Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #210335 > unrolled thread
| Started by | robin.vowels@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-03-08 16:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-03-08 17:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 590 — 35 participants |
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.
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-08 16:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-08 16:50 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-08 17:19 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-09 13:19 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-09 16:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-09 12:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-09 16:35 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-09 16:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-09 19:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-10 12:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 19:02 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-12 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 16:46 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-12 15:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:10 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-10 01:06 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-10 11:33 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-10 18:48 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-10 12:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-10 22:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-11 19:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 13:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-12 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 16:42 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-12 22:11 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-12 23:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-03-13 08:36 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-11 22:17 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 16:47 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 13:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 18:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:32 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-11 18:17 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-12 15:03 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-12 15:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-12 19:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-13 10:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-03-13 18:07 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-13 11:43 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:31 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 01:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360-30 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-13 00:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360-30 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-13 00:26 +0000
Re: IBM system/360-30 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 20:38 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-09 21:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 12:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 02:11 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 10:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:54 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 12:04 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 10:31 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-22 11:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700
Re: IBM 1130, system John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-12 23:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-22 11:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-23 00:55 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-24 13:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 17:35 -0400
RPG was Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-24 23:03 +0000
Re: RPG was Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 01:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-24 18:37 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 07:26 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:12 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 11:29 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:51 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 14:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:01 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 15:15 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:39 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 12:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:24 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:50 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:34 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:53 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 23:14 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 17:28 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 11:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 07:01 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 11:31 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 10:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 13:26 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 11:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 20:23 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 14:35 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 12:08 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 15:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-26 14:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 22:33 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:47 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 11:10 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 08:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-26 14:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 16:20 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 12:24 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-26 16:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-26 19:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-08-27 14:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 20:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 22:38 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 06:32 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-27 11:39 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-27 13:38 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-27 12:03 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 20:11 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-26 21:17 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-08-26 12:13 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 11:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 17:21 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 17:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2020-08-26 04:07 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 12:02 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 08:29 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 12:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 20:20 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 12:45 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:31 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 14:54 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:33 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 14:44 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:31 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 19:16 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:55 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 14:43 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 14:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:02 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:38 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 01:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-25 13:13 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:38 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-23 07:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2020-08-23 01:00 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-23 10:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-23 10:43 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-23 12:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-23 20:49 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-22 11:05 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-23 00:55 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-24 13:25 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 17:18 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 01:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 22:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 03:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:09 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-25 15:15 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:44 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 12:29 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-25 19:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 21:52 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 07:44 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-26 12:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 15:15 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:42 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-27 09:43 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:43 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 22:27 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 18:09 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-26 00:12 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 20:35 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-24 18:37 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 11:18 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:40 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 08:26 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 12:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:26 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:44 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:56 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 09:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:43 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:28 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:52 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-25 15:16 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@127.0.0.1> - 2020-08-25 12:56 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:40 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:58 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 19:57 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:48 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:26 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 19:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-23 06:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-23 10:23 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 14:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 23:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-24 13:39 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-24 18:37 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 22:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 20:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 23:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-26 14:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:49 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-26 22:28 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 17:27 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 19:39 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:42 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 20:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 21:36 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-01 11:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-01 19:17 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-02 08:42 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-03 05:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 02:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-03 09:48 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 17:55 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-03 19:31 +0100
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 22:13 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:24 -0700
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-04 05:30 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:08 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-04 05:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 10:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-05 05:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-05 06:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 10:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 19:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 12:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-09-08 21:10 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-09 05:07 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-09 09:38 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-09 11:16 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 19:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-02 12:18 -0600
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-01 19:20 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-01 16:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 19:12 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 11:59 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 09:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 14:05 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:18 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-02 16:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 20:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 23:59 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-03 10:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 13:39 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? lawrence <lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom> - 2020-09-03 18:31 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:45 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-09-03 13:26 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 20:49 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 01:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 23:27 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-03 07:05 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-03 10:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-09-03 12:29 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-03 16:26 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-09-03 13:11 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2020-09-03 14:20 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-03 11:48 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-03 19:57 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 10:38 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-03 19:04 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 18:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-03 10:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 14:02 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 22:45 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 17:45 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 10:10 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:22 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 09:53 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 15:19 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 20:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 21:04 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-03 07:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 09:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-03 13:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 18:04 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 05:48 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 10:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 14:56 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 11:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 19:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:12 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 20:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:53 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 21:23 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-05 12:22 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 18:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-04 18:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 22:10 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 12:04 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-08 23:35 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-09 13:17 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:34 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 22:37 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 23:56 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-05 19:02 +0000
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:23 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:37 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:57 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 17:09 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 22:05 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-06 06:30 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:32 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 23:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 00:05 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-05 09:48 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-05 07:20 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 12:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 21:00 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-09 14:45 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 11:53 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 18:37 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 11:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 15:22 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-04 16:02 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 19:43 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 18:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-05 09:47 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 12:21 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-03 21:45 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:01 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 13:16 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> - 2020-09-02 16:14 +0200
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 07:20 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:36 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 13:19 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 15:25 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 14:43 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:40 -0400
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 02:08 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 06:12 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 20:36 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 20:54 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 22:18 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-03 06:27 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 16:48 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 23:53 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 20:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 02:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 23:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 19:30 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 20:27 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 21:01 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 22:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360/20, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 01:24 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 18:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 19:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-30 17:47 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 14:16 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-01 03:32 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 15:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 19:41 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-31 08:58 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 17:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 01:06 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 20:26 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-30 20:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 21:21 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 16:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 22:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-01 06:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-01 16:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-01 11:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-01 19:38 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 16:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:41 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:23 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-29 12:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 09:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:24 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 15:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-29 17:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 22:21 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 07:20 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 00:56 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:46 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 21:47 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 02:40 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 00:04 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:24 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2020-08-27 15:55 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 11:14 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 17:30 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-27 23:24 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 06:38 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 06:44 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 10:59 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 10:15 -0700
Re: KDF9 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 19:05 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 19:37 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:05 -0400
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 20:30 +0000
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 21:40 +0000
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:03 -0400
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-29 14:01 +0000
Re: Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 18:33 +0000
Re: Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-30 11:09 +0000
Re: Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 07:18 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-30 17:58 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-31 17:17 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 19:58 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-01 09:39 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 04:10 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 08:19 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-01 18:08 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 16:04 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:13 -0700
Re: block moves, 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 02:14 +0000
Re: block moves, 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 20:52 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 20:34 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 00:06 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:05 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 22:32 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 02:51 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 23:52 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 20:58 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 10:18 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 13:28 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-31 15:50 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-31 17:24 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 22:19 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 22:23 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robert Marshall <spam@capuchin.co.uk> - 2020-08-28 18:58 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-28 15:23 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:21 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:05 +0000
Re: KDF9 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 19:39 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:18 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-29 17:52 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 21:39 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-08-30 11:51 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 08:06 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 08:36 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 10:43 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 11:49 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 13:10 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 13:33 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 15:03 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-30 16:37 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Home made card reader J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 13:20 -0400
Re: Home made card reader Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-30 17:23 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 16:38 -0700
Re: Home made card reader John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 00:27 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-31 09:34 +0000
Re: Home made card reader usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:04 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-02 08:27 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-02 16:54 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 15:04 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 18:19 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-31 07:23 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-29 20:34 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-30 11:37 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-30 11:40 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 07:31 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:06 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:03 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 20:40 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 21:06 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 01:41 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 23:28 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 18:10 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 17:25 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 22:26 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:03 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:03 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-04 23:34 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 10:02 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:38 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-03 16:32 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-04 18:11 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2020-08-29 01:04 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:14 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-29 08:35 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 12:13 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-28 07:00 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-28 15:17 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 18:24 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:04 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 22:07 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:20 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-29 12:28 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-29 12:31 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-29 23:58 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-01 11:10 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 05:21 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-02 16:54 +0000
Re: flaming, not at all KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 18:35 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:15 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:45 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 20:28 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:11 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 14:28 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-29 19:39 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:59 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 18:25 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 22:28 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 10:28 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-29 08:40 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 06:32 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 18:56 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:39 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:34 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:44 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 19:08 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:36 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 09:25 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 10:32 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 10:36 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 05:10 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:20 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 09:31 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 17:42 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Stoat <fake@fake.org> - 2020-08-28 15:49 +1200
Re: IBM system/360 ad gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:06 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:03 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-10 11:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 14:47 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2020-03-11 15:05 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-11 16:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-12 14:57 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 19:59 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-12 17:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 20:57 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-13 10:15 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-10 18:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:32 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 02:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 10:27 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-14 13:40 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-14 09:01 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-14 12:36 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-15 21:58 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-12 12:57 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 17:39 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-12 15:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 20:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2020-03-11 21:23 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-11 20:50 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-12 09:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 13:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 18:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 23:05 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-08 17:19 -0700
Page 1 of 30 [1] 2 3 … 30 Next page →
| From | robin.vowels@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-08 16:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <147f2e70-bbaf-4faa-8d41-a03f5cab0b42@googlegroups.com> |
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 > > Available with up to 8 meg of memory! > > (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those > days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think > if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was > core but slow core.) In 1964, that was false advertising.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-08 16:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eed1d82a-3848-49be-968a-8c993278b9e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210335 |
On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 > > > > Available with up to 8 meg of memory! > > > > (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those > > days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think > > if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was > > core but slow core.) > In 1964, that was false advertising. In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in 2365 Processor Storage modules. Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have ordered on the announcement date. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-08 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <436385123.605405339.863460.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210338 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>> >>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>> >>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was >>> core but slow core.) > >> In 1964, that was false advertising. > > In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. > > There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model 60" and > "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. > > So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 Model 75 with 8 > megabytes of core storage? > > Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations avalable are > the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte > respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in 2365 Processor Storage modules. > > Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 had a > capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. > > So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you could have 8 > megabytes of core on a system that you could have ordered on the announcement > date. Interestingly, OS/360 had features for handling heterogeneous memory. You could specify program sections to be loaded into slow core and others into fast. Both the Linkage Editor and JCL allowed for it. > > John Savard > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <316a9f72-7c92-4ffe-b132-cff23c135039@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210342 |
On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 6:19:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > Interestingly, OS/360 had features for handling heterogeneous memory. You > could specify program sections to be loaded into slow core and others into > fast. Both the Linkage Editor and JCL allowed for it. I'm not surprised. It's a good thing they did have some provision for that, otherwise there would be no point in this, because it would just slow the whole machine down. But even with a manual provision like that, slow memory is very difficult to make use of properly, I would think. The way to use it to speed up a computer instead of slowing it down would be, for example, to use it as a RAM disk or as a disk cache. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <770222413.605487140.850510.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210364 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 6:19:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Interestingly, OS/360 had features for handling heterogeneous memory. You >> could specify program sections to be loaded into slow core and others into >> fast. Both the Linkage Editor and JCL allowed for it. > > I'm not surprised. It's a good thing they did have some provision for that, > otherwise there would be no point in this, because it would just slow the whole > machine down. > > But even with a manual provision like that, slow memory is very difficult to > make use of properly, I would think. The way to use it to speed up a computer > instead of slowing it down would be, for example, to use it as a RAM disk or as > a disk cache. Not enough to do much, but one usermod kept the SYSRES VTOC in core, IIRC. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4499c29e-47a0-46f7-9af8-6512e225034f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210338 |
On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 > > > > > > Available with up to 8 meg of memory! > > > > > > (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those > > > days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think > > > if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was > > > core but slow core.) > > > In 1964, that was false advertising. > > In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. > > There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model 60" and > "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. > > So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 Model 75 with 8 > megabytes of core storage? > > Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations avalable are > the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte > respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in 2365 Processor Storage modules. > > Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 had a > capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. > > So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you could have 8 > megabytes of core on a system that you could have ordered on the announcement > date. I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly revised over the years. I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a lot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 16:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r4699v$adu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210360 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> > > https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >> > > >> > > Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >> > > >> > > (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >> > > days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >> > > if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >> > > but slow core.) >> >> > In 1964, that was false advertising. >> >> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >> >> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >> >> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >> >> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >> >> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >> >> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >> ordered on the announcement date. > > I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, > the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not > a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). > > Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over > time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered > with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had > similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional > Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly > revised over the years. > > I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a > lot. A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a time required 64K. I told an IBM salesman once that IBM had so bollixed up the architecture that our application programs were easily twice as large as they were on the 14xx. He checked with his technical people and had to concede the point. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96671175.605487252.018503.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>> >>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>> >>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>> but slow core.) >>> >>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>> >>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>> >>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>> >>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>> >>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>> >>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>> >>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>> ordered on the announcement date. >> >> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >> >> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >> revised over the years. >> >> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >> lot. > > A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use > ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. > > As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in > was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. > It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a > miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with > 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the > minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a > time required 64K. The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. > > I told an IBM salesman once that IBM had so bollixed up the architecture > that our application programs were easily twice as large as they were on > the 14xx. He checked with his technical people and had to concede the > point. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 19:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r46k7f$g0p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210367 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>> >>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>> >>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>> but slow core.) >>>> >>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>> >>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>> >>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>> >>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>> >>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>> >>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>> >>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>> >>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>> >>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>> revised over the years. >>> >>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>> lot. >> >> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >> >> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >> time required 64K. > > The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they just got upgraded to. I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory 256 bytes at a time. Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more expensive 40, 50, 65s. A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. Probably even 3 or 4. Later I worked at a mailing operation. They ran a dozen 1403s at once but used a 65. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <526116244.605560637.001391.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210370 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>> >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>>> but slow core.) >>>>> >>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>>> >>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>>> >>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>>> >>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>>> >>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>>> >>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>>> >>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>>> >>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>>> >>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>>> revised over the years. >>>> >>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>>> lot. >>> >>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >>> >>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >>> time required 64K. >> >> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. > > I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. > One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they > just got upgraded to. > > I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't > work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped > through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory > 256 bytes at a time. > > Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. > > Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone installed the memory and forgot the jumper? > > I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let > the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K > wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. > IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known > that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more > expensive 40, 50, 65s. > > A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. > Probably even 3 or 4. Once they got POWER. > > Later I worked at a mailing operation. They ran a dozen 1403s at once > but used a 65. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 19:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r496an$lvn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210426 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>>>> but slow core.) >>>>>> >>>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>>>> >>>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>>>> >>>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>>>> >>>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>>>> revised over the years. >>>>> >>>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>>>> lot. >>>> >>>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >>>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >>>> >>>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >>>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >>>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >>>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >>>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >>>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >>>> time required 64K. >>> >>> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. >> >> I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. >> One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they >> just got upgraded to. >> >> I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't >> work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped >> through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory >> 256 bytes at a time. >> >> Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. >> >> Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. > > I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone > installed the memory and forgot the jumper? Wow, this was years ago, I'd guess 1969, but that rings a bell. I think you got it. The memory was installed by IBM, the IBM CE came in and fixed it. All we were seeing is the sysgen would work, but any attempt to boot locked up the machine. The reference the the bad memory caused a machine check and all that did was try to run a non-existent machine check PSW. There was nothing in memory to even point at the failing instruction. Only single stepping thru the long core clearing process turned on the lights. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f5b73e3-f50a-4450-82f7-05df28fff17a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210426 |
On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >>> > >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those > >>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think > >>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core > >>>>>>> but slow core.) > >>>>> > >>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. > >>>>> > >>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. > >>>>> > >>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model > >>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. > >>>>> > >>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 > >>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? > >>>>> > >>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations > >>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 > >>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in > >>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 > >>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. > >>>>> > >>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you > >>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have > >>>>> ordered on the announcement date. > >>>> > >>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, > >>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not > >>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). > >>>> > >>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over > >>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered > >>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had > >>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional > >>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly > >>>> revised over the years. > >>>> > >>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a > >>>> lot. > >>> > >>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use > >>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. > >>> > >>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in > >>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. > >>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a > >>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with > >>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the > >>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a > >>> time required 64K. > >> > >> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. > > > > I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. > > One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they > > just got upgraded to. > > > > I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't > > work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped > > through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory > > 256 bytes at a time. > > > > Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. > > > > Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. > > I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone > installed the memory and forgot the jumper? > > > > > I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let > > the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K > > wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. > > IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known > > that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more > > expensive 40, 50, 65s. > > > > A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. > > Probably even 3 or 4. > > Once they got POWER. > Our 360-40 site installed POWER in a foreground partition It was easy to installed and ran fine. The productivity improvement was amazing--almost doubling throughput. No programming changes to our applications were required. I was amazed at how it somehow captured all unit record I/O and stored it on disk for later handling, automatically. Before POWER, it was obvious our CPU was I/O bound. When reading and printing at full speed, the CPU wait light was almost continuously on, indicating there were plenty of CPU cycles available. Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing application in which the spooler was bypassed and the checks printed 'hot'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1199360087.605655982.191764.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210446 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>>>>> but slow core.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>>>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>>>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>>>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>>>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>>>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>>>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>>>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>>>>> revised over the years. >>>>>> >>>>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>>>>> lot. >>>>> >>>>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >>>>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >>>>> >>>>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >>>>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >>>>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >>>>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >>>>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >>>>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >>>>> time required 64K. >>>> >>>> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. >>> >>> I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. >>> One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they >>> just got upgraded to. >>> >>> I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't >>> work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped >>> through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory >>> 256 bytes at a time. >>> >>> Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. >>> >>> Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. >> >> I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone >> installed the memory and forgot the jumper? >> >>> >>> I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let >>> the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K >>> wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. >>> IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known >>> that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more >>> expensive 40, 50, 65s. >>> >>> A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. >>> Probably even 3 or 4. >> >> Once they got POWER. >> > > Our 360-40 site installed POWER in a foreground partition > It was easy to installed and ran fine. The productivity > improvement was amazing--almost doubling throughput. No > programming changes to our applications were required. > > I was amazed at how it somehow captured all unit record > I/O and stored it on disk for later handling, automatically. > > Before POWER, it was obvious our CPU was I/O bound. > When reading and printing at full speed, the CPU wait light > was almost continuously on, indicating there were plenty of > CPU cycles available. > > Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing > application in which the spooler was bypassed and > the checks printed 'hot'. > > Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 19:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r4e1bf218p5@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210456 |
On 2020-03-11, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing >> application in which the spooler was bypassed and >> the checks printed 'hot'. > > Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all > “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or > adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). The fun began when you tried to ensure that the computer-generated cheque number lined up with the pre-printed ones on the cheques. You'd pray that there were no forms jams and that the operator didn't need too many tries to get things aligned. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 16:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r4e73n$b05$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210492 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > On 2020-03-11, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >>> Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing >>> application in which the spooler was bypassed and >>> the checks printed 'hot'. >> >> Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all >> “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or >> adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). > > The fun began when you tried to ensure that the computer-generated > cheque number lined up with the pre-printed ones on the cheques. > You'd pray that there were no forms jams and that the operator > didn't need too many tries to get things aligned. I could not convince payroll that computer printed check numbers instead of pre-printed would work. They did keep track of every blank check by accounting for the check numbers. So perhaps they had a point. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63cbe247-86b9-44a8-a7d1-a06e43340abd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210495 |
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > > > On 2020-03-11, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing > >>> application in which the spooler was bypassed and > >>> the checks printed 'hot'. > >> > >> Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all > >> “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or > >> adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). > > > > The fun began when you tried to ensure that the computer-generated > > cheque number lined up with the pre-printed ones on the cheques. > > You'd pray that there were no forms jams and that the operator > > didn't need too many tries to get things aligned. > > I could not convince payroll that computer printed check numbers > instead of pre-printed would work. > > They did keep track of every blank check by accounting for the check > numbers. So perhaps they had a point. I think auditors like to track by the pre-printed check numbers. Everywhere I worked the operators had to account for every single check, both used to align the printer, other waste, and actually printed. In some applications the pre-printed check number was to match the computer generated check number. Checks had a lot of controls. Apparently they were necessary since forgery and theft could be a problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79f34985-f7b8-4e52-be45-ab30d1ceda18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210426 |
On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone > installed the memory and forgot the jumper? When we added memory to our 360-40, they screwed up the jumper and memory access was screwy until it was fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 01:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r46p6t41n8@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
On 2020-03-09, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use > ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. > > As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in > was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. > It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a > miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with > 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the > minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a > time required 64K. > > I told an IBM salesman once that IBM had so bollixed up the architecture > that our application programs were easily twice as large as they were on > the 14xx. He checked with his technical people and had to concede the > point. Or maybe it was like the Univac salesmen who consistently low-balled memory requirements to get a low bid. Many customers found themselves buying memory expansions they were told they'd never need, after their new installation bogged down. Eventually even the documentation admitted to memory requirements of various packages being more than they originally claimed. Besides, the memory size limits on the various 360 processors were largely self-imposed. At worst it took a bit of work with a soldering iron to work around them. I once used a 360/30 with 128K of core; the switch and indicator for the extra address bit had a definite home-brewed look to them. Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1f58432-16ad-4176-b33d-ce1796895912@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210374 |
On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 9:06:55 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Or maybe it was like the Univac salesmen who consistently low-balled > memory requirements to get a low bid. Many customers found themselves > buying memory expansions they were told they'd never need, after their > new installation bogged down. Eventually even the documentation admitted > to memory requirements of various packages being more than they originally > claimed. They say IBM lowballed, too (see above). FWIW, our 90/30 was adequately configured. I think we had 256k. Of course, we weren't doing very much online work, it was mostly batch and single stream. > Besides, the memory size limits on the various 360 processors were > largely self-imposed. At worst it took a bit of work with a soldering > iron to work around them. I once used a 360/30 with 128K of core; the > switch and indicator for the extra address bit had a definite home-brewed > look to them. > Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come > off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them. Anyone know how a bus company got into computers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r48ndt0236c@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210417 |
On 2020-03-10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 9:06:55 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Or maybe it was like the Univac salesmen who consistently low-balled >> memory requirements to get a low bid. Many customers found themselves >> buying memory expansions they were told they'd never need, after their >> new installation bogged down. Eventually even the documentation admitted >> to memory requirements of various packages being more than they originally >> claimed. > > They say IBM lowballed, too (see above). > > FWIW, our 90/30 was adequately configured. I think we had 256k. > Of course, we weren't doing very much online work, it was mostly > batch and single stream. Luxury! I don't know whether any 90/30 shop here in Vancouver had 256K. Most were 192K; there were some 128K shops, but they were uncomfortably tight. This didn't stop Univac from advertising that their equivalent of CICS (confusingly called IMS/90) could run in as little as 32K. The fine print mentioned that this was for a system running three terminals doing simple inquiries into a single ISAM file. And in subsequent releases they admitted you needed 64K for even that. (Actually, make that "65K". Since this is sales literature, the "salesman's K" is used throughout. Where else but in the wild and wacky world of marketing could you add 32 and 32 to get 65?) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 30 [1] 2 3 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web