Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163878 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 598 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-24 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-24 16:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-25 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-25 16:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-26 12:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-28 13:17 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-29 10:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 19:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:41 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 10:49 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:36 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-29 15:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:54 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Larry <lelmore76@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:29 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:45 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-25 17:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-25 22:04 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 00:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 10:07 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:55 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-26 15:57 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:00 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-27 11:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:49 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-28 13:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-28 17:53 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-29 13:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 16:33 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-05-31 14:10 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 22:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 07:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 12:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 10:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:11 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-01 17:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:31 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:41 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 15:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 10:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 11:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:14 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 16:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 17:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 10:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 09:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 10:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:59 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-08 15:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 15:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 10:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 11:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-09 16:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:00 -0700
Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-06-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:17 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 15:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 23:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:05 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:24 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 22:41 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:54 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 07:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 09:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 21:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 21:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 21:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-08 06:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 09:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 07:33 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 17:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 20:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:09 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:18 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 13:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-01 13:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 08:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-02 02:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-24 11:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-24 17:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-24 20:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-24 18:26 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-06-24 21:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-25 05:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 07:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-27 21:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 08:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-28 17:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 19:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-27 19:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 23:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 07:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 08:02 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 10:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 14:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 12:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 15:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-28 21:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-29 12:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:25 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-29 17:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-25 07:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:02 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 12:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 16:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-26 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-27 15:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-28 22:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 22:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-28 20:25 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 10:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 17:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 23:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-30 18:27 +0000
PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:20 -0400
Re: PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-28 00:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:47 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-01 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 20:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:48 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 07:50 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:38 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 12:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 10:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 07:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 06:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 07:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 08:52 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 14:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-05 10:04 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:20 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-04 15:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 16:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 17:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 19:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 12:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 13:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:44 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:07 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-03 17:04 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 12:08 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 10:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:51 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:05 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 15:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 06:12 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 07:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:24 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:48 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:29 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 19:47 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:45 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:48 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 13:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 14:57 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:21 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 14:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 09:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-08 12:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-07 18:08 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-08 12:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 09:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-08 19:06 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 18:17 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 09:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 12:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 12:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:02 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 21:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 03:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 22:42 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:51 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 22:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 18:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 23:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-04 23:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 09:25 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:05 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 20:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-09 07:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:13 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 10:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 18:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-05 17:53 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:53 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 22:06 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-07 13:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-08 00:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-04 13:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:39 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:14 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:45 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-03 15:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 12:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:05 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 06:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-10 11:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-16 17:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 16:15 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:49 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 12:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:23 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 02:15 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 22:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 14:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-31 16:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:56 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:41 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 13:37 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 12:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 16:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 07:04 -0400
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-01 13:15 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-01 15:38 -0500
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:44 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 18:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 11:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-27 13:36 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 15:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 16:07 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-27 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-28 20:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:51 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 06:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:51 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:25 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-27 05:43 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 05:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 11:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-26 12:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 15:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 05:38 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:53 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-30 07:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 14:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-30 22:29 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700
Page 6 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 30 Next page →
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57573401.20934492@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164575 |
On 5 Jun 2016 14:31:12 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Questor wrote: >> On 4 Jun 2016 13:44:55 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Questor wrote: >>>> On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>DEC didn't. When TOPS-10 was running, each and every user had >>>>>the experience of having his/her own PC. that is what >>>>>timesharing is supposed to do. If it wasn't for DEC's >>>>>timesharing experience, the PC business would be much later. >>>> >>>> I once attended a talk by Gorden Bell. He related how his experience (and >>>Ken >>>> Olsen's) using the Whirlwind at MIT inspired them to create the PDP-1 and >>>later >>>> use the timesharing model on the PDP-10. But even he wasn't delusional >>>enough >>>> to suggest that DEC was somehow responsible for bringing about the PC >>>business. >>>> That may be a comforting flight of fancy for you, but it has little basis >in >>>> reality. >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>PDP-10, especially TOPS-10, timesharing was an important part of the >>>evolution. 100Ks of kiddies who got their first taste of "personal >>>computing" on a general timesharing machine. Now go look at the >>>history of Msoft and THINK about it. >> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business. > >I'm talking about incentives. I'm not talking about how we sold or didn't >sell systems. The experiences of the kiddies created a hunger or lust >for owning their own machines or using their own code. People whose only experience was batch processing, or who had never used a computer at all would have even more incentive to create a personal computer. The mere existence of DEC timesharing was no more influential than what any other computer company was doing at the time. Read "Fire in the Valley" by Swaine & Freiberger. Most of the PC pioneers hadn't used DEC equipment. >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. >> And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using >> batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who >> had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own >> computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise. >> > >And people in the 60s and 70s went to work for the manufacturers if they >had the hunger for playing with machines which were too expensive to >own, rent or buy time. Irrelevant to your original outlandish claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 16:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3vadnXrAh5Ah2snKnZ2dnUU78K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #164542 |
On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
{snip}
>
> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is
> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>
> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC.
> And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using
> batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who
> had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own
> computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise.
>
The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was 1981.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164597 |
On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
> {snip}
>
>
>> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is
>> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
>> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>>
>> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from
>> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience
>> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine
>> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself,
>> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
>> otherwise.
>>
>>
> The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
> computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
> software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
>
> The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was 1981.
I have one downstairs!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 17:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31be613e4de349f498a225@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164625 |
In article <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
says...
>
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
> > On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
> > {snip}
> >
> >
> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is
> >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
> >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
> >>
> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from
> >> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience
> >> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine
> >> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself,
> >> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
> >> otherwise.
> >>
> >>
> > The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
> > computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
> > software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
> >
> > The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was 1981.
>
> I have one downstairs!
The LSI-11 though, while it _could_ have been an excellent personal
computer, was never sold as such. Heath/Zenith made a deal with DEC
where you could buy one as a Heathkit but the charged as much for the OS
as for the machine IIRC and if you wanted to do anything with it it was
even more on top.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57573422.20966898@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164628 |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:18:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
>says...
>>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>
>> > On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
>> > {snip}
>> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is
>> >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
>> >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>> >>
>> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from
>> >> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience
>> >> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine
>> >> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself,
>> >> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
>> >> otherwise.
>> >>
>> > The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
>> > computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
>> > software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
>> >
>> > The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was 1981.
>>
>> I have one downstairs!
>
>The LSI-11 though, while it _could_ have been an excellent personal
>computer, was never sold as such.
Yep. Because you-know-who didn't think that most people would want a computer
in their homes.
So many fumbled opportunities... in retrospect, it seems obvious. But at the
time, DEC was riding high at the very top of the minicomputer wave. The Force
was with them; it seemed as if they could do no wrong. And those little
microprocessor-based things were just... toys.
I'll bet the dinosaurs didn't think much of those furry little mammals
scampering under the bushes either. Then suddenly conditions changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534C33272400F@aca41ec1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164754 |
Questor wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:18:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>In article <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
>>says...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
>>> > {snip}
>>> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is
>>> >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
>>> >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>>> >>
>>> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from
>>> >> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience
>>> >> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine
>>> >> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself,
>>> >> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
>>> >> otherwise.
>>> >>
>>> > The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
>>> > computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
>>> > software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
>>> >
>>> > The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was 1981.
>>>
>>> I have one downstairs!
>>
>>The LSI-11 though, while it _could_ have been an excellent personal
>>computer, was never sold as such.
>
> Yep. Because you-know-who didn't think that most people would want a
computer
> in their homes.
>
> So many fumbled opportunities... in retrospect, it seems obvious.
It was obvious to quite a few people but not the right ones.
> But at the
> time, DEC was riding high at the very top of the minicomputer wave. The
Force
> was with them; it seemed as if they could do no wrong. And those little
> microprocessor-based things were just... toys.
You are so full of shit.
>
> I'll bet the dinosaurs didn't think much of those furry little mammals
> scampering under the bushes either. Then suddenly conditions changed.
I guess we're done here.
>
/BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5759281b.17918865@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164794 |
On 8 Jun 2016 12:09:52 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Questor wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:18:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>In article <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
>>>> > {snip}
>>>> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is
>>>> >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
>>>> >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from
>>>> >> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience
>>>> >> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine
>>>> >> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself,
>>>> >> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
>>>> >> otherwise.
>>>> >>
>>>> > The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
>>>> > computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
>>>> > software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
>>>> >
>>>> > The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was 1981.
>>>>
>>>> I have one downstairs!
>>>
>>>The LSI-11 though, while it _could_ have been an excellent personal
>>>computer, was never sold as such.
>>
>> Yep. Because you-know-who didn't think that most people would want a
>computer
>> in their homes.
>>
>> So many fumbled opportunities... in retrospect, it seems obvious.
>
>It was obvious to quite a few people but not the right ones.
>
>> But at the
>> time, DEC was riding high at the very top of the minicomputer wave. The
>Force
>> was with them; it seemed as if they could do no wrong. And those little
>> microprocessor-based things were just... toys.
>
>You are so full of shit.
>
>>
>> I'll bet the dinosaurs didn't think much of those furry little mammals
>> scampering under the bushes either. Then suddenly conditions changed.
>
>I guess we're done here.
If you want to start slinging crude insults because you are unable to conduct
a civil discussion, I am prepared to respond in kind. At least I can tell the
difference between facts and my opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534D766826EC5@aca40f3b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164835 |
Questor wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2016 12:09:52 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>Questor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:18:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
>>>>> > {snip}
>>>>> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which
is
>>>>> >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
>>>>> >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from
>>>>> >> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only
experience
>>>>> >> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own
machine
>>>>> >> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like
myself,
>>>>> >> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
>>>>> >> otherwise.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
>>>>> > computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
>>>>> > software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was
1981.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one downstairs!
>>>>
>>>>The LSI-11 though, while it _could_ have been an excellent personal
>>>>computer, was never sold as such.
>>>
>>> Yep. Because you-know-who didn't think that most people would want a
>>computer
>>> in their homes.
>>>
>>> So many fumbled opportunities... in retrospect, it seems obvious.
>>
>>It was obvious to quite a few people but not the right ones.
>>
>>> But at the
>>> time, DEC was riding high at the very top of the minicomputer wave. The
>>Force
>>> was with them; it seemed as if they could do no wrong. And those little
>>> microprocessor-based things were just... toys.
>>
>>You are so full of shit.
>>
>>>
>>> I'll bet the dinosaurs didn't think much of those furry little mammals
>>> scampering under the bushes either. Then suddenly conditions changed.
>>
>>I guess we're done here.
>
> If you want to start slinging crude insults because you are unable to
conduct
> a civil discussion, I am prepared to respond in kind. At least I can tell
the
> difference between facts and my opinions.
The problem is that your perceived facts are not true. I'm simply
tiring of trying to correct your rendition of things which really
happened. If you stop attacking my posts, I might have spent
more time writing about things whch happened. One event can
create a retrieval of another event which I'd forgotten. Instead
I'm spending way too much time averting your attacks on every
aspect of the first story. This is one of reasons I don't
write about those days anymore.
/BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57637022.4952210@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164846 |
On 9 Jun 2016 12:25:28 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Questor wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2016 12:09:52 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Questor wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:18:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
>>>>>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
>>>>>> > {snip}
>>>>>> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which
>is
>>>>>> >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
>>>>>> >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from
>>>>>> >> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only
>experience
>>>>>> >> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own
>machine
>>>>>> >> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like
>myself,
>>>>>> >> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
>>>>>> >> otherwise.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> > The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
>>>>>> > computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
>>>>>> > software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was
>1981.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one downstairs!
>>>>>
>>>>>The LSI-11 though, while it _could_ have been an excellent personal
>>>>>computer, was never sold as such.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Because you-know-who didn't think that most people would want a
>>>computer
>>>> in their homes.
>>>>
>>>> So many fumbled opportunities... in retrospect, it seems obvious.
>>>
>>>It was obvious to quite a few people but not the right ones.
>>>
>>>> But at the
>>>> time, DEC was riding high at the very top of the minicomputer wave. The
>>>Force
>>>> was with them; it seemed as if they could do no wrong. And those little
>>>> microprocessor-based things were just... toys.
>>>
>>>You are so full of shit.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet the dinosaurs didn't think much of those furry little mammals
>>>> scampering under the bushes either. Then suddenly conditions changed.
>>>
>>>I guess we're done here.
>>
>> If you want to start slinging crude insults because you are unable to
>conduct
>> a civil discussion, I am prepared to respond in kind. At least I can tell
>the
>> difference between facts and my opinions.
>
>The problem is that your perceived facts are not true. I'm simply
>tiring of trying to correct your rendition of things which really
>happened.
The problem is your "facts" are just your opinions, based on your personal
experience and limited by your perception.
You do not have a monopoly on absolute truth.
Other people have their opinions, based on their experience, and limited by
their perception. It is insulting when you ignore or deny this, and claim to
speak for entire groups for which you have no standing to speak for, or subtly
appropriate credit for things you never did (primarily through use of the
pronoun "we").
Additionally, you spout off about topics like BLISS or TOPS-20 that you have
little detailed knowledge about, and even when confronted with documented
facts contrary to your position, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge your error.
It's been decades for all of us, and the fraility of human memory is well known.
You apparently have neither the self-awareness nor the grace to conduct yourself
accordingly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000535789D6E09BE@aca40e04.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #165367 |
Questor wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2016 12:25:28 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>Questor wrote:
>>> On 8 Jun 2016 12:09:52 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>Questor wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:18:41 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>In article <drjiuqFmspuU54@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx
>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:39:55 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On 05/06/2016 08:29, Questor wrote:
>>>>>>> > {snip}
>>>>>>> >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business
which
>>is
>>>>>>> >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was
>>>>>>> >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those
from
>>>>>>> >> DEC. And it can very easily be argued that people whose only
>>experience
>>>>>>> >> was using batch would be even more motivated to have their own
>>machine
>>>>>>> >> than people who had used timesharing. And lots of people, like
>>myself,
>>>>>>> >> wanted their own computer before they ever used one, timesharing or
>>>>>>> >> otherwise.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> > The LSI-11 gave DEC a head start of several years in the personal
>>>>>>> > computer market. DEC had a fine 16 bit instruction set with lots of
>>>>>>> > software whilst everyone else was using 8 bit chips like the Z80.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > The LSI-11 came out in 1976. The IBM PC, using the 8 bit 8088, was
>>1981.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have one downstairs!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The LSI-11 though, while it _could_ have been an excellent personal
>>>>>>computer, was never sold as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. Because you-know-who didn't think that most people would want a
>>>>computer
>>>>> in their homes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So many fumbled opportunities... in retrospect, it seems obvious.
>>>>
>>>>It was obvious to quite a few people but not the right ones.
>>>>
>>>>> But at the
>>>>> time, DEC was riding high at the very top of the minicomputer wave. The
>>>>Force
>>>>> was with them; it seemed as if they could do no wrong. And those little
>>>>> microprocessor-based things were just... toys.
>>>>
>>>>You are so full of shit.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet the dinosaurs didn't think much of those furry little mammals
>>>>> scampering under the bushes either. Then suddenly conditions changed.
>>>>
>>>>I guess we're done here.
>>>
>>> If you want to start slinging crude insults because you are unable to
>>conduct
>>> a civil discussion, I am prepared to respond in kind. At least I can tell
>>the
>>> difference between facts and my opinions.
>>
>>The problem is that your perceived facts are not true. I'm simply
>>tiring of trying to correct your rendition of things which really
>>happened.
>
> The problem is your "facts" are just your opinions, based on your personal
> experience and limited by your perception.
My perceptions happened to be how DEC things got developed, built,
shipped and maintained. Those are facts w.r.t. what we were discussing
and you were claiming to be not true.
>
> You do not have a monopoly on absolute truth.
I never claimed to. I, however, was the one who dictated how thing
got built and shipped since I was the one who wrote the packaging plans
and specifications.
>
> Other people have their opinions, based on their experience, and limited by
> their perception. It is insulting when you ignore or deny this, and claim
to
> speak for entire groups for which you have no standing to speak for, or
subtly
> appropriate credit for things you never did (primarily through use of the
> pronoun "we").
>
> Additionally, you spout off about topics like BLISS or TOPS-20 that you have
> little detailed knowledge about, and even when confronted with documented
> facts contrary to your position, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge your
error.
I suspect I have forgotten more than you ever knew about these things.
>
> It's been decades for all of us, and the fraility of human memory is well
known.
> You apparently have neither the self-awareness nor the grace to conduct
yourself
> accordingly.
You shouuld, too.
/BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <878tyjeen1.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #164542 |
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: > Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is > utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was > demonstrably way behind in the PC business. > > Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. > And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using > batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who > had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own > computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise. (cp67 & vm370) CMS effectively provided a (time-sharing) personal computer environment. mid-range computer technology met some price/performance threshold and saw large corporations deploying hundreds&thousands of 4300 (vm370) systems out in departmental areas ... leading edge of the distributed computing tsunami. some old 4300 email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx and .. before ms/dos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS there was seattle computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Computer_Products before seattle computer there was cp/m, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M before cp/m, kildall worked with cp67/cms (precursor to vm370) at npg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Postgraduate_School I've pontificated several times before that early big uptake of IBM/PC was that IBM/PC with terminal emulation was about the same price as 3270 terminal. Large corporations with no effort, could switch from an already justified business case for tens of thousands of 3270 terminals to tens of thousands of IBM/PC with terminal emulation. The IBM profit margin on IBM/PC also provided lots of room for clone PC makers to easily sell into the market ... and the size of the market and business with corporate budget attracted lots of software developers. Later, as the technology, market & business evolved, The IBM communication group was strongly fighting off distributed computing and client/server, trying to preserve status quo, their dumb terminal paradigm and install base. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005349BAE9A5DF7@aca407c0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164604 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >> Your claim is that DEC hastened the arrival of the PC business which is >> utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring the fact that DEC was >> demonstrably way behind in the PC business. >> >> Timesharing was available on many other computers besides those from DEC. >> And it can very easily be argued that people whose only experience was using >> batch would be even more motivated to have their own machine than people who >> had used timesharing. And lots of people, like myself, wanted their own >> computer before they ever used one, timesharing or otherwise. > > (cp67 & vm370) CMS effectively provided a (time-sharing) personal > computer environment. mid-range computer technology met some > price/performance threshold and saw large corporations deploying > hundreds&thousands of 4300 (vm370) systems out in departmental areas > ... leading edge of the distributed computing tsunami. some old 4300 > email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx <snip> Could any user mount/dismount media and have their own private disk packs? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87mvmyi9r9.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #164664 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > Could any user mount/dismount media and have their own private > disk packs? out in the departmental areas ... it would be whether department gave people access to the room ... which frequently was in the department stock room or converted conference room. however these new departmental 4300s would tend to be configured with FBA disks, 3310 or larger 3370 which weren't mount/dismount ... however the FBA disks could be partitioned and give users their own private partition. 4300s significantly reduced floor space and environmental requirements, as did FBA disks .... besides price/performance making them cost effective, enabling the deployment out into departmental areas. The other issue was only needing minimal service/upkeep ... rather than needing scores of people per system like POK favorite son datacenter system (MVS) ... had to manage scores of systems per person. The MVS group thot that the inhibiting factor being able to play in this exploding market of thousands of departmental 4300s ... was because there wasn't a departmental CKD disk. The only CKD drive was high-end 3380 but required datacenter floor space and environmentals ... and MVS didn't support FBA (still doesn't to this day, decades after the last CKD drive was built, all CKD are simulation on industry standard fixed-block disks). Eventually 3375 came out, CKD simulation on 3370 ... but that didn't address the significant problem of requiring scores of support people per system (rather than being able to support scores of systems per person). This is old email from Jim Gray saying that I needed to help Bank of America which was getting 60 4300s for distributed environment http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#email800311b ... they required little more physical access control. Part of this was that the original relational/SQL was System/R done on vm/145 in bldg28/SJR ... and BofA was early System/R installation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr I've also mentioned that in '79, I got con'ed into doing benchmarks for LLNL that was looking at getting 70 4341s for compute farm ... sort of the leading edge of modern supercomputers. For some trivia, decade later I was working on cluster scaleup for HA/CMP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp ... both for scientic/technical (with LLNL and other national labs) and commerical ... this is old post about Jan1992 meeting in Ellison's conference room about cluster scaleup for commercial http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13 within a couple weeks, cluster scaleup was transferred, we were told we couldn't work on anything that had more than 4 processors ... some old email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa another couple weeks, it was announced as IBM supercomputer for scientific/technical *ONLY* http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters1 920217 later that spring article about IBM caught by surprise in the interest in cluster supercomputers http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters2 920511 for other trivia .... more recently, before he disappeared, Jim Gray con'ed me into inviewing for chief security architect in redmond, the interview dragged on for a few weeks, but we couldn't agree on what needed to be done. Jim said I couldn't report directly to him because he already had this guy that use to be at DEC reporting to him. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87inxmi64b.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #164682 |
oops, still slip up on server change ... those www.garlic.com should all be: http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters1 920217 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters2 920511 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#email800311b http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534AEE1F6A87E@aca202b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164682 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> Could any user mount/dismount media and have their own private >> disk packs? > > out in the departmental areas ... it would be whether department gave > people access to the room ... which frequently was in the department > stock room or converted conference room. > > however these new departmental 4300s would tend to be configured with > FBA disks, 3310 or larger 3370 which weren't mount/dismount ... however > the FBA disks could be partitioned and give users their own private > partition. There advantages and disadvantages for that. I suppose it depended on the purpose for each machine. Private packs allowed people to access any available machine to get their work done. It was also more secure to have sensitive projects isolated to a private pack. We had 100+ private packs at our site but didn't need 100 spindles. 4-6 spindles were usually sufficient to provide system access to people who had to use their private pack. it was also possible to have an n-disk private pack. There are other trade-offs but I won't discuss them here. > > 4300s significantly reduced floor space and environmental requirements, > as did FBA disks .... besides price/performance making them cost > effective, enabling the deployment out into departmental areas. The > other issue was only needing minimal service/upkeep ... rather than > needing scores of people per system like POK favorite son datacenter > system (MVS) ... had to manage scores of systems per person. > > The MVS group thot that the inhibiting factor being able to play in this > exploding market of thousands of departmental 4300s ... was because > there wasn't a departmental CKD disk. The only CKD drive was high-end > 3380 but required datacenter floor space and environmentals ... and MVS > didn't support FBA (still doesn't to this day, decades after the last > CKD drive was built, all CKD are simulation on industry standard > fixed-block disks). Eventually 3375 came out, CKD simulation on 3370 > ... but that didn't address the significant problem of requiring scores > of support people per system (rather than being able to support scores > of systems per person). > > This is old email from Jim Gray saying that I needed to help Bank of > America which was getting 60 4300s for distributed environment > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#email800311b > > ... they required little more physical access control. Part of this was > that the original relational/SQL was System/R done on vm/145 in > bldg28/SJR ... and BofA was early System/R installation > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr > > I've also mentioned that in '79, I got con'ed into doing benchmarks for > LLNL that was looking at getting 70 4341s for compute farm ... sort of > the leading edge of modern supercomputers. For some trivia, decade later > I was working on cluster scaleup for HA/CMP > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp > > ... both for scientic/technical (with LLNL and other national labs) and > commerical ... this is old post about Jan1992 meeting in Ellison's > conference room about cluster scaleup for commercial > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13 > within a couple weeks, cluster scaleup was transferred, we were told > we couldn't work on anything that had more than 4 processors ... Boy, does that sound familiar :-). We were imposed to 3 processors but managed to write the code and documentation such that nothing was limited to 3. For instance, instead of "tri-SMP" we used the words "mulitple CPUs". The development monitor was never written invoke a "sales" limit. After the ship of the project, the limit was still two CPUs. After SMP was approved to support 3 cpus, it took JMF 9 months to get the SPD describing tri-SMP and the docs (which was one file, IIRC) changed. it shouldn't have taken 9 months to start selling hardware which didn't require a single change of code nor Notebook documentation. Taht was another aspect of the biz which I was going to fix, but I never got to it. > some old email > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa > > another couple weeks, it was announced as IBM supercomputer for > scientific/technical *ONLY* > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters1 920217 > later that spring article about IBM caught by surprise > in the interest in cluster supercomputers > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters2 920511 > > for other trivia .... more recently, before he disappeared, Jim Gray > con'ed me into inviewing for chief security architect in redmond, the > interview dragged on for a few weeks, but we couldn't agree on what > needed to be done. Jim said I couldn't report directly to him because he > already had this guy that use to be at DEC reporting to him. <grin> What was it about the computer biz which caused all of this? You and your wife had similar problems. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <874m95uh16.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #164726 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > <grin> What was it about the computer biz which caused all of this? > You and your wife had similar problems. In the mid-70s, I got sucked into working on design/implementation for 5-way SMP ... some past posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#bounce same time that I was con'ed into doing a lot of work for Endicott on ECPS (microcode performance assist) ... old post http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21 the 5-way got canceled before announced ... however afterwards got involved in a 16-way SMP. Along the way we got some of the POK processors engineers working on 3033 to work on it in their spare time. Lots of people around POK thot it was really great ... until somebody told the head of POK that it could be decades before the POK favorite son (batch) operating system would have 16-way SMP support. At that point the head of POK invited some of us to never visit POK again ... and told the processor engineers working on 3033 to totally focus on the 3033 and don't get distracted again. Part of the issue was that 16-way SMP was a lot more interesting than 3033 ... which was Q&D effort to get something out after the failure of FS http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys using 168-3 logic design remapped to 20% faster chips (FS politics had been killing off 370 efforts and the lack of 370 products during the period is credited with giving the clone computer makers a market foothold) ... i.e. 303x "channel director" was 158 engine with just the integrated channel microcode and w/o the 370 microcode. 3031 was two 158 engines, one with just the 370 microcode and the 2nd with just the integrated microcode (aka channel director). 3032 was 168-3 with new covers and reconfigured to work with 303x channel director for external channels. And 3033 started out 168-3 logic design remapped to 20% faster chips. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 12:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534C36A7CFEE4@aca41ec1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164737 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> <grin> What was it about the computer biz which caused all of this? >> You and your wife had similar problems. > > In the mid-70s, I got sucked into working on design/implementation > for 5-way SMP ... some past posts > http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#bounce > > same time that I was con'ed into doing a lot of work for Endicott > on ECPS (microcode performance assist) ... old post > http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21 > > the 5-way got canceled before announced ... however afterwards got > involved in a 16-way SMP. Along the way we got some of the POK > processors engineers working on 3033 to work on it in their spare > time. Lots of people around POK thot it was really great ... until > somebody told the head of POK that it could be decades before the POK > favorite son (batch) operating system would have 16-way SMP support. At > that point the head of POK invited some of us to never visit POK again > ... and told the processor engineers working on 3033 to totally focus on > the 3033 and don't get distracted again. > > Part of the issue was that 16-way SMP was a lot more interesting than > 3033 ... which was Q&D effort to get something out after the failure > of FS > http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys What a way to kill the fun. Could the OS have been written so that adding a CPU was similar to adding another disk drive on a channel? That's how JMF approached our head-in-the-sand problems. > > using 168-3 logic design remapped to 20% faster chips (FS politics had > been killing off 370 efforts and the lack of 370 products during the > period is credited with giving the clone computer makers a market > foothold) ... > > i.e. 303x "channel director" was 158 engine with just the integrated > channel microcode and w/o the 370 microcode. 3031 was two 158 engines, > one with just the 370 microcode and the 2nd with just the integrated > microcode (aka channel director). 3032 was 168-3 with new covers and > reconfigured to work with 303x channel director for external channels. > And 3033 started out 168-3 logic design remapped to 20% faster chips. > /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj9cin023mo@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164795 |
On 2016-06-08, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > >> the 5-way got canceled before announced ... however afterwards got >> involved in a 16-way SMP. Along the way we got some of the POK >> processors engineers working on 3033 to work on it in their spare >> time. Lots of people around POK thot it was really great ... until >> somebody told the head of POK that it could be decades before the POK >> favorite son (batch) operating system would have 16-way SMP support. At >> that point the head of POK invited some of us to never visit POK again >> ... and told the processor engineers working on 3033 to totally focus on >> the 3033 and don't get distracted again. >> >> Part of the issue was that 16-way SMP was a lot more interesting than >> 3033 ... which was Q&D effort to get something out after the failure >> of FS >> http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys > > What a way to kill the fun. Could the OS have been written so that > adding a CPU was similar to adding another disk drive on a channel? I think what Lynn is saying is that technically it wouldn't have been difficult - but politically it was impossible. > That's how JMF approached our head-in-the-sand problems. That's the thing about politicians - if their heads are in the sand, it could be bad for your health if yours isn't too. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is lynched." -- /~\ 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 | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drqrvgFc6elU37@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164808 |
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:11:19 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is lynched." I shall have to remember never to visit the land of the blind, then. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534D730623E09@aca40f3b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164808 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-06-08, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: >> >>> the 5-way got canceled before announced ... however afterwards got >>> involved in a 16-way SMP. Along the way we got some of the POK >>> processors engineers working on 3033 to work on it in their spare >>> time. Lots of people around POK thot it was really great ... until >>> somebody told the head of POK that it could be decades before the POK >>> favorite son (batch) operating system would have 16-way SMP support. At >>> that point the head of POK invited some of us to never visit POK again >>> ... and told the processor engineers working on 3033 to totally focus on >>> the 3033 and don't get distracted again. >>> >>> Part of the issue was that 16-way SMP was a lot more interesting than >>> 3033 ... which was Q&D effort to get something out after the failure >>> of FS >>> http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys >> >> What a way to kill the fun. Could the OS have been written so that >> adding a CPU was similar to adding another disk drive on a channel? > > I think what Lynn is saying is that technically it wouldn't have been > difficult - but politically it was impossible. I was asking a technical question, not the politics. He answered no, essentially. He had a more complicated hardware setup than we ever did. > >> That's how JMF approached our head-in-the-sand problems. > > That's the thing about politicians - if their heads are in the sand, > it could be bad for your health if yours isn't too. > > "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is lynched." Well, there are ways to code and set up distribution to avoid the usual blockages politicians create. and TOPS-10 development had the folklore of planning staged developments so that a really new software improvement would be seamless to our management and customers. It took 3 monitor development ships for the entire customer base to be converted from .SAV files to .EXE files. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web