Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #208265 > unrolled thread

IBM system/360 ad

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-25 13:20 -0800
    Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-11-25 15:07 -0800
      Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-26 01:22 +0000
        Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 12:54 -0800
          Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-28 18:08 +0000
        Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-11-28 09:44 +0000
          Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2019-11-28 11:04 -0700
    Re: IBM system/360 ad Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2019-11-25 14:41 -1000
      Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-26 01:31 +0000
      Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 12:49 -0800
        Re: IBM system/360 ad Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-11-27 21:23 +0000
          Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:39 -0800
            Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 18:18 -0500
              Re: IBM system/360 ad Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2019-12-02 00:23 +0100
                Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-02 15:37 +0000
        Re: IBM system/360 ad David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2019-11-28 03:16 +0000
    Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-26 21:35 +0000
      Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-11-26 22:21 +0000
      Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-26 22:50 +0000
        Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-27 00:41 +0000
          Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-27 05:49 +0000
            Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-27 11:22 +0000
              Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-27 19:54 +0000
                Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:05 -0800
            Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:04 -0800
              Re: IBM system/360 ad Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2019-11-27 13:11 -1000
              Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-28 18:08 +0000
                Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 13:28 -0500
                  Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-01 13:16 -0800
                    Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2019-12-03 15:14 +0000
                    Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-12-04 13:01 -0800
                Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 19:41 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#208298

On 2019-11-27, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

> On 26/11/2019 22:50, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Although propagation delays were a factor, I suspect that marketing
>> was as well.  Some shops had to go to a larger CPU than they needed
>> in order to get enough memory.  Third-party suppliers were quick to
>> jump in.  I once used a 360/30 that had 128K of memory, even though
>> you could only go to 64K on a stock machine.  A switch and indicator
>> light for the extra address bit was placed in an unused portion of
>> the panel.
>
> I seem to remember hearing that some of those upgrades needed a lot of 
> re-working of the hardware, on the other hand that was the time of the 
> expensive "no change" upgrade. Printers where the speed was set by a 
> link, but getting it changed was expensive.
>
> Disk drives that were 100mb until a wire was cut when they became 200Mb...
>
> etc. etc. etc.

This particular /30 also had 3rd party disk and tape drives, along
with the memory upgrades.  IBM was Not Pleased.

The ultimate 3rd party story I heard was the shop that had a 370/168
with all plug-compatible peripherals - and then they replaced the
processor with an Amdahl.  The only IBM part left was the software.

-- 
/~\  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.
/ \  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208299

On 27/11/2019 05:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2019-11-27, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 26/11/2019 22:50, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> Although propagation delays were a factor, I suspect that marketing
>>> was as well.  Some shops had to go to a larger CPU than they needed
>>> in order to get enough memory.  Third-party suppliers were quick to
>>> jump in.  I once used a 360/30 that had 128K of memory, even though
>>> you could only go to 64K on a stock machine.  A switch and indicator
>>> light for the extra address bit was placed in an unused portion of
>>> the panel.
>>
>> I seem to remember hearing that some of those upgrades needed a lot of
>> re-working of the hardware, on the other hand that was the time of the
>> expensive "no change" upgrade. Printers where the speed was set by a
>> link, but getting it changed was expensive.
>>
>> Disk drives that were 100mb until a wire was cut when they became 200Mb...
>>
>> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> This particular /30 also had 3rd party disk and tape drives, along
> with the memory upgrades.  IBM was Not Pleased.
> 
> The ultimate 3rd party story I heard was the shop that had a 370/168
> with all plug-compatible peripherals - and then they replaced the
> processor with an Amdahl.  The only IBM part left was the software.
> 
I believe that at one time NERC had 3rd party cartridge drives so 3480? 
on all its IBM boxes, but the VAXs had IBM drives....

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208300

On 2019-11-27, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

> On 27/11/2019 05:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> The ultimate 3rd party story I heard was the shop that had a 370/168
>> with all plug-compatible peripherals - and then they replaced the
>> processor with an Amdahl.  The only IBM part left was the software.
>> 
> I believe that at one time NERC had 3rd party cartridge drives so 3480? 
> on all its IBM boxes, but the VAXs had IBM drives....

When I was with Univac I visited a customer site to do some work on their
90/30.  While waiting for a run I wandered over to the 11/70 that was in
the same room, and popped the back off one of the RP06 drives, only to
find a plate reading "ISS / Sperry Univac".

-- 
/~\  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.
/ \  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208304

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:54:59 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> When I was with Univac I visited a customer site to do some work on their
> 90/30.  While waiting for a run I wandered over to the 11/70 that was in
> the same room, and popped the back off one of the RP06 drives, only to
> find a plate reading "ISS / Sperry Univac".

Our 90/30 had circuit cards by Intel.

Bell Telephone bought a lot of hardware from their rival,
Automatic Electric Co.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208303

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 12:49:55 AM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> This particular /30 also had 3rd party disk and tape drives, along
> with the memory upgrades.  IBM was Not Pleased.

The S/360 history explains some of what was going on.  Part
of the third-party hardware was the result of IBM engineers
'jumping ship' after S/360 development, taking their
expertise to newly formed companies.  IBM was pissed about
that.  But my personal impression is that IBM somewhat created 
that situation by working their people ridiculously hard 
during S/360 days and then not compensating them adequately.

Another part was that S/360 was very successful and IBM
was unable to meet demand.

Another part was that IBM wasn't cheap.  IBM gave full
support, but at a price.  Later, after unbundling, IBM
was more competitive.

Of course, a third party company was exploiting IBM's
research and development.  But there were risks--they
could make a lot of money, but if IBM upgraded its
hardware, they could lose a lot of money.

Tom Watson Jr initially had the attitude that IBM
was entitled to own virtually the entire DP marketplace.
He enacted policies got IBM sued.  Later he woke up
and changed their policies, so when the govt sued, IBM
won.


> The ultimate 3rd party story I heard was the shop that had a 370/168
> with all plug-compatible peripherals - and then they replaced the
> processor with an Amdahl.  The only IBM part left was the software.

Not unusual.

Our hospital leased its 360 from a third party leasing company.
IBM hated that, but they still gave us nice support.  We rented
a few things and maintenance from them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208310

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Another part was that S/360 was very successful and IBM
> was unable to meet demand.
>
> Another part was that IBM wasn't cheap.  IBM gave full
> support, but at a price.  Later, after unbundling, IBM
> was more competitive.
>
> Of course, a third party company was exploiting IBM's
> research and development.  But there were risks--they
> could make a lot of money, but if IBM upgraded its
> hardware, they could lose a lot of money.
>
> Tom Watson Jr initially had the attitude that IBM
> was entitled to own virtually the entire DP marketplace.
> He enacted policies got IBM sued.  Later he woke up
> and changed their policies, so when the govt sued, IBM
> won.

rise and fall of ibm
https://www.ecole.org/en/session/49-the-rise-and-fall-of-ibm
article ... mention coutmeasure to clone controllers&devices
https://www.ecole.org/en/65/CM200195-ENG.pdf
IBM tried to react by launching a major project called the 'Future
System' (FS) in the early 1970's. The idea was to get so far ahead
that the competition would never be able to keep up, and to have such
a high level of integration that it would be impossible for
competitors to follow a compatible niche strategy. However, the
project failed because the objectives were too ambitious for the
available technology.  Many of the ideas that were developed were
nevertheless adapted for later generations. Once IBM had acknowledged
this failure, it launched its 'box strategy', which called for
competitiveness with all the different types of compatible
sub-systems. But this proved to be difficult because of IBM's cost
structure and its R&D spending, and the strategy only resulted in a
partial narrowing of the price gap between IBM and its rivals.

End of ACS/360, IBM executives worried that it would advance the
state-of-art too fast and they would loose control of the market. Amdahl
leaves IBM shortly afterwards and starts his own clone processor
company. 
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html

Note that internal politics during the FS period was stopping/shutting
down 370 efforts (because FS was completely different and was going to
completely replace 370). The lack of new 370 products during the FS
period is credited with giving clone processor makers market foothold.

23jun1969 unbundling posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundling
future system posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

clone controller trrivia: 3 people from science center installed
(virutal machine) CP67 at the univ. last weekend jan1968.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/CMS

It had 2741&1052 terminal support with automatic terminal type
identification.  The univ. had some number of ascii/tty terminals and so
I extended the support to ascii/tty (including auto-terminal type
identification, using the IBM terminal controller SAD CCW to switch port
terminal type scanner). I then wanted to extend to having a single
dial-up number of all terminal types (hunt group) ... but it didn't
quiet work, while SAD command allowed switching scanner type, all ports
had fixed hardwired port speed (could dynamically connect terminals to
any port with wrong speed).

This was motivation for the univ. to start clone controller project,
building controler channel attach board for Interdata/3 programmed to
emulate IBM terminal controller ...  but including support for doing
dynamic line speed. This was then enhanced with a Interdata/4 for the
channel interface and cluster of Interdata/3s for port scanners ...  and
Interdata started selling them as IBM clone controllers (later under
Perkin/Elmer logo after they bought Interdata). Four of us get written
up responsible for (some part of) clone controller business
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdata

science center posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
clone controller posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm

tty support trivia ... I did hack using 1byte field for tty/ascii
terminal lengths. IBM had included the support in standard distributed
system. One of the cp67 installations in bldg. across the court from 545
in tech sq ... somebody got a ascii plotter down at harvard, needing
1200? byte line length.  The just change max length field to 1200, but
not the rest of the code ... so the system would crash as soon as tty
connect.
http://www.multicians.org/thvv/360-67.html

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208315

On 2019-11-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 12:49:55 AM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> This particular /30 also had 3rd party disk and tape drives, along
>> with the memory upgrades.  IBM was Not Pleased.
>
> The S/360 history explains some of what was going on.  Part
> of the third-party hardware was the result of IBM engineers
> 'jumping ship' after S/360 development, taking their
> expertise to newly formed companies.  IBM was pissed about
> that.  But my personal impression is that IBM somewhat created 
> that situation by working their people ridiculously hard 
> during S/360 days and then not compensating them adequately.

Their arbitrary limits on how much memory could be attached
to various processors in the 360 line didn't help either.

> Another part was that S/360 was very successful and IBM
> was unable to meet demand.
>
> Another part was that IBM wasn't cheap.  IBM gave full
> support, but at a price.  Later, after unbundling, IBM
> was more competitive.
>
> Of course, a third party company was exploiting IBM's
> research and development.  But there were risks--they
> could make a lot of money, but if IBM upgraded its
> hardware, they could lose a lot of money.

There was an ongoing cat-and-mouse game for a while.
IBM would change the interface specifications, which
shut out the plug-compatible manufacturers for the year
that it took them to reverse-engineer the new interface.
Wash, rinse, repeat.

> Tom Watson Jr initially had the attitude that IBM
> was entitled to own virtually the entire DP marketplace.
> He enacted policies got IBM sued.  Later he woke up
> and changed their policies, so when the govt sued, IBM
> won.

It helped that IBM was able to generate so many wheelbarrows
of paper that the government was swamped.

-- 
/~\  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.
/ \  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208317

On 28 Nov 2019 18:08:29 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2019-11-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 12:49:55 AM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> This particular /30 also had 3rd party disk and tape drives, along
>>> with the memory upgrades.  IBM was Not Pleased.
>>
>> The S/360 history explains some of what was going on.  Part
>> of the third-party hardware was the result of IBM engineers
>> 'jumping ship' after S/360 development, taking their
>> expertise to newly formed companies.  IBM was pissed about
>> that.  But my personal impression is that IBM somewhat created 
>> that situation by working their people ridiculously hard 
>> during S/360 days and then not compensating them adequately.
>
>Their arbitrary limits on how much memory could be attached
>to various processors in the 360 line didn't help either.
>
>> Another part was that S/360 was very successful and IBM
>> was unable to meet demand.
>>
>> Another part was that IBM wasn't cheap.  IBM gave full
>> support, but at a price.  Later, after unbundling, IBM
>> was more competitive.
>>
>> Of course, a third party company was exploiting IBM's
>> research and development.  But there were risks--they
>> could make a lot of money, but if IBM upgraded its
>> hardware, they could lose a lot of money.
>
>There was an ongoing cat-and-mouse game for a while.
>IBM would change the interface specifications, which
>shut out the plug-compatible manufacturers for the year
>that it took them to reverse-engineer the new interface.
>Wash, rinse, repeat.
>
>> Tom Watson Jr initially had the attitude that IBM
>> was entitled to own virtually the entire DP marketplace.
>> He enacted policies got IBM sued.  Later he woke up
>> and changed their policies, so when the govt sued, IBM
>> won.
>
>It helped that IBM was able to generate so many wheelbarrows
>of paper that the government was swamped.

Double win--they probably had to obtain a computer from IBM to track
it all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208343

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:28:11 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> Double win--they probably had to obtain a computer from IBM to track
> it all.

Unless they needed an even bigger computer from Control Data. (Which, unlike 
the U.S. Government, succeeded in its lawsuit against IBM.)

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208352

On 2019-12-01, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:28:11 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Double win--they probably had to obtain a computer from IBM to track
>> it all.
>
> Unless they needed an even bigger computer from Control Data. (Which, unlike 
> the U.S. Government, succeeded in its lawsuit against IBM.)

"Before it controls you," indeed.

Niklas
-- 
"Once packets are in, who cares where they go out? That's not my department,"
says Wernher von Route.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208375

On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:28:11 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> > Double win--they probably had to obtain a computer from IBM to track
> > it all.
> 
> Unless they needed an even bigger computer from Control Data. (Which, unlike 
> the U.S. Government, succeeded in its lawsuit against IBM.)

The US Govt was counting on the CDC lawsuit to help its case.
But when IBM settled with CDC out of court, both sides
destroyed their papers, as was standard practice, and was
perfectly legal.  Those papers would've helped the govt.

I am not a lawyer, but I think IBM had changed its practices
adequately enough that it did not deserve the 1970s Federal
lawsuit and it was a needless waste of resources.

Indeed, sometimes I think Federal antitrust efforts aren't
very good.  It seems they go after companies that aren't
monopolies but ignore the ones that are.

For instance, there was a relatively small wire company,
Roebling, that wanted to merge into Bethlehem Steel in
1970.  The government wouldn't let them. Roebling went
out of business.

On the flip side, I think banks are way too big.

I think Amazon is way too big.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#208319

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2019-11-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 12:49:55 AM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> This particular /30 also had 3rd party disk and tape drives, along
>>> with the memory upgrades.  IBM was Not Pleased.
>>
>> The S/360 history explains some of what was going on.  Part
>> of the third-party hardware was the result of IBM engineers
>> 'jumping ship' after S/360 development, taking their
>> expertise to newly formed companies.  IBM was pissed about
>> that.  But my personal impression is that IBM somewhat created 
>> that situation by working their people ridiculously hard 
>> during S/360 days and then not compensating them adequately.
>
> Their arbitrary limits on how much memory could be attached
> to various processors in the 360 line didn't help either.
>
>> Another part was that S/360 was very successful and IBM
>> was unable to meet demand.
>>
>> Another part was that IBM wasn't cheap.  IBM gave full
>> support, but at a price.  Later, after unbundling, IBM
>> was more competitive.
>>
>> Of course, a third party company was exploiting IBM's
>> research and development.  But there were risks--they
>> could make a lot of money, but if IBM upgraded its
>> hardware, they could lose a lot of money.
>
> There was an ongoing cat-and-mouse game for a while.
> IBM would change the interface specifications, which
> shut out the plug-compatible manufacturers for the year
> that it took them to reverse-engineer the new interface.
> Wash, rinse, repeat.

Honestly, I can't remember IBM changing any interface.

They invented lots of new interfaces to keep the competitors
at bay.  Mostly unsuccessfully.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web