Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #208265 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-11-25 13:20 -0800 |
| Last post | 2020-03-12 18:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 634 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-25 13:20 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-11-25 15:07 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-26 01:22 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 12:54 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-28 18:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-11-28 09:44 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2019-11-28 11:04 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-23 03:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2019-11-25 14:41 -1000
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-26 01:31 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 12:49 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-11-27 21:23 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:39 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 18:18 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2019-12-02 00:23 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-02 15:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2019-11-28 03:16 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-26 21:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-11-26 22:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-26 22:50 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-27 00:41 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-27 05:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-27 11:22 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-27 19:54 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:05 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:04 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2019-11-27 13:11 -1000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-28 18:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 13:28 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-01 13:16 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2019-12-03 15:14 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-12-04 13:01 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 19:41 -0500
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
Re: IBM system/360 ad rnetzlof@gmail.com - 2020-03-09 18:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2020-03-09 21:36 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 00:14 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 02:31 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-10 12:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad rnetzlof@gmail.com - 2020-03-12 15:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 20:08 -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 20:46 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad rnetzlof@gmail.com - 2020-03-12 18:21 -0700
Page 30 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 11:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <59706420-016b-4b10-8339-4cd0f82268ebo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213233 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 10:40:54 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote: > In article <ri73b4$hvm$1@dont-email.me>, > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > >I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > > > >USELESS > > > >Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > > > > he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > > mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > > use in UK universities and technical colleges. > > > >No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > > > >I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in > >universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? > > The Wikipedia page also says that one was in use at the National > Physical Laboratory in the UK until 1980. If this computer was > useless, so was its contemporary the IBM 7094. Both were designed to > do scientific and engineering computation, not accounting. > > Some people may not find value in the kinds of calculations that > determine whether a bridge design will collapse in a strong wind, but > I suspect the people who use the bridge would disagree. > > FYI, at the same time they built the much less interesting KDF8 > for commercial computing, a clone of the RCA 501. Likewise, there were people who could not find value in the kinds of data processing that put out the paychecks and accounts payable, but I suspect the people who get those checks timely and accurately would disagree. Indeed, the IBM history noted this attitude. And, I've seen it myself from academic researchers disparaging the business side of the computer center. At least until they fouled up their PDP work and needed us to bail them out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9e6e80a-26ec-476d-a0b5-f3f513fecda0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213232 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > Robin Vowels <r.......@gmail.com> writes: > > > Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. > > Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing > > memory being 24 bits. > > With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to > > run 4 programs concurrently. > > single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), > > and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > > USELESS > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > > he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > use in UK universities and technical colleges. And where were the others installed? > No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. It may amaze you, but a universal computer can do decimal arithmetic and character handling (without byte addressing). How do you think that FORTRAN and COBOL compilers were provided? Decimal arithmetic can be carried out using binary integer arithmetic hardware and/or with floating-point arithmetic hardware. Some CDC machines did not have decimal arithmetic hardware nor character handling instructions. > I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in > universities. Did it ever have any real world usage?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 09:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ri8c88$brb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213248 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >> Robin Vowels <r.......@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. >> > Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing >> > memory being 24 bits. >> > With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to >> > run 4 programs concurrently. >> > single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), >> > and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). >> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >> >> USELESS >> >> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. >> >> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the >> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in >> use in UK universities and technical colleges. > > And where were the others installed? > >> No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > > It may amaze you, but a universal computer can do > decimal arithmetic and character handling (without > byte addressing). > How do you think that FORTRAN and COBOL compilers > were provided? > > Decimal arithmetic can be carried out using binary integer > arithmetic hardware and/or with floating-point arithmetic hardware. > > Some CDC machines did not have decimal arithmetic hardware > nor character handling instructions. Wasn't this a discussion about computers with useful architectures. This one looks like it was only useful for a small subset of applications. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 10:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360 |
| Message-ID | <026dabc1-5590-49f2-bf07-47bc125ab700n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213251 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:25:30 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Robin Vowels <r.......@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. > >> > Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing > >> > memory being 24 bits. > >> > With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to > >> > run 4 programs concurrently. > >> > single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), > >> > and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). > >> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > >> > >> USELESS > >> > >> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > >> > >> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > >> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > >> use in UK universities and technical colleges. > > > > And where were the others installed? > > > >> No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > > > > It may amaze you, but a universal computer can do > > decimal arithmetic and character handling (without > > byte addressing). > > How do you think that FORTRAN and COBOL compilers > > were provided? > > > > Decimal arithmetic can be carried out using binary integer > > arithmetic hardware and/or with floating-point arithmetic hardware. > > > > Some CDC machines did not have decimal arithmetic hardware > > nor character handling instructions. > Wasn't this a discussion about computers with useful architectures. > This one looks like it was only useful for a small subset of > applications. A general-purpose computer could be used for ANY application.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1426157273.620232333.190341.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213248 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >> Robin Vowels <r.......@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. >>> Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing >>> memory being 24 bits. >>> With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to >>> run 4 programs concurrently. >>> single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), >>> and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). >> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >> >> USELESS >> >> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. >> >> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the >> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in >> use in UK universities and technical colleges. > > And where were the others installed? > >> No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > > It may amaze you, but a universal computer can do > decimal arithmetic and character handling (without > byte addressing). > How do you think that FORTRAN and COBOL compilers > were provided? > > Decimal arithmetic can be carried out using binary integer > arithmetic hardware and/or with floating-point arithmetic hardware. Lots more work, though. Character handling can be handled by subroutines that do shifting and masking. but it’s got to be a lot slower. Using binary for decimal calculations can choke on division. Just trying to align on the decimal point is a problem. Most systems use some form of BCD via subroutines, which is a LOT more code. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0406b876-67b0-4429-b7a6-8c180df1fb27n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213260 |
On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 12:50:54 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote: > Robin Vowels <r.........@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Robin Vowels <r.......@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. > >>> Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing > >>> memory being 24 bits. > >>> With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to > >>> run 4 programs concurrently. > >>> single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), > >>> and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). > >> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > >> > >> USELESS > >> > >> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > >> > >> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > >> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > >> use in UK universities and technical colleges. > > > > And where were the others installed? > > > >> No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > > > > It may amaze you, but a universal computer can do > > decimal arithmetic and character handling (without > > byte addressing). > > How do you think that FORTRAN and COBOL compilers > > were provided? > > > > Decimal arithmetic can be carried out using binary integer > > arithmetic hardware and/or with floating-point arithmetic hardware. > Lots more work, though. Character handling can be handled by subroutines > that do shifting and masking. but it’s got to be a lot slower. Using binary > for decimal calculations can choke on division. Just trying to align on the > decimal point is a problem. The scaling is done before (integer) division. > Most systems use some form of BCD via > subroutines, which is a LOT more code. Not if the scaling is done before division. One instruction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1223599925.620263905.158759.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213272 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 12:50:54 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote: >> Robin Vowels <r.........@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >>>> Robin Vowels <r.......@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. >>>>> Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing >>>>> memory being 24 bits. >>>>> With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to >>>>> run 4 programs concurrently. >>>>> single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), >>>>> and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). >>>> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >>>> >>>> USELESS >>>> >>>> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. >>>> >>>> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the >>>> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in >>>> use in UK universities and technical colleges. >>> >>> And where were the others installed? >>> >>>> No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. >>> >>> It may amaze you, but a universal computer can do >>> decimal arithmetic and character handling (without >>> byte addressing). >>> How do you think that FORTRAN and COBOL compilers >>> were provided? >>> >>> Decimal arithmetic can be carried out using binary integer >>> arithmetic hardware and/or with floating-point arithmetic hardware. >> Lots more work, though. Character handling can be handled by subroutines >> that do shifting and masking. but it’s got to be a lot slower. Using binary >> for decimal calculations can choke on division. Just trying to align on the >> decimal point is a problem. > > The scaling is done before (integer) division. >> Most systems use some form of BCD via >> subroutines, which is a LOT more code. > > Not if the scaling is done before division. There are edge cases where this doesn’t work > > One instruction. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 05:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <593a7350-7662-4de3-ac2e-a2a5b175da5cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213304 |
On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 9:40:19 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote: > Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 12:50:54 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Robin Vowels <r.........@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > >>>> Robin Vowels <r.......@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. > >>>>> Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing > >>>>> memory being 24 bits. > >>>>> With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to > >>>>> run 4 programs concurrently. > >>>>> single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), > >>>>> and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). > >>>> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > >>>> > >>>> USELESS > >>>> > >>>> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > >>>> > >>>> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > >>>> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > >>>> use in UK universities and technical colleges. > >>> > >>> And where were the others installed? > >>> > >>>> No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > >>> > >>> It may amaze you, but a universal computer can do > >>> decimal arithmetic and character handling (without > >>> byte addressing). > >>> How do you think that FORTRAN and COBOL compilers > >>> were provided? > >>> > >>> Decimal arithmetic can be carried out using binary integer > >>> arithmetic hardware and/or with floating-point arithmetic hardware. > >> Lots more work, though. Character handling can be handled by subroutines > >> that do shifting and masking. but it’s got to be a lot slower. Using binary > >> for decimal calculations can choke on division. Just trying to align on the > >> decimal point is a problem. > > > > The scaling is done before (integer) division. > > >> Most systems use some form of BCD via > >> subroutines, which is a LOT more code. > > > > Not if the scaling is done before division. > There are edge cases where this doesn’t work Such as?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8951b823-6ae4-4f76-abf7-78dadfca5d0fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213232 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: > > > Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. > > Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing > > memory being 24 bits. > > With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to > > run 4 programs concurrently. > > single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), > > and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > > USELESS > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > > he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > use in UK universities and technical colleges. > > No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > > I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in > universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? The Lyons catering firm installed one for handling all their commercial work. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/kdf9-lyons-electronic-office-computer-installation/6AEMy-nRLFAUog I think that you might find other commercial installations if you looked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 09:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ri8cit$brb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213249 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:47:18 AM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >> Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. >> > Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing >> > memory being 24 bits. >> > With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to >> > run 4 programs concurrently. >> > single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), >> > and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). >> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >> >> USELESS >> >> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. >> >> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the >> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in >> use in UK universities and technical colleges. >> >> No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. >> >> I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in >> universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? > > The Lyons catering firm installed one for handling all > their commercial work. > > https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/kdf9-lyons-electronic-office-computer-installation/6AEMy-nRLFAUog > > I think that you might find other commercial installations > if you looked. I have a suspicion that a "Meteorological Office" isn't what most people think of as a commercial installation. I'm not going to make a career out of it, but I did look. Hmm, you argue on seeking just about anything to prove your point, just like Rod, but you're avoiding his usual turns of phrase. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ri8r9k$1hcj$3@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213252 |
In article <ri8cit$brb$3@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in >>> universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? >> >> The Lyons catering firm installed one for handling all >> their commercial work. >> >> https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/kdf9-lyons-electronic-office-computer-installation/6AEMy-nRLFAUog >> >> I think that you might find other commercial installations >> if you looked. > >I have a suspicion that a "Meteorological Office" isn't what most people >think of as a commercial installation. Sheesh, the photo was found at the Met office but it clearly says Lyons Electronic Office. I would hope anyone familiar with the history of computers would be aware that the J. Lyons catering firm built the original LEO in the early 1950s, the first commercial electronic computer, which they used to manage the logistics of supply for their many restaurants, and were for a while building computers for sale to others. LEO was merged into English Electric in the early 1960s so it wouldn't be surprising if they used a transistorized KDF9 to replace aging valve LEOs. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stoat <fake@fake.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 15:49 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <ri9usn$div$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213273 |
On 28/08/20 5:42 am, John Levine wrote: > In article <ri8cit$brb$3@dont-email.me>, > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in >>>> universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? >>> >>> The Lyons catering firm installed one for handling all >>> their commercial work. >>> >>> https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/kdf9-lyons-electronic-office-computer-installation/6AEMy-nRLFAUog >>> >>> I think that you might find other commercial installations >>> if you looked. >> >> I have a suspicion that a "Meteorological Office" isn't what most people >> think of as a commercial installation. > > Sheesh, the photo was found at the Met office but it clearly says > Lyons Electronic Office. > > I would hope anyone familiar with the history of computers would be > aware that the J. Lyons catering firm built the original LEO in the > early 1950s, the first commercial electronic computer, which they used > to manage the logistics of supply for their many restaurants, and were > for a while building computers for sale to others. LEO was merged into > English Electric in the early 1960s so it wouldn't be surprising if > they used a transistorized KDF9 to replace aging valve LEOs. > The LEO 3 was transistorised, not valves. I used one in UK in 1963-64. Later transistorised models, the LEO 360 and the LEO 326 were built by English Electric after the takeover/merger in 1963. The pictured machine seems to be a KDF9, not a LEO. Side-by-side tape spools are the main giveaway. --brian -- Wellington New Zealand
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 16:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ri8i5l$44f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213230 |
On 27/08/2020 01:59, Robin Vowels wrote: > Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. > Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing > memory being 24 bits. > With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to > run 4 programs concurrently. > single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), > and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). It is my belief that Charles Moore came up with FORTH after becoming familiar with the published info of the KDF9 instruction set. ISTR from my undergrad 8 week internship with the CEGB in 1971 that KDF9s were part of the Fawley Power Station automation scheme. (Was taken there on a day trip and purchased Venison sausages on the way back from the butcher in Lyndhurst)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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]
Page 30 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web