Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-24 13:06 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-25 05:41 +1000 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-24 13:06 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:41 +1000
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 13:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? |
| Message-ID | <PM0005313AC07D75D2@aca40fb0.ipt.aol.com> |
Dan Espen wrote: > 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. <snip> Then the OS and field service were doing a very good job dealing with bad spots on the disk and preventive maintenance. /BAH
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 05:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <do4lr9F98eiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #162915 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005313AC07D75D2@aca40fb0.ipt.aol.com... > Dan Espen wrote: >> 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. > > <snip> > > Then the OS and field service were doing a very good job > dealing with bad spots on the disk and preventive > maintenance. That wasn’t the case with the DEC RS09 that I had which had none of that and operated for years without ever reporting a disk error. It never ever had any preventative maintenance and the OS never had to deal with bad spots on the disk.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web