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 29 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-25 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <392ac9b2-f310-4575-8b3b-4fb0b59e2c0eo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213034 |
On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 1:23:36 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > In my humble opinion, 8k would simply be too small, even > > for a rudimentary mainframe system. Heck, while you > > could get by with 32k (and I think some folks here did so), > > it was a tight squeeze. > > It is certainly true that 32 K bytes would be a tight squeeze for an IBM 360. > > Since the IBM 360 had a reputation for being inefficient in its use of memory, I > wonder how well it managed with 128 K of memory. That would have been 32,768 32- > bit words of memory; in comparison, many older systems, such as the IBM 7090 > (with 36-bit words) or the SDS 9300 (with 24-bit words) were fully loaded with > 32 K words of memory. With DOS, we did just fine with 128k memory. Had about 110k for batch jobs. Plenty of room for most programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9966c77-506e-4e0d-89e4-2d6f25c6cf94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen 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. Probably not much good at all, which is probably why they later increased it. Of course, maybe there were simpler operating systems. Don't forget, the base 1401 was offered with as little as 1.2k (1,200 characters). I can't imagine anyone doing much work with that, but apparently it was popular. It basically functioned as a tabulator and I suppose even with that little core it performed more sophisticated stuff. Others have said the full 1401, at 16k, was a luxury (though our hospital had that). > 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. I have been told by many that IBM lowballed bids to get the sale. Most times the computer delivered needed later upgrades to work well. I suspect there was considerable 'sticker shock' so maybe low balling was necessary to make the sale. Core was one way to lower the price. I have no idea of pricing, but I suspect core wasn't cheap, especially in the early years. I believe the IBM history expected people not to order all that much and had bigger orders than they expected, and thus had to ramp up core production. It wasn't easy stringing the wires. Indeed, even in the PC era, I think the IBM PC maxed at 640K and was offered in lower sizes to save money. (Everyone I knew got 640k, but I guess some were smaller).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 14:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r48nbv$ekm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210416 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > Don't forget, the base 1401 was offered with as little as > 1.2k (1,200 characters). I can't imagine anyone doing much > work with that, but apparently it was popular. It basically > functioned as a tabulator and I suppose even with that > little core it performed more sophisticated stuff. I had a night job doing some coding on the smallest 1401. No tape or disk, so you read in cards, printed a report and sometimes punched new cards. That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS. You could do quite a bit of logic in that space. Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 15:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mdd36aepv9y.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #210423 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
> > Don't forget, the base 1401 was offered with as little as
> > 1.2k (1,200 characters). I can't imagine anyone doing much
> > work with that, but apparently it was popular. It basically
> > functioned as a tabulator and I suppose even with that
> > little core it performed more sophisticated stuff.
>
> I had a night job doing some coding on the smallest 1401.
> No tape or disk, so you read in cards, printed a report
> and sometimes punched new cards.
>
> That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS.
> You could do quite a bit of logic in that space.
>
> Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4.
Specifically, from the IBM documentation, 1401 characters. See what they did
there?
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 16:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r4bhut$omg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210445 |
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >> > Don't forget, the base 1401 was offered with as little as >> > 1.2k (1,200 characters). I can't imagine anyone doing much >> > work with that, but apparently it was popular. It basically >> > functioned as a tabulator and I suppose even with that >> > little core it performed more sophisticated stuff. >> >> I had a night job doing some coding on the smallest 1401. >> No tape or disk, so you read in cards, printed a report >> and sometimes punched new cards. >> >> That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS. >> You could do quite a bit of logic in that space. >> >> Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4. > > Specifically, from the IBM documentation, 1401 characters. See what they did > there? Hmm, addressing started at 001, ended at I9I (15999). Not sure how they'd get 1401 out of that. I don't think you could put anything at 000. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 14:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bc14928-48c7-472b-a676-6ef13d46701a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210455 |
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: > >> That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS. > >> You could do quite a bit of logic in that space. > >> > >> Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4. > > > > Specifically, from the IBM documentation, 1401 characters. See what they did > > there? > > Hmm, addressing started at 001, ended at I9I (15999). > Not sure how they'd get 1401 out of that. > > I don't think you could put anything at 000. Also, the 1401 had word marks, a special bit on each character. With word marks, certain things like length didn't need to be coded, saving space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 19:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r4eicn$s3r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210496 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: > >> >> That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS. >> >> You could do quite a bit of logic in that space. >> >> >> >> Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4. >> > >> > Specifically, from the IBM documentation, 1401 characters. See what they did >> > there? >> >> Hmm, addressing started at 001, ended at I9I (15999). >> Not sure how they'd get 1401 out of that. >> >> I don't think you could put anything at 000. > > Also, the 1401 had word marks, a special bit on each character. > With word marks, certain things like length didn't need to > be coded, saving space. Those same word marks let you leave off operands in instructions saving even more space. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 17:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1730696052.605751687.159654.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210508 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: >> >>>>> That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS. >>>>> You could do quite a bit of logic in that space. >>>>> >>>>> Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4. >>>> >>>> Specifically, from the IBM documentation, 1401 characters. See what they did >>>> there? >>> >>> Hmm, addressing started at 001, ended at I9I (15999). >>> Not sure how they'd get 1401 out of that. >>> >>> I don't think you could put anything at 000. >> >> Also, the 1401 had word marks, a special bit on each character. >> With word marks, certain things like length didn't need to >> be coded, saving space. > > Those same word marks let you leave off operands in instructions > saving even more space. > Interesting instruction set. I think if you were moving several fields to sequential locations you could leave off the destination addresses after the first. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 20:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r4elpg$s3r$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210511 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>>>> That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS. >>>>>> You could do quite a bit of logic in that space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically, from the IBM documentation, 1401 characters. See what they did >>>>> there? >>>> >>>> Hmm, addressing started at 001, ended at I9I (15999). >>>> Not sure how they'd get 1401 out of that. >>>> >>>> I don't think you could put anything at 000. >>> >>> Also, the 1401 had word marks, a special bit on each character. >>> With word marks, certain things like length didn't need to >>> be coded, saving space. >> >> Those same word marks let you leave off operands in instructions >> saving even more space. > > Interesting instruction set. I think if you were moving several fields to > sequential locations you could leave off the destination addresses after > the first. Wonderful instruction set. If sending and receiving were adjacent, leave off both operands. Fields did not need to be equal sized, you could roll totals into larger sized fields, no problem. Clearing accumulators that were adjacent was one instruction with operands then as many subtracts as you had accumulators with no operands. There was a trick with BCE (branch character equal) with character as an immediate operand. I think it was: BCE WHERE,FIELD,CHAR BCE CHAR2 BCE CHAR3 I think the machine was set to NOT decrement the B register for BCE only so FIELD could be tested against more than one character. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-13 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa4add86-d125-4134-85bc-96cf4022fbc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210511 |
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 8:27:46 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > > > >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: > >> > >>>>> That tiny amount of core was all yours, no OS. > >>>>> You could do quite a bit of logic in that space. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wikipedia says 1.4, not 1.2. I remember it as 1.4. > >>>> > >>>> Specifically, from the IBM documentation, 1401 characters. See what they did > >>>> there? > >>> > >>> Hmm, addressing started at 001, ended at I9I (15999). > >>> Not sure how they'd get 1401 out of that. > >>> > >>> I don't think you could put anything at 000. > >> > >> Also, the 1401 had word marks, a special bit on each character. > >> With word marks, certain things like length didn't need to > >> be coded, saving space. > > > > Those same word marks let you leave off operands in instructions > > saving even more space. > > > > Interesting instruction set. I think if you were moving several fields to > sequential locations you could leave off the destination addresses after > the first. Yes, the 1401 manual calls that "chaining". "In some' programs, it becomes possible to perform a series of operations on several fields that are in consecutive storage locations. Some of the basic operations, such as ADD, SUBTRACf, MOVE, and LOAD, have the ability to be chained so that less time is required to perform the operations, and space is saved in storing instructions"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | robin.vowels@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d57ec52d-9479-403f-8940-1020ffbf7e85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210416 |
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 5:27:39 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: > > h.....@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. > > Probably not much good at all, which is probably why they > later increased it. > > Of course, maybe there were simpler operating systems. > > Don't forget, the base 1401 was offered with as little as > 1.2k (1,200 characters). I can't imagine anyone doing much > work with that, but apparently it was popular. It basically > functioned as a tabulator and I suppose even with that > little core it performed more sophisticated stuff. > > Others have said the full 1401, at 16k, was a luxury > (though our hospital had that). > > > > > 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. > > I have been told by many that IBM lowballed bids to get the sale. > Most times the computer delivered needed later upgrades to work well. Our S/360-50 came with 128K. The FORTRAN H compiler needed 256K to run. The PL/I compiler needed 64K. The system shortly needed an upgrade of 1Mb of LCS core (slow core store). But to use it effectively, MVT needed 256 of fast core - after using virtually all of the 128K of fast core, programs ran in slow core, with time penalty. > I suspect there was considerable 'sticker shock' so maybe > low balling was necessary to make the sale. Core was one > way to lower the price. > > I have no idea of pricing, but I suspect core wasn't cheap, > especially in the early years. I believe the IBM history > expected people not to order all that much and had bigger > orders than they expected, and thus had to ramp up core > production. It wasn't easy stringing the wires. > > Indeed, even in the PC era, I think the IBM PC maxed at > 640K and was offered in lower sizes to save money. > (Everyone I knew got 640k, but I guess some were smaller).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3440a86d-a639-44dd-84cd-b3a22ad86ed1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen 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. According to a 1964 System Summary, the base offerings was only 8k. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/politics/national-review-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html The 1974 System Summary has a lot of revisions. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/systemSummary/GA22-6810-12_360sysSumJan74.pdf > > 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 | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rbuqle$8om$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
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.
I am not sure if "architecture" is right word here. I fetched
machine readable listing of 1401 Autocoder and counting
instructions and sizes it seems that average 1401 instruction
size was of order 5.4 characters (first pass has lower
average 4.8, but the rest is bigger and give the above).
I would expect average 360 instruction size to be closer
to 4 bytes. BCD/character instructions take 6 bytes,
but address arithmetic and branches usualy are smaller.
There is question of number of needed instructions. For
card style commercial processing I would expect fixed
field length so 360 instructions with counters should be
good match. 360 has 16 registers, that could save a lot
of instructions in control and addressing part. So
I see no reason for "equivalent" programs on 360 to be
bigger.
OTOH 1401 software clearly made a lot of compromises to
save space and fit into available memory. And in 1965
1401 was mature. In 360 IBM tried to pack a lot of
featurse and remove limitations. And tried to make
things compatible with bigger machines. In effect,
much of system software was too bloated to run well
on small machines. Also, optimizing things required
time, and with decreasing memory prices it made no
sense for IBM to spend a lot of effort optimizing
software for small systems.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 10:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rc03c9$jge$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #211882 |
antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: > 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. > > I am not sure if "architecture" is right word here. I fetched > machine readable listing of 1401 Autocoder and counting > instructions and sizes it seems that average 1401 instruction > size was of order 5.4 characters (first pass has lower > average 4.8, but the rest is bigger and give the above). > I would expect average 360 instruction size to be closer > to 4 bytes. BCD/character instructions take 6 bytes, > but address arithmetic and branches usualy are smaller. > There is question of number of needed instructions. For > card style commercial processing I would expect fixed > field length so 360 instructions with counters should be > good match. 360 has 16 registers, that could save a lot > of instructions in control and addressing part. So > I see no reason for "equivalent" programs on 360 to be > bigger. > > OTOH 1401 software clearly made a lot of compromises to > save space and fit into available memory. And in 1965 > 1401 was mature. In 360 IBM tried to pack a lot of > featurse and remove limitations. And tried to make > things compatible with bigger machines. In effect, > much of system software was too bloated to run well > on small machines. Also, optimizing things required > time, and with decreasing memory prices it made no > sense for IBM to spend a lot of effort optimizing > software for small systems. Nope, very little of that is correct. You appear to have read about these things. I actually had many years of experience using them. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rc59d3$p0n$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #211897 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > I am not sure if "architecture" is right word here. I fetched
> > machine readable listing of 1401 Autocoder and counting
> > instructions and sizes it seems that average 1401 instruction
> > size was of order 5.4 characters (first pass has lower
> > average 4.8, but the rest is bigger and give the above).
> > I would expect average 360 instruction size to be closer
> > to 4 bytes. BCD/character instructions take 6 bytes,
> > but address arithmetic and branches usualy are smaller.
> > There is question of number of needed instructions. For
> > card style commercial processing I would expect fixed
> > field length so 360 instructions with counters should be
> > good match. 360 has 16 registers, that could save a lot
> > of instructions in control and addressing part. So
> > I see no reason for "equivalent" programs on 360 to be
> > bigger.
> >
> > OTOH 1401 software clearly made a lot of compromises to
> > save space and fit into available memory. And in 1965
> > 1401 was mature. In 360 IBM tried to pack a lot of
> > featurse and remove limitations. And tried to make
> > things compatible with bigger machines. In effect,
> > much of system software was too bloated to run well
> > on small machines. Also, optimizing things required
> > time, and with decreasing memory prices it made no
> > sense for IBM to spend a lot of effort optimizing
> > software for small systems.
>
> Nope, very little of that is correct.
> You appear to have read about these things.
>
> I actually had many years of experience using them.
Well, I never saw 1401, all I know is from reading.
As a student I during programming course I had contact
with IBM compatible equipement made in Eastern block
(this hardware was obsolete by western standards, but
we had nothing better). I know something about compilers,
what makes them small/big and what machine features
help/are problematic. And I have some experience
with various micros including fitting things in small
memory. I would like to understand 360 better,
so I played with Hercules, looked at listings from
old compilers and tried my assembly routines.
It would be nice if you could elaborate what of
the above that I wrote is wrong and why.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f62bc45f-d220-4075-a9fe-136f0ab36b61o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211943 |
Some of what you wrote was correct.
The System/360 did have a reputation for programs taking up more space on it
than on other computers.
Some things you wrote may simply have not been phrased well, due to English not
being your first language. IBM did design the System/360 so that the 360/30 was
compatible with the 360/75 - and that was achieved by using microcode in all but
the largest models of the System/360. ("Compatible with bigger machines" would
be read in English as compatible with some larger machine that _wasn't_ a \
System/360.)
John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 12:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rc5jmf$oms$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #211943 |
antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: >> >> > 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. >> > >> > I am not sure if "architecture" is right word here. I fetched >> > machine readable listing of 1401 Autocoder and counting >> > instructions and sizes it seems that average 1401 instruction >> > size was of order 5.4 characters (first pass has lower >> > average 4.8, but the rest is bigger and give the above). >> > I would expect average 360 instruction size to be closer >> > to 4 bytes. BCD/character instructions take 6 bytes, >> > but address arithmetic and branches usualy are smaller. >> > There is question of number of needed instructions. For >> > card style commercial processing I would expect fixed >> > field length so 360 instructions with counters should be >> > good match. 360 has 16 registers, that could save a lot >> > of instructions in control and addressing part. So >> > I see no reason for "equivalent" programs on 360 to be >> > bigger. >> > >> > OTOH 1401 software clearly made a lot of compromises to >> > save space and fit into available memory. And in 1965 >> > 1401 was mature. In 360 IBM tried to pack a lot of >> > featurse and remove limitations. And tried to make >> > things compatible with bigger machines. In effect, >> > much of system software was too bloated to run well >> > on small machines. Also, optimizing things required >> > time, and with decreasing memory prices it made no >> > sense for IBM to spend a lot of effort optimizing >> > software for small systems. >> >> Nope, very little of that is correct. >> You appear to have read about these things. >> >> I actually had many years of experience using them. > > Well, I never saw 1401, all I know is from reading. > As a student I during programming course I had contact > with IBM compatible equipement made in Eastern block > (this hardware was obsolete by western standards, but > we had nothing better). I know something about compilers, > what makes them small/big and what machine features > help/are problematic. And I have some experience > with various micros including fitting things in small > memory. I would like to understand 360 better, > so I played with Hercules, looked at listings from > old compilers and tried my assembly routines. > It would be nice if you could elaborate what of > the above that I wrote is wrong and why. Well, in my other posts I tried. You can't just compare S/360 instruction length to 1401 instruction length. I'll try to give a few examples. Clear the print area: 1401: CS 332 CS (5 characters) S/360: MVI PA,C' ' MVC PA+1(131),PA (10 bytes) Print a line: 1401: 2 S/360 You need to define a DCB, load address of print area, DCB, BALR into IBM routine to print. 1 character vs hundreds. Take a look at the hello world 1401 program here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1401#Booting_and_sample_program Notice how the entire boot process and printing is odne in one card. Clear 5 adjacent accumulators: 1401: S ACCUM5,ACCUM5 S S S S (11 characters) S/360: SP ACCUM5,ACCUM5 SP ACCUM4,ACCUM4 SP ACCUM3,ACCUM3 SP ACCUM2,ACCUM2 SP ACCUM1,ACCUM1 (30 bytes) The S/360 required all your character input to be packed before you could do any calculations. The 1401 happily treated spaces as zeros where the S/360 would abend. The 1401 disks were trivially easy to address and read/write. When S/360 first came out, many 1401 shops with 8K 1401s were told by IBM that they could use a 16K S/360 and COBOL. That wasn't even close. They ended up needing 64K. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-15 21:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rc8qub$ag9$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #211950 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes:
>
> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure if "architecture" is right word here. I fetched
> >> > machine readable listing of 1401 Autocoder and counting
> >> > instructions and sizes it seems that average 1401 instruction
> >> > size was of order 5.4 characters (first pass has lower
> >> > average 4.8, but the rest is bigger and give the above).
> >> > I would expect average 360 instruction size to be closer
> >> > to 4 bytes. BCD/character instructions take 6 bytes,
> >> > but address arithmetic and branches usualy are smaller.
> >> > There is question of number of needed instructions. For
> >> > card style commercial processing I would expect fixed
> >> > field length so 360 instructions with counters should be
> >> > good match. 360 has 16 registers, that could save a lot
> >> > of instructions in control and addressing part. So
> >> > I see no reason for "equivalent" programs on 360 to be
> >> > bigger.
> >> >
> >> > OTOH 1401 software clearly made a lot of compromises to
> >> > save space and fit into available memory. And in 1965
> >> > 1401 was mature. In 360 IBM tried to pack a lot of
> >> > featurse and remove limitations. And tried to make
> >> > things compatible with bigger machines. In effect,
> >> > much of system software was too bloated to run well
> >> > on small machines. Also, optimizing things required
> >> > time, and with decreasing memory prices it made no
> >> > sense for IBM to spend a lot of effort optimizing
> >> > software for small systems.
> >>
> >> Nope, very little of that is correct.
> >> You appear to have read about these things.
> >>
> >> I actually had many years of experience using them.
> >
> > Well, I never saw 1401, all I know is from reading.
> > As a student I during programming course I had contact
> > with IBM compatible equipement made in Eastern block
> > (this hardware was obsolete by western standards, but
> > we had nothing better). I know something about compilers,
> > what makes them small/big and what machine features
> > help/are problematic. And I have some experience
> > with various micros including fitting things in small
> > memory. I would like to understand 360 better,
> > so I played with Hercules, looked at listings from
> > old compilers and tried my assembly routines.
> > It would be nice if you could elaborate what of
> > the above that I wrote is wrong and why.
>
> Well, in my other posts I tried.
>
> You can't just compare S/360 instruction length to 1401 instruction
> length.
>
> I'll try to give a few examples. Clear the print area:
>
> 1401:
>
> CS 332
> CS
>
> (5 characters)
>
> S/360:
> MVI PA,C' '
> MVC PA+1(131),PA
>
> (10 bytes)
>
> Print a line:
>
> 1401:
>
> 2
>
> S/360
> You need to define a DCB, load address of print area, DCB, BALR into
> IBM routine to print.
>
> 1 character vs hundreds.
>
> Take a look at the hello world 1401 program here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1401#Booting_and_sample_program
>
> Notice how the entire boot process and printing is odne in one card.
>
> Clear 5 adjacent accumulators:
>
> 1401:
>
> S ACCUM5,ACCUM5
> S
> S
> S
> S
>
> (11 characters)
>
> S/360:
>
> SP ACCUM5,ACCUM5
> SP ACCUM4,ACCUM4
> SP ACCUM3,ACCUM3
> SP ACCUM2,ACCUM2
> SP ACCUM1,ACCUM1
>
> (30 bytes)
>
> The S/360 required all your character input to be packed before you
> could do any calculations. The 1401 happily treated spaces as zeros
> where the S/360 would abend.
>
> The 1401 disks were trivially easy to address and read/write.
>
> When S/360 first came out, many 1401 shops with 8K 1401s were told by
> IBM that they could use a 16K S/360 and COBOL. That wasn't even close.
> They ended up needing 64K.
Thanks for examples. However, for 360 you assume IBM sofware.
For "Hello world" I need two cards, one with PSW + CCW to load the
second card, the second with actual program. I can not do with
one card only because I load program outside fixed use area. More
precisely, I use 16 bytes on first card and 44 bytes on the second.
The actual program is:
R000000A0: 411000C8 LA 1,200(0,0) load_address
R000000A4: 50100048 ST 1,72(0,0) store
R000000A8: 9C00001F SIO 31(0) start_io
R000000AC: 820000C0 LPSW 192(0) load_program_status_word
reset is control words. I admit that in serious program I would
have to set up interrupt handlers and test for successful status.
Looking at 1401 examples you gave I see two main motives:
chaining and "IO instructions". Concerning chaining, IIUC
branches normally break chaining. In typical program I
would expect several tests and branches, so limited opportunity
for chaining. The point of excercise with counting intructions
in Autocoder was verify this intuition on a real example.
Average instruction length clearly shows that chaining have
limited effect on Autocoder. Unless Autocoder is for some
reasons atypical, this would indicate that chaining while
useful is not a game changer. Concerning IO operations
I see most of this as "additive overhead": on 360 one has
to do some setup work before doing IO. Once setup is done
per operation overhead is small (call to library routine).
Also, how many IO operations you had? I would expect to
have at least tens of normal instructions per IO.
Concerning disc operation: IIUC 360 hardware allows you to
divide disc into sectors of fixed size. With appropriate
library support users could use sector addresses like 1401.
OTOH I expect that most users strongly prefer dealing
with files to working with raw sector addresses (in
other words to add RAM and have more convenience).
I fully agree that with IBM software you wanted more RAM.
But what you wrote does not explain why? Assuming only
customer-written sofware what you wrote gives some examples
where 1401 code is much smaller. But one can also give
examples where 360 code is smaller (like using branch on
count). So result depends on relative frequency of
various instructions.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1254348283.613665619.514687.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #211882 |
<antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote: > 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. > > I am not sure if "architecture" is right word here. I fetched > machine readable listing of 1401 Autocoder and counting > instructions and sizes it seems that average 1401 instruction > size was of order 5.4 characters (first pass has lower > average 4.8, but the rest is bigger and give the above). > I would expect average 360 instruction size to be closer > to 4 bytes. BCD/character instructions take 6 bytes, > but address arithmetic and branches usualy are smaller. > There is question of number of needed instructions. For > card style commercial processing I would expect fixed > field length so 360 instructions with counters should be > good match. 360 has 16 registers, that could save a lot > of instructions in control and addressing part. So > I see no reason for "equivalent" programs on 360 to be > bigger. > > OTOH 1401 software clearly made a lot of compromises to > save space and fit into available memory. And in 1965 > 1401 was mature. In 360 IBM tried to pack a lot of > featurse and remove limitations. And tried to make > things compatible with bigger machines. In effect, > much of system software was too bloated to run well > on small machines. Also, optimizing things required > time, and with decreasing memory prices it made no > sense for IBM to spend a lot of effort optimizing > software for small systems. > The 1401 architecture had fixed limits to the amount of memory a program could address. The 360 was designed so that programs could address large amounts of memory using small address fields. The beauty of the architecture is that it’s still usable, with some kludges for larger and larger memories. Compatr that with the PDP-10 we have been discussing that proved very difficult to extend. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55aaf575-0a11-4f01-af28-66a691f37ae8o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211903 |
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 8:49:43 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > The 1401 architecture had fixed limits to the amount of memory a program > could address. That's true. But IBM still managed to come out with related computers that could access more memory, by expanding the address fields to four characters instead of three. Not that this overturns your point, that, with base registers, the System/360 was much more capable of handling a larger address space. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 29 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web