantly, and the options and other controls were in different
> menus.  The last version, I think 2003, was significantly different
> and annoying.
> 
> At home I have MS-Word 6.0, which I like just fine.  However, I don't
> know if it will run on a new PC, and I need to get one soon.
> 
> Pretty slick--and sleazy--of M/S to change their products so one
> is f***ing FORCED to buy new software, even if the old products
> run just fine.
> 

I think my wife is running word 97. Runs just fine.

-- 
Pete

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

#162899

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:25:14 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

>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.

     I have that junk turned off in Word, too.  When I was working on
my degree, the uni systems would restore a standard image on startup.
This meant that I had to set Word's options to my reasonable values
every startup.  One time, I was in a hurry and skipped this.  I was
editing away and just happened to see a flash on the screen.  Word had
helpfully "corrected" my E-mail address on my resume.

     Word is not called "Document".  Coincidence?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#162903

On 2016-04-23, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:25:14 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> 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.
>
>      I have that junk turned off in Word, too.  When I was working on
> my degree, the uni systems would restore a standard image on startup.
> This meant that I had to set Word's options to my reasonable values
> every startup.  One time, I was in a hurry and skipped this.  I was
> editing away and just happened to see a flash on the screen.  Word had
> helpfully "corrected" my E-mail address on my resume.
>
>      Word is not called "Document".  Coincidence?

Q: What does a word processor do?
A: Well, you know what a food processor does...

-- 
/~\  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]

#162810

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 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.)

Werent there IBM program products for this?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 



-- 
Pete

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

#162818

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 12:35:01 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

> > 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.)
 
> Werent there IBM program products for this?

FWIW, our site's TSO didn't have any of them.

I think the ROSCOE JCL and COBOL checker, while still available,
haven't been updated in a long time and are somewhat obsolete.
They'll still flag an obvious error, so they do have so usefulness,
but they also flag anything new that is valid code.

(I don't know what they pay in rental for ROSCOE, but I suspect
CA is cleaning up since the product is mostly stable.)

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web