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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #208394 > unrolled thread

Remington Rand punched card

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

Contents

  Remington Rand punched card hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-12-05 12:29 -0800
    Re: Remington Rand punched card Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-12-05 23:09 +0000
      Re: Remington Rand punched card hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-12-06 13:30 -0800
        Re: Remington Rand punched card Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-06 13:45 -0800
          Re: Remington Rand punched card Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-06 13:49 -0800
          Re: Remington Rand punched card hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-12-06 14:27 -0800
            Re: Remington Rand punched card Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-06 19:20 -0800
        Re: Remington Rand punched card Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-06 13:46 -0800
        Re: Remington Rand punched card scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-08 17:08 +0000
          Re: Remington Rand punched card Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-12-08 18:59 +0000
          Re: Remington Rand punched card Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-08 20:57 -0800

#208394 — Remington Rand punched card

IBM wasn't the only punched card business.  Remington
Rand also had a line of punched card tabulating machines.

Here are two ads for it:

https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1934-01/page/n55

https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1934-08/page/n45



Supposedly, IBM integrated its punched card machines with
its new computers, but Remington kept them separate.
This hurt Remington's computers.

I don't know the detailed history of Remington Rand,
but I can't help but suspect it was not a well run
company after WW II.  I know they hired Gen. Leslie Groves
basically as an expensive figurehead to go around and
make semi-political speeches that the CEO liked.  One
books cites that Univac and ERA were basically two
separate competing divisions.

Maybe things got better when they merged with Sperry.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#208411

On 2019-12-05, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> IBM wasn't the only punched card business.  Remington
> Rand also had a line of punched card tabulating machines.
>
> Here are two ads for it:
>
> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1934-01/page/n55
>
> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1934-08/page/n45

If you zoom in on the second one you can see the same 90-column
cards that I played with a bit in the late '60s.  The cards are
the same dimensions as IBM's 80-column cards, and have the same
12 rows, but the 45 columns are divided into upper and lower tiers -
perfect for 6-bit codes.

> Supposedly, IBM integrated its punched card machines with
> its new computers, but Remington kept them separate.
> This hurt Remington's computers.
>
> I don't know the detailed history of Remington Rand,
> but I can't help but suspect it was not a well run
> company after WW II.  I know they hired Gen. Leslie Groves
> basically as an expensive figurehead to go around and
> make semi-political speeches that the CEO liked.  One
> books cites that Univac and ERA were basically two
> separate competing divisions.
>
> Maybe things got better when they merged with Sperry.

IBM was definitely better organized, although Sperry-Univac
felt friendlier.

-- 
/~\  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.
/ \  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

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

#208452

On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 6:10:17 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> If you zoom in on the second one you can see the same 90-column
> cards that I played with a bit in the late '60s.  The cards are
> the same dimensions as IBM's 80-column cards, and have the same
> 12 rows, but the 45 columns are divided into upper and lower tiers -
> perfect for 6-bit codes.

IBM cards used to have round holes and 45 columns.  But then
around 1930 IBM developed the rectangular 80 column format.
Univac kept the round holes, but went to a 90 column format.

I think eventually Univac migrated over to IBM style cards,
but not sure when. Maybe the 1960s?

I think Univac had some tabulating machines that were more
sophisticated than IBM models.  IBM had calculators, but they
were separate and required a separate pass through them.
None the less, IBM was the market leader by far in the 
tabulating business.  Indeed, it was said IBM quietly
helped Remington Rand out to keep it in business to avoid
a total monopoly.  (Didn't help, the govt still went after
IBM).





> IBM was definitely better organized, although Sperry-Univac
> felt friendlier.

Yes, IBMers were always prepared.  Very thorough.  If you
attended an IBM training class, all the materials were
ready to go.  In contrast, at Univac, the instructor wasted
class time at the beginning getting set up.

But the people who worked for Univac were definitely more down
to earth and friendlier than IBM people.  IBMers were very
polished.  I wandered around Univac's HQ and folks were nice.

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

#208453

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
 
> IBM cards used to have round holes and 45 columns.  But then
> around 1930 IBM developed the rectangular 80 column format.
> Univac kept the round holes, but went to a 90 column format.

This was, of course, because when they developed the 80 column card, they 
patented it. Their patent was broad enough to cover the use of smaller round 
holes than those used in 45 column cards as well.

This is why Remington Rand, in order to remain competitive, had to make more 
efficient use of the holes that were already there.

In Britain, though, apparently their patent office did not accept that making 
the round holes smaller was patentable - and so another maker of punched cards 
in that country came up with a 65-column card, also having the same dimensions 
as the 80-column card, but, because the holes were smaller, they were able to 
put the columns closer together and have 65 of them, if not 80 or 90.

One source appears to claim they went on to do what Remington Rand did as well, 
and make a 130-column card out of it, but I could never verify that.

John Savard

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

#208455

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 2:45:53 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> This was, of course, because when they developed the 80 column card, they 
> patented it. Their patent was broad enough to cover the use of smaller round 
> holes than those used in 45 column cards as well.

U. S. Patent 1,772,492 as I noted on my web site, so I knew smaller holes were 
covered because I had *read* the claims.

John Savard

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

#208457

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 4:45:53 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>  
> > IBM cards used to have round holes and 45 columns.  But then
> > around 1930 IBM developed the rectangular 80 column format.
> > Univac kept the round holes, but went to a 90 column format.
> 
> This was, of course, because when they developed the 80 column card, they 
> patented it. Their patent was broad enough to cover the use of smaller round 
> holes than those used in 45 column cards as well.
> 
> This is why Remington Rand, in order to remain competitive, had to make more 
> efficient use of the holes that were already there.
> 
> In Britain, though, apparently their patent office did not accept that making 
> the round holes smaller was patentable - and so another maker of punched cards 
> in that country came up with a 65-column card, also having the same dimensions 
> as the 80-column card, but, because the holes were smaller, they were able to 
> put the columns closer together and have 65 of them, if not 80 or 90.
> 
> One source appears to claim they went on to do what Remington Rand did as well, 
> and make a 130-column card out of it, but I could never verify that.

I think IBM researched bigger cards to hold more information,
but never marketed a tab product based on that.  Customers certainly
would've liked storing more information to avoid, if possible,
having multiple cards for a transaction.

Eventually, they did develop the S/3 96 column card.  But
their history says the reason as to hold cost down as less
hardware was required for the S/3 card than the 80-column
card. 

IBM punched cards went through a lot of trees over the years.

IBM made a lot of profit from the sale of punched card stock.
Indeed, circa 1960 IBM advertised the care it took in designing
and printing punched card stock.  bitsavers even as a
booklet on how to design a punched card.
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/generalInfo/C20-8078_Form_and_Card_Design_1961.pdf

Going back to the early 1950s, on the one hand, major IBM
customers sought mag tape since they were drowning in
punched card records and running out of space.  On the other
hand, a punched card was readable while mag tape wasn't.  
Would mag tape maintain records reliably?  Businesses
weren't sure.  Indeed, the earliest tapes weren't that
good.

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

#208468

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:27:06 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> IBM made a lot of profit from the sale of punched card stock.
> Indeed, circa 1960 IBM advertised the care it took in designing
> and printing punched card stock.

I remember reading a post a while back from someone who worked with a Control 
Data mainframe, who noted that the card readers from Control Data (probably 
rebranded from a supplier of card readers to non-IBM computer makers such as 
Documation) could read just about any card... while those from IBM on their 
systems used to jam at the very slightest provocation.

No wonder they took care making their cards - or perhaps they made their card 
readers that way deliberately, to make things difficult for the competition.

John Savard

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

#208454

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Indeed, it was said IBM quietly
> helped Remington Rand out to keep it in business to avoid
> a total monopoly.

Something like Microsoft and Apple.

John Savard

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

#208485

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 6:10:17 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> If you zoom in on the second one you can see the same 90-column
>> cards that I played with a bit in the late '60s.  The cards are
>> the same dimensions as IBM's 80-column cards, and have the same
>> 12 rows, but the 45 columns are divided into upper and lower tiers -
>> perfect for 6-bit codes.
>
>IBM cards used to have round holes and 45 columns.  But then
>around 1930 IBM developed the rectangular 80 column format.
>Univac kept the round holes, but went to a 90 column format.

I've got some blank Burroughs 90-column cards here in my hand.

Although I never saw any 90-column gear during my years with
Burroughs/Unisys, even after the acquisition of Sperry/Univac.

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

#208487

On 2019-12-08, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 6:10:17 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> If you zoom in on the second one you can see the same 90-column
>>> cards that I played with a bit in the late '60s.  The cards are
>>> the same dimensions as IBM's 80-column cards, and have the same
>>> 12 rows, but the 45 columns are divided into upper and lower tiers -
>>> perfect for 6-bit codes.
>>
>> IBM cards used to have round holes and 45 columns.  But then
>> around 1930 IBM developed the rectangular 80 column format.
>> Univac kept the round holes, but went to a 90 column format.
>
> I've got some blank Burroughs 90-column cards here in my hand.
>
> Although I never saw any 90-column gear during my years with
> Burroughs/Unisys, even after the acquisition of Sperry/Univac.

I have some punched 90-column cards.  I once tried to write a
program to read them on an 80-column reader.  The columns that
were more or less aligned with the 80-column positions came out
OK, but the ones that fell between the 80-column positions were,
as I expected, unreadable.  Too bad - I even had code working to
translate the 90-column cards' arcane encoding, which followed
no pattern that I could discern.

The Univac card readers of the day derived column timing from a
little drum attached to the feed rollers; one head wrote timing
marks to the drum and and another head read them back after a
suitable rotation of the drum to advance the card to the next
column.  The card reader on the Univac 1005 (a hopped-up electronic
answer to the IBM 407) had an extra head on this drum, and could
read both 80- and 90-column 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.
/ \  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

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

#208489

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Although I never saw any 90-column gear during my years with
> Burroughs/Unisys, even after the acquisition of Sperry/Univac.

That doesn't surprise me. Soon after the expiry of the IBM patents, I'm sure that 
when they offered conventional 80-column equipment, that was what their customers 
preferred.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web