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 3 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 30 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69bcfe34-eeba-4504-b707-44284581bb2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210457 |
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 5:52:21 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 6:47:02 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > >>> I think Univac would've done better if they just marketed > >>> it as a S/360 compatible box. > >> > >> It was definitely a workalike. The 90/30's non-privileged > >> instruction set was bit-for-bit identical with that of the > >> 360/50. The I/O architecture and most privileged instructions > >> were completely different, though. > > > > Hmm...according to Wikipedia, the 90 series was a popular > > and profitable product line for Univac. Apparently it > > was derived from both the 9700 series and RCA's Spectra > > series. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_Series_90 > > > > > > For customers, a key issue is cost. My guess was that > > our 90/30 was approximately the same as a 370-135 but without > > virtual storage. My guess is that Univac was cheaper, maybe > > a lot cheaper than IBM. > > > > But, as mentioned, that particular employer didn't seem very > > sure of what the wanted to do on the machine beyond some > > statistical reporting. > > > > As mentioned, they brought in a variety of COBOL programs > > but none of them worked due to the byte/word incompatibility. > > > > Spectras sound like pretty nice machines, I’m sorry I never got to work > with one. I think the Spectra were S/360 compatible. RCA lost a lot of money on them. I find that amazing in that RCA was a large well established electronics company. They were (or should've been) used to selling and supporting complex equipment to commercial users, such as radio and television broadcast equipment. I'm not sure what they did to lose so much money. I heard they had two separate key locations (Cherry Hill, NJ, and Boston) that was quite cumbersome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_Spectra_70 http://bitsavers.org/pdf/rca/spectra70/70-00-601_Spectra70_System_Info_Man_Dec64.pdf I always found it curious that RCA managed to develop such a close copy of S/360 in such a short period of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ac0b28-d05b-40c5-bce3-0619cc5e43a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210497 |
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > I always found it curious that RCA managed to > develop such a close copy of S/360 in such a short > period of time. The I/O wasn't the same, it didn't use IBM peripherals. RCA had experience in building computers. Most System/360 models - and presumably _all_ the Spectra computers - were microprogrammed. So it's: build one computer, write one emulator. The System/360 was not a hard computer to imitate, as computers go. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | robin.vowels@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c63b820-406a-42cc-a65a-013901362fc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210497 |
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 9:03:32 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 5:52:21 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > Spectras sound like pretty nice machines, I’m sorry I never got to work > > with one. > > I think the Spectra were S/360 compatible. There was one instruction missing OTOMH TS. > RCA lost a lot of money on them. I find that amazing in > that RCA was a large well established electronics company. > They were (or should've been) used to selling and > supporting complex equipment to commercial users, > such as radio and television broadcast equipment. > I'm not sure what they did to lose so much money. > I heard they had two separate key locations (Cherry > Hill, NJ, and Boston) that was quite cumbersome. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_Spectra_70 > > http://bitsavers.org/pdf/rca/spectra70/70-00-601_Spectra70_System_Info_Man_Dec64.pdf > > I always found it curious that RCA managed to > develop such a close copy of S/360 in such a short > period of time. IBM was compelled to make available to competitors all the S/360 specifications as an outcome of the anti-trust settlement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-13 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38c80d15-e9d1-4b79-a0b0-f493a4bc5ca4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210515 |
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 10:38:11 PM UTC-4, robin...@gmail.com wrote: > > I always found it curious that RCA managed to > > develop such a close copy of S/360 in such a short > > period of time. > > IBM was compelled to make available to competitors > all the S/360 specifications as an outcome of the anti-trust settlement. Not sure that's accurate. IBM was required to license patents, but not necessarily actual machine designs. In any event, until its announcement, System/360 was a strictly confidential project within IBM. So, it seems RCA was able to move very fast upon receipt of instructions in 1964 to release of their own machines in 1965.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-13 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5e6bcbea.4983145@news.dslextreme.com> |
| In reply to | #210497 |
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >RCA lost a lot of money on them. I find that amazing in=20 >that RCA was a large well established electronics company. >They were (or should've been) used to selling and=20 >supporting complex equipment to commercial users, >such as radio and television broadcast equipment. >I'm not sure what they did to lose so much money. >I heard they had two separate key locations (Cherry >Hill, NJ, and Boston) that was quite cumbersome. Robert Glass devotes a chapter to RCA in "Computing Catastrophes" (1983).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-13 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2022993714.605817285.641015.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210526 |
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> RCA lost a lot of money on them. I find that amazing in=20 >> that RCA was a large well established electronics company. >> They were (or should've been) used to selling and=20 >> supporting complex equipment to commercial users, >> such as radio and television broadcast equipment. >> I'm not sure what they did to lose so much money. >> I heard they had two separate key locations (Cherry >> Hill, NJ, and Boston) that was quite cumbersome. > > Robert Glass devotes a chapter to RCA in "Computing Catastrophes" (1983). > > Wow - $28.50 on Amazon. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a868e084-8c5a-41e3-a4d1-4c88a9e1794fo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210457 |
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 5:52:21 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 6:47:02 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > >>> I think Univac would've done better if they just marketed > >>> it as a S/360 compatible box. > >> > >> It was definitely a workalike. The 90/30's non-privileged > >> instruction set was bit-for-bit identical with that of the > >> 360/50. The I/O architecture and most privileged instructions > >> were completely different, though. > > > > Hmm...according to Wikipedia, the 90 series was a popular > > and profitable product line for Univac. Apparently it > > was derived from both the 9700 series and RCA's Spectra > > series. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_Series_90 > > > > > > For customers, a key issue is cost. My guess was that > > our 90/30 was approximately the same as a 370-135 but without > > virtual storage. My guess is that Univac was cheaper, maybe > > a lot cheaper than IBM. > > > > But, as mentioned, that particular employer didn't seem very > > sure of what the wanted to do on the machine beyond some > > statistical reporting. > > > > As mentioned, they brought in a variety of COBOL programs > > but none of them worked due to the byte/word incompatibility. > > > > Spectras sound like pretty nice machines, I’m sorry I never got to work > with one. RCA Spectra was a S/360 clone. I always found it amazing that RCA managed to copy and manufacture clones so soon after S/360's announcement. I can't help but suspect RCA had inside information in advance. My employer once had them but replaced with S/360.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 19:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ri90b91kkr@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #213276 |
On 2020-08-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > RCA Spectra was a S/360 clone. I always found it amazing > that RCA managed to copy and manufacture clones so soon > after S/360's announcement. I can't help but suspect > RCA had inside information in advance. Univac had their workalikes out just as fast. I think there was some sort of agreement hammered out to avoid legal ugliness elsewhere. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 01:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rbum40$4os$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #210374 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-03-09, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use
> > ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K.
> >
> > As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in
> > was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K.
> > It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a
> > miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with
> > 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the
> > minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a
> > time required 64K.
> >
> > I told an IBM salesman once that IBM had so bollixed up the architecture
> > that our application programs were easily twice as large as they were on
> > the 14xx. He checked with his technical people and had to concede the
> > point.
>
> Or maybe it was like the Univac salesmen who consistently low-balled
> memory requirements to get a low bid. Many customers found themselves
> buying memory expansions they were told they'd never need, after their
> new installation bogged down. Eventually even the documentation admitted
> to memory requirements of various packages being more than they originally
> claimed.
>
> Besides, the memory size limits on the various 360 processors were
> largely self-imposed. At worst it took a bit of work with a soldering
> iron to work around them. I once used a 360/30 with 128K of core; the
> switch and indicator for the extra address bit had a definite home-brewed
> look to them.
>
> Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come
> off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them.
Hmm, I am not sure about 360/30, but 360/25 has 16-bit address
registers for chanels. Adding more memory would mean either serious
incompatiblity (I/O limited to low 64 kB) or microcode rewrite.
I have no direct info on structure of 360/30 chanel hardware,
but using 16-bit address registers was obvious cost-saving
measure, so I would expect similar problem as with 360/25.
Determined outside vendor could probably add a board with
extra hardware for registers and tie to it enough control
and data lines so that it worked. Or maybe add less
harware and patch microcode. But to make it compatible
was probably much more than some rework using soldering iron.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 00:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360-30 |
| Message-ID | <rc162h$m9i$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #211879 |
In article <rbum40$4os$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl>, <antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote: >> Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come >> off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them. Looking at the FE manuals at bitsavers, that seems pretty unlikely unless the extra memory was treated as an I/O device. The internal addressing was only 16 bits. On a base system, the channels were implemented in CPU microcode. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 00:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360-30 |
| Message-ID | <rc16eq02rqv@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #211927 |
On 2020-06-13, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > In article <rbum40$4os$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl>, > <antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote: > >>> Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come >>> off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them. > > Looking at the FE manuals at bitsavers, that seems pretty unlikely > unless the extra memory was treated as an I/O device. The internal > addressing was only 16 bits. On a base system, the channels were > implemented in CPU microcode. Dunno how they did it, but I definitely saw a 360/30 with 128K. If they could hang one extra bit on the address lines, they could probably add a couple more. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 20:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360-30 |
| Message-ID | <rc175r$jfs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #211927 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: > In article <rbum40$4os$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl>, > <antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote: >>> Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come >>> off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them. > > Looking at the FE manuals at bitsavers, that seems pretty unlikely > unless the extra memory was treated as an I/O device. The internal > addressing was only 16 bits. On a base system, the channels were > implemented in CPU microcode. Nope. Third party vendors were responsible for extending the memory capacity. They did some additional wiring to accommodate the additional addressing lines. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0df46a5c-816c-4ccd-a254-458cf9e7d8a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: > A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use > ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. So use BOS instead. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 12:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r48e83$m4g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210384 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-6, 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. > > So use BOS instead. Any idea on the run time storage use? I can't really recall. Once you got the disk/tape access stuff into memory I don't think anything would be left in 8K. Certainly COBOL would be out of the question. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 02:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rbuo8b$6vf$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #210401 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>
> > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> >> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use
> >> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K.
> >
> > So use BOS instead.
>
> Any idea on the run time storage use?
> I can't really recall.
>
> Once you got the disk/tape access stuff into memory I don't think
> anything would be left in 8K. Certainly COBOL would be out of the question.
1965 text says assembler, linker and RPG in 8K memory.
For Cobol, Fortran and PL/I minimal requirement was 16K memory.
I am not sure if they were able to deliver. OTOH IMO it was
possible. Once you have disk one can swap out almost everthing
at acceptable cost. Basicaly, only few interrput handlers, descriptors
for devices, table of disc addreses of services and loader must be
resident. I would think that by limiting services and using
simplified descriptors one could get resident part to 1-2K.
OTOH IBM tried to have compatible operating systems. If you
insist of control block with the same format as in bigger machines
and on extra features, then bloat is unavoidable...
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 10:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rc02he$jge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #211880 |
antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >> >> > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-6, 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. >> > >> > So use BOS instead. >> >> Any idea on the run time storage use? >> I can't really recall. >> >> Once you got the disk/tape access stuff into memory I don't think >> anything would be left in 8K. Certainly COBOL would be out of the question. > > 1965 text says assembler, linker and RPG in 8K memory. > For Cobol, Fortran and PL/I minimal requirement was 16K memory. That would have to be with card based booting. 8K would have been a minimum for DOS. > I am not sure if they were able to deliver. OTOH IMO it was > possible. Once you have disk one can swap out almost everthing > at acceptable cost. DOS never was able to do any swapping. > Basicaly, only few interrput handlers, descriptors > for devices, table of disc addreses of services and loader must be > resident. I would think that by limiting services and using > simplified descriptors one could get resident part to 1-2K. I think you are seriously under estimating the complexity of the S/360 design. You can't do anything in 1-2K. The first online system I wrote handled screen input in a 2K transient area. A couple of the screens were a challenge to fit in 2K. (Assembler.) That was only the screen handling, the rest of the app was much larger. > OTOH IBM tried to have compatible operating systems. If you > insist of control block with the same format as in bigger machines > and on extra features, then bloat is unavoidable... Nope, very little attempt at IBM to have any compatibility between DOS and OS. DOS and OS both shipped as source code. No one was able to get the size much smaller. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 07:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1118842673.613666225.178451.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #211896 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>> >>>> On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-6, 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. >>>> >>>> So use BOS instead. >>> >>> Any idea on the run time storage use? >>> I can't really recall. >>> >>> Once you got the disk/tape access stuff into memory I don't think >>> anything would be left in 8K. Certainly COBOL would be out of the question. >> >> 1965 text says assembler, linker and RPG in 8K memory. >> For Cobol, Fortran and PL/I minimal requirement was 16K memory. > > That would have to be with card based booting. > 8K would have been a minimum for DOS. > >> I am not sure if they were able to deliver. OTOH IMO it was >> possible. Once you have disk one can swap out almost everthing >> at acceptable cost. > > DOS never was able to do any swapping. Not so-called, but DOS used a lot of “transients” (as did OS, by another name) Remember A- and B-transients? For applications we used a lot of overlays. > >> Basicaly, only few interrput handlers, descriptors >> for devices, table of disc addreses of services and loader must be >> resident. I would think that by limiting services and using >> simplified descriptors one could get resident part to 1-2K. > > I think you are seriously under estimating the complexity of the S/360 design. > You can't do anything in 1-2K. > > The first online system I wrote handled screen input in a 2K transient > area. A couple of the screens were a challenge to fit in 2K. (Assembler.) > That was only the screen handling, the rest of the app was much larger. > >> OTOH IBM tried to have compatible operating systems. If you >> insist of control block with the same format as in bigger machines >> and on extra features, then bloat is unavoidable... > > Nope, very little attempt at IBM to have any compatibility between DOS > and OS. DOS and OS both shipped as source code. No one was able to get > the size much smaller. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 12:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rc0929$nd0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #211905 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: >> >>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-6, 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. >>>>> >>>>> So use BOS instead. >>>> >>>> Any idea on the run time storage use? >>>> I can't really recall. >>>> >>>> Once you got the disk/tape access stuff into memory I don't think >>>> anything would be left in 8K. Certainly COBOL would be out of the question. >>> >>> 1965 text says assembler, linker and RPG in 8K memory. >>> For Cobol, Fortran and PL/I minimal requirement was 16K memory. >> >> That would have to be with card based booting. >> 8K would have been a minimum for DOS. >> >>> I am not sure if they were able to deliver. OTOH IMO it was >>> possible. Once you have disk one can swap out almost everthing >>> at acceptable cost. >> >> DOS never was able to do any swapping. > > Not so-called, but DOS used a lot of “transients” (as did OS, by another > name) Remember A- and B-transients? For applications we used a lot of > overlays. Yep, I remember the transient area. Another testament to the massive amounts of memory the S/360 design required. I encountered a few programs that needed overlays. Not a good solution. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1021991979.613674933.884148.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #211909 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: >>> >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-6, 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> So use BOS instead. >>>>> >>>>> Any idea on the run time storage use? >>>>> I can't really recall. >>>>> >>>>> Once you got the disk/tape access stuff into memory I don't think >>>>> anything would be left in 8K. Certainly COBOL would be out of the question. >>>> >>>> 1965 text says assembler, linker and RPG in 8K memory. >>>> For Cobol, Fortran and PL/I minimal requirement was 16K memory. >>> >>> That would have to be with card based booting. >>> 8K would have been a minimum for DOS. >>> >>>> I am not sure if they were able to deliver. OTOH IMO it was >>>> possible. Once you have disk one can swap out almost everthing >>>> at acceptable cost. >>> >>> DOS never was able to do any swapping. >> >> Not so-called, but DOS used a lot of “transients” (as did OS, by another >> name) Remember A- and B-transients? For applications we used a lot of >> overlays. > > Yep, I remember the transient area. > Another testament to the massive amounts of memory the S/360 design > required. After I posted I started thinking about what a bottleneck this was. I believe the system reserved an area for each of the various types of SVC. Some functions, like OPEN used a chain of SVCs to complete. By default there was only one of each area per system so OS would have been forced to single-thread them If multiple jobs needed, e.g. OPEN all at once all but one would have to wait. I checked on this, however, and see that an installation could specify additional areas. > > I encountered a few programs that needed overlays. > Not a good solution. > Maybe not so bad. I had a program that read a master file and generated what was needed for a number of reports. I then sorted them into whatever sequences the various reports needed and each report was an overlay, so each was only called once per job. PL/I(F) made multiple passes over the partially processed intermediate text, so there again each overlay was only loaded once. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78db4929-715a-4572-9ddb-18f0bccd89a4o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211905 |
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 10:54:53 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > DOS never was able to do any swapping. > > Not so-called, but DOS used a lot of “transients” (as did OS, by another > name) Remember A- and B-transients? For applications we used a lot of > overlays. Yes, some of our applications had their 'home rolled' swapping to disk. I heard some applications programs also did so on the 1401 when equipped with disk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web