Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #152214 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-02 23:17 +0300 |
| Last post | 2015-10-05 16:46 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 230 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
the legacy of Seymour Cray RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-02 23:17 +0300
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-02 13:41 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-02 17:19 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:30 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-05 17:24 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:16 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 12:07 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2015-10-06 12:12 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:18 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-07 14:23 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-02 20:52 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-02 19:04 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-10-03 05:37 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-03 08:47 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-03 08:59 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-03 09:58 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-03 12:22 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2015-10-02 15:36 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:16 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-02 17:47 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-03 04:55 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-03 12:39 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-03 12:56 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-03 20:29 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-03 20:43 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-03 13:51 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-05 12:10 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:38 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-05 16:58 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-05 17:18 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: fare collection hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 11:58 -0700
Re: fare collection Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 01:17 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 22:44 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-05 17:31 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-05 23:26 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 00:54 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 07:44 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-06 14:59 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:47 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-06 18:03 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-10-06 16:22 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-06 23:22 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 18:33 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:54 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-07 14:33 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 14:08 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-07 16:52 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 19:30 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-07 18:58 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 19:25 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 12:20 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 20:27 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 12:20 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 09:47 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-08 14:10 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 14:25 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-08 20:25 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 16:27 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 17:47 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-11 13:30 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-09 18:40 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-10 16:12 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-11 13:27 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-11 15:01 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-11 18:45 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-11 22:28 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-12 13:44 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-12 09:55 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-12 08:36 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:41 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-08 14:52 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-08 09:00 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 18:29 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-08 15:06 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 12:17 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 16:33 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-09 19:40 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-10 16:12 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 14:35 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 00:07 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 00:10 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-09 20:01 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-09 19:38 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-09 18:59 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 09:00 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-10 16:12 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-11 08:16 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-11 14:15 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-12 15:39 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 19:41 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-13 07:43 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-13 12:18 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-11 16:37 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:41 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-12 16:21 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 19:54 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:23 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-13 12:28 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-13 21:08 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-11 08:35 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-11 08:40 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-11 12:13 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-10 19:32 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-10 22:51 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-11 13:37 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-10 12:07 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-09 13:23 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-08 14:37 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 13:16 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 13:32 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-08 20:11 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-09 13:57 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-09 21:46 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 16:47 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-09 18:18 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 19:39 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 07:47 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-08 16:03 +0100
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-08 15:00 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 08:39 +0200
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-08 08:57 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-08 14:57 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 13:30 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-09 23:36 -0500
Re: IBM disks, was the legacy of Seymour Cray John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-10 05:18 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 09:16 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-10 11:20 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-11 13:42 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-10 18:08 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-01-08 13:12 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:34 -0800
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-01-13 15:39 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 08:03 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-01-14 13:10 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-01-14 14:49 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 15:00 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-14 14:28 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-14 19:57 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 22:24 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 16:40 +0100
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-01-15 14:18 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:57 -0800
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-15 22:22 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-18 15:24 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-18 16:35 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-18 17:46 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-14 11:13 -0800
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 19:57 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-08 21:50 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-01-14 13:23 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-08 14:27 -0800
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:31 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-01-14 13:30 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-08 17:01 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-09 01:10 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-08 22:33 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-09 23:43 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-07 16:34 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 19:38 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 19:17 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 12:20 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 09:45 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-08 14:05 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-08 15:06 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-08 16:20 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 16:35 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-09 18:12 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-10 00:22 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 23:44 +0200
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 18:33 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-08 14:36 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 11:57 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-08 12:51 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-08 21:09 -0600
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-10-09 06:12 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-08 15:12 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-08 17:47 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 16:32 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-08 12:12 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 21:40 +0200
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 16:33 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-06 17:32 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 01:17 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-06 23:29 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 08:13 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 22:51 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-06 23:19 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2015-10-06 11:44 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:24 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-08 11:33 +0100
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:13 +0200
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 12:20 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-09 10:32 +0100
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 15:42 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-09 11:19 +0100
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 22:34 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-12 23:23 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 10:36 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-13 11:39 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:23 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-13 10:51 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-13 14:59 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-13 17:47 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 03:15 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-14 07:07 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-13 17:43 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 05:39 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-14 13:11 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-13 20:52 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-13 14:43 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-05 17:26 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-05 18:43 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-05 22:32 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-05 23:33 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 08:03 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:36 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 22:53 -0700
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-10 15:54 +0000
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-11 13:51 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:30 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-10-06 19:44 -0400
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-05 12:02 -0500
Re: the legacy of Seymour Cray "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:46 -0500
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1O-dnaOWnPFVN4fLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #152603 |
Quadibloc wrote: The Model 30, though, kept the > microcode in regular core, so its microcode was writable. > Nope, that is the model /25, which I guess a lot of people felt was about interchangeable with the model /30. The real /30 used mylar cards with the word lines silver-printed on them, and these could be punched in a regular card punch to punch out the capacitor pads to turn them into zeroes. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81554d95-04b4-4a6f-a233-e40c3e0d889d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152589 |
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 5:27:57 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > Was the 1401 modde really an "emulation"??? I thought that the early IBM > 360s had a writable microcode store. You could load the microcode to > literally make the machine a 1401 or a 7090. To me, this is *not* > emulation... it's more of a transmogrifying operation. IBM chose to call it 'emulation', as opposed to 'simulation', because... > ISTM that IBM's idea was to allow a company that purchased a new IBM 360... > to run their old 1401 or 7090 software right now. Then, as the 360 > applications came to be the main things done, the older code could be > "phased out". Originally, IBM planned for customers to use a software simulator if they wanted to run old programs on their new S/360. But they discovered that software simulators ran very slow--much slower than the old machine, and this would obviously discourage customers from trading up. IBM discovered that the microcode they were using would allow the addition of old machine instructions. The combination of software and hardware would allow fast execution, faster than the old machine. This would be called "emulation". It was a major selling point. (The 360 history goes into details on this stuff.) Has anyone done 7090 or other 7xxx emulation? What was the octal world like? By the way, I think there was no emulator for the 650 and 305. I guess they did use a simulator for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvbdci21sao@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152605 |
On 2015-10-10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > Has anyone done 7090 or other 7xxx emulation? What was the octal world like? Honeywell had a product called "Liberator" that did 1410/7010 emulation. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1O-dnaCWnPGzN4fLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #152589 |
Charles Richmond wrote: > > Was the 1401 modde really an "emulation"??? I thought that the early IBM > 360s had a writable microcode store. No, I think only the 360/25 had writeable control store, and that was the upper 16 KB of main core memory. So, the machine could do one microcode cycle, then a user program memory cycle, then another microcode cycle. Really slowed the machine down. The other 360 models could have additional fixed microcode added to the control store by customer engineers, or at the factory. Different machines had different systems for holding the microcode, mostly capacitive cards in the 360/30, /50 and /65 (the /30 was a completely different system than the /50 and /65). IBM called these CROS and CCROS. The /40 and some high-end models used a magnetic control store, based on a transformer scheme. They called this TROS. Some 370's could load microcode and diagnostics from floppy disk, including emulators. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 15:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1913971129.466282421.584104.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #152696 |
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote: > Charles Richmond wrote: > > >> >> Was the 1401 modde really an "emulation"??? I thought that the early IBM >> 360s had a writable microcode store. > No, I think only the 360/25 had writeable control store, and that was the > upper 16 KB of main core memory. So, the machine could do one microcode > cycle, then a user program memory cycle, then another microcode cycle. > Really slowed the machine down. The /25 was a later 360 model anyway. > > The other 360 models could have additional fixed microcode added to the > control store by customer engineers, or at the factory. Different machines > had different systems for holding the microcode, mostly capacitive cards in > the 360/30, /50 and /65 (the /30 was a completely different system than the > /50 and /65). IBM called these CROS and CCROS. The /40 and some high-end > models used a magnetic control store, based on a transformer scheme. They > called this TROS. > > Some 370's could load microcode and diagnostics from floppy disk, including > emulators. > > Jon > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90512141-c139-40ba-b412-9a967ebc17d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152696 |
On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 2:27:59 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > No, I think only the 360/25 had writeable control store, and that was the > upper 16 KB of main core memory. So, the machine could do one microcode > cycle, then a user program memory cycle, then another microcode cycle. > Really slowed the machine down. If memory serves, I think the S/360-2x series (20, 25, etc) were the "budget" line to serve small users for which even the model 30 was too big. To do so, IIRC, IBM had to sacrifice the principle of compatibility, and the 2x series had a reduced instruction set. I don't know if a 2x user could upgrade to a real 360 or 370 later. None the less, I think the series was still pretty popular. Many model 20's were used as an RJE station. In marketing terms and intro dates, I don't know how the 2x series fit in with the System/3, which was also an attempt by IBM to produce a budget line of computers. But I know lots of S/3x/400 users who loved their machines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 22:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvf5ol$nej$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152715 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 2:27:59 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > >> No, I think only the 360/25 had writeable control store, and that was the >> upper 16 KB of main core memory. So, the machine could do one microcode >> cycle, then a user program memory cycle, then another microcode cycle. >> Really slowed the machine down. > > If memory serves, I think the S/360-2x series (20, 25, etc) were the > "budget" line to serve small users for which even the model 30 was too > big. To do so, IIRC, IBM had to sacrifice the principle of > compatibility, and the 2x series had a reduced instruction set. I > don't know if a 2x user could upgrade to a real 360 or 370 later. The 20 and 25 don't form a series. The S360/20 was named by marketing. The machine could not run programs from the other S360 models, so was not a S/360 except it could use some of the same peripherals. The 25 was a S/360 and ran DOS/360. > None the less, I think the series was still pretty popular. Many model 20's were used as an RJE station. > > In marketing terms and intro dates, I don't know how the 2x series fit > in with the System/3, which was also an attempt by IBM to produce a > budget line of computers. But I know lots of S/3x/400 users who loved > their machines. > > > -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lbednUTbT43RYobLnZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #152716 |
Dan Espen wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 2:27:59 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: >> >>> No, I think only the 360/25 had writeable control store, and that was >>> the >>> upper 16 KB of main core memory. So, the machine could do one microcode >>> cycle, then a user program memory cycle, then another microcode cycle. >>> Really slowed the machine down. >> >> If memory serves, I think the S/360-2x series (20, 25, etc) were the >> "budget" line to serve small users for which even the model 30 was too >> big. To do so, IIRC, IBM had to sacrifice the principle of >> compatibility, and the 2x series had a reduced instruction set. I >> don't know if a 2x user could upgrade to a real 360 or 370 later. > > The 20 and 25 don't form a series. > > The S360/20 was named by marketing. > The machine could not run programs from the other S360 models, > so was not a S/360 except it could use some of the same peripherals. The model /20 was a 16-bit mini with 8 (16-bit) registers. The layout of the instruction set was SIMILAR to the way 360 instructions were arranged. It could connect to, I think, 3 standard 360 peripherals, but had no channel interface. I believe it could connect to a 2540 card read/punch, a 1403 printer and one tape drive, through integrated controllers. Very sparse program support was provided, assembler and RPG was about it. There was no OS. The 360/22 and 360/25 were machines that were sold into the same market as the 360/30. I believe the /22 was a lower-cost, lower-performance model, and the 360/25 was slightly higher performance. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 09:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <909783657.466350457.592964.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #152715 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 2:27:59 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > >> No, I think only the 360/25 had writeable control store, and that was the >> upper 16 KB of main core memory. So, the machine could do one microcode >> cycle, then a user program memory cycle, then another microcode cycle. >> Really slowed the machine down. > > If memory serves, I think the S/360-2x series (20, 25, etc) were the > "budget" line to serve small users for which even the model 30 was too > big. To do so, IIRC, IBM had to sacrifice the principle of > compatibility, and the 2x series had a reduced instruction set. I don't > know if a 2x user could upgrade to a real 360 or 370 later. > > None the less, I think the series was still pretty popular. Many model > 20's were used as an RJE station. > > In marketing terms and intro dates, I don't know how the 2x series fit in > with the System/3, which was also an attempt by IBM to produce a budget > line of computers. But I know lots of S/3x/400 users who loved their machines. > I think the /25 had full 360 compatibility, unlike the /20. I always thought of it as a slower /30. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9200443-7e73-45d3-bfff-5456d3722e01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152733 |
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 7:55:39 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > I think the /25 had full 360 compatibility, unlike the /20. I always > thought of it as a slower /30. Yes, that is correct. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvgnrr31si6@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152715 |
On 2015-10-12, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > If memory serves, I think the S/360-2x series (20, 25, etc) were the > "budget" line to serve small users for which even the model 30 was > too big. To do so, IIRC, IBM had to sacrifice the principle of > compatibility, and the 2x series had a reduced instruction set. > I don't know if a 2x user could upgrade to a real 360 or 370 later. You could, with not too much work. I spent several years doing the Univac equivalent (9300->90/30) in a number of shops. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <saWdne8vJNKpVIvLnZ2dnUU7-QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #152438 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:58:09 PM UTC-6, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> I was never in an IBM shop, so this question comes from complete >> ignorance: the emulated 1401 used the 360's physical console switches? > 1401's had a VERY simple console. Just a few lights and very few switches. So, the 360 emulator probably gave more info than a real 1401. > My ignorance is not complete, but I haven't got direct experience of this. > > Basically, _emulation_ was distinct from _simulation_ - it was *not* > software only. It was an add-on hardware feature. > Not really, but somewhere in between. All the 360's had the basic functions to emulate other machines. But, the emulation feature was FIRMWARE, ie. additional microcode storage. > So you could buy a 360/30 for extra money that had extra instructions that > would switch it into 1401 mode. > Higher end 360's (I think that includes /40 and up) could switch emulation under software control, meaning that you could run a mix of 360 and 14xx/70xx programs under the one OS/360. I think the 360/30 and it's sort- of-clones, models /22 and /25, could not switch back and forth, but needed to run exclusively as a 360 or whatever one emulation it had installed. The 360/25 actually had writeable control store, and you loaded the emulation of choice (including 360) from the card reader with a special console button "CPL" for Control program Load. Apparently, they had a universal boot loader in the control store, and if that ever got blitzed, you had to reload that from the console switches. Possibly, only the CE could do that with the CE key. The writeable control store was just the top 16 K bytes of main core storage. Certainly made the machine cheap to produce, as there was no separate control store system. But, it also slowed the machine down. The mircocode was pretty limited as it was only 16 bits wide, a VERY vertical microprogramming environment. > And, naturally, it used the same lights and switches no matter what it was > doing - it was the same computer, after all. You had to read the manual to > find out how 1401 memory locations were assigned to 360 memory locations. > Yes, they did not do decimal/binary conversion, so memory was full of "holes" when in emulation mode for a decimal-address computer like the 1401. Memory locations 0-9 were normal, then it skipped over locations A-F (hex) then decimal location 10 was location 10 hex (sixteen decimal) in physical memory. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 09:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mv5p9p$cns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152433 |
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > >> Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes: >> >>> I can't IMAGINE >>> the hair-pulling hassle of trying to debug a program bug in emulated 1401 on >>> a 360/30 from the console switches! YIKES, what a horror movie that would >>> be, compared to decent debug facilities on modern OS's. >> >> No need to imagine something that didn't happen. >> >> I wrote plenty of 1401 code and debugged plenty under emulation. >> >> I never debugged 1401 code using console switches on a 360. >> Maybe some shop did, but I can't imagine why. > > I was never in an IBM shop, so this question comes from complete > ignorance: the emulated 1401 used the 360's physical console switches? No. Well, yes, you could sit at a 360/30 console and single step through execution, reading instruction addresses and displaying data using console lights. But the /30 was too valuable for that kind of slow exercise. You ran a test and read the printed output. The 1401 had some physical switches on the console a program could read for job options, (the UPSI switches). When running in emulation, a JCL statement allowed you to simulate the switch settings. The console was covered with switches. The only one commonly used was LOAD to start an IPL. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv6cn412nqt@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152461 |
On 2015-10-08, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > The 1401 had some physical switches on the console a program > could read for job options, (the UPSI switches). When running > in emulation, a JCL statement allowed you to simulate the switch > settings. The UPSI byte lived on natively in the various 360 operating systems, as well as its Univac counterparts. A bit of googling even shows it living in CMS. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 15:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mv6ent$5aq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152489 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > On 2015-10-08, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > >> The 1401 had some physical switches on the console a program >> could read for job options, (the UPSI switches). When running >> in emulation, a JCL statement allowed you to simulate the switch >> settings. > > The UPSI byte lived on natively in the various 360 operating systems, > as well as its Univac counterparts. A bit of googling even shows it > living in CMS. So, I'm thinking, surely not in z/OS. Nope, there it is living as an LE option and accessible in COBOL. Even there in Micro Focus COBOL. Some things just refuse to die. I wouldn't use UPSI switches on the 1401 and it's ugly carcass is still festering. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <206768dc-0f10-4455-836d-c499eed790bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152493 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:06:34 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote: > I wouldn't use UPSI switches on the 1401 and it's ugly carcass is still festering. If memory serves, it was available in 360-DOS (independent of 1401), but not available in OS-360. I've seen S/360 DOS COBOL applications use them. I think UPSI switches were an option on the 1401, not a standard item. I believe they are a throwback (a comfort feature) to process switches used on tabulating machines to set certain conditions for processing. On tabulating machines they made sense. However, on a computer, they really aren't necessary as a control card could indicate whatever conditions were needed, and be a lot more flexible. Of course, from a programming point of view, one had to read in the control card and store it someplace, while UPSI switches on a 1401 need only be tested. So, using a control card means slightly more programming work and some storage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <317233417.466028764.361695.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #152495 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:06:34 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote: >> I wouldn't use UPSI switches on the 1401 and it's ugly carcass is still festering. > > If memory serves, it was available in 360-DOS (independent of 1401), but > not available in OS-360. I've seen S/360 DOS COBOL applications use them. > > I think UPSI switches were an option on the 1401, not a standard item. I > believe they are a throwback (a comfort feature) to process switches used > on tabulating machines to set certain conditions for processing. On > tabulating machines they made sense. However, on a computer, they really > aren't necessary as a control card could indicate whatever conditions > were needed, and be a lot more flexible. > > Of course, from a programming point of view, one had to read in the > control card and store it someplace, while UPSI switches on a 1401 need > only be tested. So, using a control card means slightly more programming > work and some storage. > > We used to use the console switches on the 1130 for this. The operator might flip a switch to request optional output or, for example, month-end processing. This kind of thing is really only useful on a single-task dedicated machine. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 19:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mv9j92010ps@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152511 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > We used to use the console switches on the 1130 for this. The operator > might flip a switch to request optional output or, for example, month-end > processing. This kind of thing is really only useful on a single-task > dedicated machine. ...or a multi-tasking machine where the programs were designed to use different switches. Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvbdch11sao@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152601 |
On 2015-10-09, Joe Morris <j.c.morris@verizon.net> wrote: > "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> We used to use the console switches on the 1130 for this. The operator >> might flip a switch to request optional output or, for example, month-end >> processing. This kind of thing is really only useful on a single-task >> dedicated machine. > > ...or a multi-tasking machine where the programs were designed to use > different switches. And then you wind up with two programs that try to use the same switch (and you've lost the source decks), or you try to run two instances of the same program... But heck, the supervisor is already allocating memory, tape drives, etc. - why not allocate sense switches too? In place of a "mount" message on the console, you'd get a message saying that program X is assigned switch Y. If you try to run too many programs at once, some will remain in the job queue until a sense switch becomes available. I obviously haven't had any coffee yet today... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dc3baf4-5026-4b5b-a0dc-857f4ecff2fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152495 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > I think UPSI switches were an option on the 1401, not a standard item. I did some Googling, and found that this was correct - if the pages that came as my Google results are trustworthy. They also claimed that there were 8 (count 'em, eight) such switches on the 1401, and that they were designated by the letters A through G. Having some familiarity with the musical scale, this immediately seemed wrong to me, as those are only *seven* letters. I was not aware of the User Program Sense Indicator switches of the 1401, but I did know that the 704 and its successors had six sense switches and four sense lights, not only from examining photos of their front panels, but also because they were immortalized in the FORTRAN language. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web