Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #208265 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-11-25 13:20 -0800 |
| Last post | 2020-03-12 18:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 634 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-25 13:20 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-11-25 15:07 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-26 01:22 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 12:54 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-28 18:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-11-28 09:44 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2019-11-28 11:04 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-23 03:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2019-11-25 14:41 -1000
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-26 01:31 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 12:49 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-11-27 21:23 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:39 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 18:18 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2019-12-02 00:23 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-02 15:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2019-11-28 03:16 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-26 21:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-11-26 22:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-26 22:50 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-27 00:41 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-27 05:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2019-11-27 11:22 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-27 19:54 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:05 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-11-27 13:04 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2019-11-27 13:11 -1000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-11-28 18:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 13:28 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2019-12-01 13:16 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2019-12-03 15:14 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2019-12-04 13:01 -0800
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 19:41 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-08 16:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-08 16:50 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-08 17:19 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-09 13:19 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-09 16:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-09 12:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-09 16:35 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-09 16:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-09 19:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-10 12:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 19:02 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-12 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 16:46 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-12 15:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:10 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-10 01:06 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-10 11:33 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-10 18:48 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-10 12:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-10 22:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-11 19:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 13:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-12 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 16:42 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-12 22:11 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-12 23:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-03-13 08:36 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-11 22:17 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 16:47 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 13:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 18:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:32 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-11 18:17 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-12 15:03 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-12 15:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-12 19:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-13 10:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-03-13 18:07 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-13 11:43 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:31 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 19:08 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 01:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360-30 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-13 00:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360-30 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-13 00:26 +0000
Re: IBM system/360-30 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 20:38 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-03-09 21:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 12:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 02:11 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 10:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:54 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 12:04 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 10:31 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-22 11:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700
Re: IBM 1130, system John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-12 23:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-22 11:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-23 00:55 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-24 13:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 17:35 -0400
RPG was Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-24 23:03 +0000
Re: RPG was Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 01:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-24 18:37 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 07:26 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:12 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 11:29 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:51 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 14:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:01 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 15:15 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:39 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 12:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:24 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:50 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:34 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:53 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 23:14 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 17:28 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 11:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 07:01 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 11:31 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 10:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 13:26 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 11:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 20:23 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 14:35 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 12:08 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 15:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-26 14:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 22:33 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:47 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 11:10 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 08:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-26 14:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 16:20 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 12:24 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-26 16:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-26 19:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-08-27 14:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 20:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 22:38 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 06:32 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-27 11:39 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-27 13:38 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-27 12:03 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 20:11 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-26 21:17 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-08-26 12:13 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 11:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 17:21 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 17:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2020-08-26 04:07 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 12:02 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 08:29 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 12:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 20:20 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 12:45 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:31 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 14:54 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:33 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 14:44 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:31 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 19:16 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:55 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-25 14:43 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-25 14:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:02 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:38 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 01:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-25 13:13 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:38 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-23 07:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2020-08-23 01:00 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-23 10:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-23 10:43 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-23 12:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-23 20:49 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-22 11:05 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-23 00:55 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-24 13:25 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 17:18 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 01:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 22:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 03:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:09 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-25 15:15 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:44 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 12:29 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-25 19:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 21:52 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-08-26 07:44 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-26 12:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-26 15:15 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:42 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-27 09:43 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:43 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 22:27 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 18:09 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-26 00:12 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 20:35 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-24 18:37 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 11:18 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:40 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 08:26 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-08-25 12:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:26 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:44 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 07:56 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 09:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:43 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-25 16:28 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 11:52 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-25 15:16 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@127.0.0.1> - 2020-08-25 12:56 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:40 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 15:58 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 19:57 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 16:48 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:26 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 19:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-23 06:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-23 10:23 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 14:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 23:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-24 13:39 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-24 18:37 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 22:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 20:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 23:18 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-26 14:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:49 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-26 22:28 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 17:27 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 19:39 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:42 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 20:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 21:36 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-01 11:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-01 19:17 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-02 08:42 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-03 05:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 02:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-03 09:48 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 17:55 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-03 19:31 +0100
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 22:13 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:24 -0700
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-04 05:30 +0000
Re: PL/something, IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:08 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-04 05:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 10:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-05 05:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-09-05 06:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 10:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 19:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 12:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-09-08 21:10 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-09 05:07 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-09 09:38 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-09 11:16 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 19:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-02 12:18 -0600
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-01 19:20 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-01 16:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 19:12 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 11:59 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 09:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 14:05 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:18 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-02 16:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 20:35 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 23:59 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-03 10:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 13:39 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? lawrence <lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom> - 2020-09-03 18:31 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:45 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-09-03 13:26 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 20:49 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 01:37 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 23:27 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-03 07:05 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-03 10:16 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-09-03 12:29 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-03 16:26 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-09-03 13:11 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2020-09-03 14:20 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-03 11:48 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-03 19:57 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 10:38 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-03 19:04 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 18:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-03 10:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 14:02 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 22:45 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:11 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 17:45 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 10:10 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:22 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 09:53 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 15:19 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 20:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 21:04 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-03 07:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 09:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-03 13:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 18:04 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 05:48 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 10:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 14:56 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 11:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 19:49 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:12 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 20:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:53 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-04 21:23 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-05 12:22 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 18:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-04 18:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 22:10 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 12:04 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-08 23:35 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-09 13:17 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:34 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 22:37 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 23:56 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-05 19:02 +0000
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:23 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:37 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:57 -0400
Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 17:09 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:38 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 22:05 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-06 06:30 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 21:32 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 23:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 00:05 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-05 09:48 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-05 07:20 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 12:09 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 21:00 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-09 14:45 -0500
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 11:53 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 18:37 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 11:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 15:22 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-04 16:02 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 19:43 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 18:13 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-05 09:47 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 12:21 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-03 21:45 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:01 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 13:16 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> - 2020-09-02 16:14 +0200
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 07:20 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:36 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 13:19 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 15:25 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 14:43 +0100
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 12:40 -0400
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 02:08 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 06:12 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 20:36 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 20:54 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 22:18 +0000
Re: Fortran on IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-03 06:27 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 16:48 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 23:53 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 20:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 02:46 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 23:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 19:30 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:00 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 20:27 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 21:01 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 22:51 +0000
Re: IBM system/360/20, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 01:24 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:28 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 18:19 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 19:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-30 17:47 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 14:16 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-01 03:32 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 15:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 19:41 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-31 08:58 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 17:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 01:06 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 20:26 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-30 20:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 21:21 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 16:34 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 22:13 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-01 06:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-01 16:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-01 11:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-01 19:38 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 16:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, model 20 PL/I Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:41 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:22 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:23 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-29 12:21 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 09:41 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:24 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 15:07 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-29 17:52 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 22:21 -0400
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 07:20 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 00:56 +0000
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:46 -0700
Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:15 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:59 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 21:47 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 02:40 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 00:04 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:24 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2020-08-27 15:55 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 11:14 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 17:30 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-27 23:24 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 06:38 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 06:44 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 10:59 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 10:15 -0700
Re: KDF9 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 19:05 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 19:37 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:05 -0400
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-28 20:30 +0000
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 21:40 +0000
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:03 -0400
Re: stacks KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-29 14:01 +0000
Re: Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 18:33 +0000
Re: Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-30 11:09 +0000
Re: Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 07:18 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-30 17:58 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-31 17:17 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 19:58 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-01 09:39 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 04:10 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 08:19 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-01 18:08 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 16:04 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:13 -0700
Re: block moves, 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 02:14 +0000
Re: block moves, 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 20:52 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 20:34 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 00:06 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 18:05 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 22:32 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 02:51 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 23:52 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 20:58 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 10:18 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 13:28 -0400
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-31 15:50 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-31 17:24 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 22:19 -0700
Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 22:23 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robert Marshall <spam@capuchin.co.uk> - 2020-08-28 18:58 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-28 15:23 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:21 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:05 +0000
Re: KDF9 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 19:39 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:18 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-29 17:52 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 21:39 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-08-30 11:51 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 08:06 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 08:36 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 10:43 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 11:49 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 13:10 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 13:33 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 15:03 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-30 16:37 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Home made card reader J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 13:20 -0400
Re: Home made card reader Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-30 17:23 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 16:38 -0700
Re: Home made card reader John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-31 00:27 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-31 09:34 +0000
Re: Home made card reader usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:04 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-02 08:27 +0000
Re: Home made card reader Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-02 16:54 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 15:04 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 18:19 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-31 07:23 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-29 20:34 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-30 11:37 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-30 11:40 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-30 07:31 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:06 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-02 07:03 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-02 20:40 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 21:06 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 01:41 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 23:28 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 18:10 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 17:25 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-03 22:26 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 19:03 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 16:03 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-04 23:34 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 10:02 -0400
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:38 -0700
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-03 16:32 +0000
Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-04 18:11 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2020-08-29 01:04 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:14 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-29 08:35 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 12:13 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-28 07:00 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-28 15:17 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 18:24 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 20:04 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 22:07 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:20 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-29 12:28 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-29 12:31 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-29 23:58 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-01 11:10 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-02 05:21 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-02 16:54 +0000
Re: flaming, not at all KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 18:35 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:15 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:45 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 20:28 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:11 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 14:28 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-29 19:39 +0100
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:59 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 18:25 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 22:28 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 10:28 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-29 08:40 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 06:32 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 18:56 -0400
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:39 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:34 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:44 -0700
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 19:08 +0000
Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:36 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 09:25 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 10:32 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 10:36 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 05:10 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 06:20 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 09:31 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 17:42 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Stoat <fake@fake.org> - 2020-08-28 15:49 +1200
Re: IBM system/360 ad gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:06 +0100
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:03 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-10 11:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 14:47 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2020-03-11 15:05 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-11 16:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-12 14:57 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 19:59 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-12 17:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 20:57 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-13 10:15 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-10 18:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-03-11 12:32 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 02:52 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 10:27 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-14 13:40 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-14 09:01 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-14 12:36 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-15 21:58 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-12 12:57 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 17:39 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-12 15:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 20:33 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2020-03-11 21:23 -0500
Re: IBM system/360 ad robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-03-11 20:50 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-12 09:34 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 13:55 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-25 18:06 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 23:05 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-08 17:19 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad rnetzlof@gmail.com - 2020-03-09 18:11 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2020-03-09 21:36 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 00:14 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-06-12 02:31 +0000
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-10 12:29 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad rnetzlof@gmail.com - 2020-03-12 15:07 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 20:08 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-03-12 17:27 -0700
Re: IBM system/360 ad Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 20:46 -0400
Re: IBM system/360 ad rnetzlof@gmail.com - 2020-03-12 18:21 -0700
Page 3 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 32 Next page →
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96671175.605487252.018503.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>> >>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>> >>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>> but slow core.) >>> >>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>> >>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>> >>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>> >>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>> >>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>> >>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>> >>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>> ordered on the announcement date. >> >> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >> >> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >> revised over the years. >> >> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >> lot. > > A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use > ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. > > As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in > was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. > It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a > miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with > 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the > minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a > time required 64K. The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. > > I told an IBM salesman once that IBM had so bollixed up the architecture > that our application programs were easily twice as large as they were on > the 14xx. He checked with his technical people and had to concede the > point. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-09 19:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r46k7f$g0p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210367 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>> >>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>> >>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>> but slow core.) >>>> >>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>> >>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>> >>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>> >>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>> >>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>> >>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>> >>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>> >>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>> >>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>> revised over the years. >>> >>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>> lot. >> >> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >> >> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >> time required 64K. > > The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they just got upgraded to. I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory 256 bytes at a time. Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more expensive 40, 50, 65s. A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. Probably even 3 or 4. Later I worked at a mailing operation. They ran a dozen 1403s at once but used a 65. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <526116244.605560637.001391.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210370 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>> >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>>> but slow core.) >>>>> >>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>>> >>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>>> >>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>>> >>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>>> >>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>>> >>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>>> >>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>>> >>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>>> >>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>>> revised over the years. >>>> >>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>>> lot. >>> >>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >>> >>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >>> time required 64K. >> >> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. > > I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. > One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they > just got upgraded to. > > I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't > work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped > through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory > 256 bytes at a time. > > Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. > > Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone installed the memory and forgot the jumper? > > I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let > the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K > wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. > IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known > that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more > expensive 40, 50, 65s. > > A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. > Probably even 3 or 4. Once they got POWER. > > Later I worked at a mailing operation. They ran a dozen 1403s at once > but used a 65. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 19:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r496an$lvn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210426 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>>>> but slow core.) >>>>>> >>>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>>>> >>>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>>>> >>>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>>>> >>>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>>>> revised over the years. >>>>> >>>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>>>> lot. >>>> >>>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >>>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >>>> >>>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >>>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >>>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >>>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >>>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >>>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >>>> time required 64K. >>> >>> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. >> >> I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. >> One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they >> just got upgraded to. >> >> I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't >> work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped >> through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory >> 256 bytes at a time. >> >> Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. >> >> Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. > > I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone > installed the memory and forgot the jumper? Wow, this was years ago, I'd guess 1969, but that rings a bell. I think you got it. The memory was installed by IBM, the IBM CE came in and fixed it. All we were seeing is the sysgen would work, but any attempt to boot locked up the machine. The reference the the bad memory caused a machine check and all that did was try to run a non-existent machine check PSW. There was nothing in memory to even point at the failing instruction. Only single stepping thru the long core clearing process turned on the lights. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f5b73e3-f50a-4450-82f7-05df28fff17a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210426 |
On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >>> > >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those > >>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think > >>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core > >>>>>>> but slow core.) > >>>>> > >>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. > >>>>> > >>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. > >>>>> > >>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model > >>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. > >>>>> > >>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 > >>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? > >>>>> > >>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations > >>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 > >>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in > >>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 > >>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. > >>>>> > >>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you > >>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have > >>>>> ordered on the announcement date. > >>>> > >>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, > >>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not > >>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). > >>>> > >>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over > >>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered > >>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had > >>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional > >>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly > >>>> revised over the years. > >>>> > >>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a > >>>> lot. > >>> > >>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use > >>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. > >>> > >>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in > >>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. > >>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a > >>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with > >>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the > >>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a > >>> time required 64K. > >> > >> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. > > > > I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. > > One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they > > just got upgraded to. > > > > I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't > > work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped > > through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory > > 256 bytes at a time. > > > > Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. > > > > Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. > > I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone > installed the memory and forgot the jumper? > > > > > I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let > > the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K > > wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. > > IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known > > that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more > > expensive 40, 50, 65s. > > > > A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. > > Probably even 3 or 4. > > Once they got POWER. > Our 360-40 site installed POWER in a foreground partition It was easy to installed and ran fine. The productivity improvement was amazing--almost doubling throughput. No programming changes to our applications were required. I was amazed at how it somehow captured all unit record I/O and stored it on disk for later handling, automatically. Before POWER, it was obvious our CPU was I/O bound. When reading and printing at full speed, the CPU wait light was almost continuously on, indicating there were plenty of CPU cycles available. Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing application in which the spooler was bypassed and the checks printed 'hot'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1199360087.605655982.191764.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #210446 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1964-12/page/n51 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Available with up to 8 meg of memory! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (I thought S/360 could handle up to 16 meg? But maybe in those >>>>>>>>> days no one could see needing more than 8 meg. Indeed, I think >>>>>>>>> if you wanted that much you had to get the "LCS" which was core >>>>>>>>> but slow core.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In 1964, that was false advertising. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In 1965, the first System/360 machines were delivered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There were adjustments to the initially announced lineup, so "Model >>>>>>> 60" and "Model 70" were replaced by the model 65 and model 75. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the question to ask is: was it possible to order a System/360 >>>>>>> Model 75 with 8 megabytes of core storage? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at 360/75 Functional Characteristics, the configurations >>>>>>> avalable are the 2075H, 2075I, and 2075J, with 256 Kbytes, 512 >>>>>>> Kbytes, and 1 Mbyte respectively. This was 750 nanosecond memory, in >>>>>>> 2365 Processor Storage modules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, you could get 8 microsecond external 2631 Core Storage. Model 2 >>>>>>> had a capacity of 2 Mb, and you could attach up to four of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if you were willing to settle for 8 microsecond memory, yes, you >>>>>>> could have 8 megabytes of core on a system that you could have >>>>>>> ordered on the announcement date. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have my S/360 history in front of me, but if memory serves, >>>>>> the development of the auxiliary core storage went slowly and was not >>>>>> a successful product (please correct me if I'm wrong). >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, I think the amount of storage available for S/360 varied over >>>>>> time. For instance, on the low end, I think the model 30 was offered >>>>>> with only 8k but later upgraded to 16k. I suspect the large end had >>>>>> similar situations. Anyway, I suspect the "Functional >>>>>> Characteristics" for any given S/360 model would be significantly >>>>>> revised over the years. >>>>>> >>>>>> I never read Pugh's book on memory, which probably would explain a >>>>>> lot. >>>>> >>>>> A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use >>>>> ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. >>>>> >>>>> As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in >>>>> was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. >>>>> It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a >>>>> miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with >>>>> 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the >>>>> minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a >>>>> time required 64K. >>>> >>>> The places I worked at all had 32K. A /40 was more likely to have 64K. >>> >>> I believe all the 30s I saw with 32K pretty quickly got upgraded to 64K. >>> One place hired me to do a DOS Sysgen so they could use the 64K they >>> just got upgraded to. >>> >>> I ended up spending a very long weekend working out why it wouldn't >>> work. After many hours I decoded the boot logic and single stepped >>> through boot until I got to the part where DOS cleared all memory >>> 256 bytes at a time. >>> >>> Then I saw the machine check when it first addressed the memory at 32K+1. >>> >>> Definitely earned my consulting fee for that. >> >> I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone >> installed the memory and forgot the jumper? >> >>> >>> I worked at a few places that got the 3rd party model 30 upgrade that let >>> the machine address more than 64K. The 30 was fast enough but 64K >>> wasn't really adequate for 2 batch regions running COBOL applications. >>> IBM, as always, was protecting it's income stream. They must have known >>> that larger 30s were needed but they really wanted to sell the more >>> expensive 40, 50, 65s. >>> >>> A 30 could easily keep 2 card readers and printers running all out. >>> Probably even 3 or 4. >> >> Once they got POWER. >> > > Our 360-40 site installed POWER in a foreground partition > It was easy to installed and ran fine. The productivity > improvement was amazing--almost doubling throughput. No > programming changes to our applications were required. > > I was amazed at how it somehow captured all unit record > I/O and stored it on disk for later handling, automatically. > > Before POWER, it was obvious our CPU was I/O bound. > When reading and printing at full speed, the CPU wait light > was almost continuously on, indicating there were plenty of > CPU cycles available. > > Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing > application in which the spooler was bypassed and > the checks printed 'hot'. > > Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 19:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r4e1bf218p5@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210456 |
On 2020-03-11, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing >> application in which the spooler was bypassed and >> the checks printed 'hot'. > > Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all > “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or > adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). The fun began when you tried to ensure that the computer-generated cheque number lined up with the pre-printed ones on the cheques. You'd pray that there were no forms jams and that the operator didn't need too many tries to get things aligned. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 16:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r4e73n$b05$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210492 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > On 2020-03-11, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >>> Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing >>> application in which the spooler was bypassed and >>> the checks printed 'hot'. >> >> Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all >> “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or >> adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). > > The fun began when you tried to ensure that the computer-generated > cheque number lined up with the pre-printed ones on the cheques. > You'd pray that there were no forms jams and that the operator > didn't need too many tries to get things aligned. I could not convince payroll that computer printed check numbers instead of pre-printed would work. They did keep track of every blank check by accounting for the check numbers. So perhaps they had a point. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63cbe247-86b9-44a8-a7d1-a06e43340abd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210495 |
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > > > On 2020-03-11, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Fast forward to the future, there was a check printing > >>> application in which the spooler was bypassed and > >>> the checks printed 'hot'. > >> > >> Typical. The ones I’ve seen the program would print a dummy check of all > >> “X”s for alignment and then ask the operator to verify and reply if OK, or > >> adjust and reprint again. None of this can be done thru a spooler (AFAIK). > > > > The fun began when you tried to ensure that the computer-generated > > cheque number lined up with the pre-printed ones on the cheques. > > You'd pray that there were no forms jams and that the operator > > didn't need too many tries to get things aligned. > > I could not convince payroll that computer printed check numbers > instead of pre-printed would work. > > They did keep track of every blank check by accounting for the check > numbers. So perhaps they had a point. I think auditors like to track by the pre-printed check numbers. Everywhere I worked the operators had to account for every single check, both used to align the printer, other waste, and actually printed. In some applications the pre-printed check number was to match the computer generated check number. Checks had a lot of controls. Apparently they were necessary since forgery and theft could be a problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79f34985-f7b8-4e52-be45-ab30d1ceda18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210426 |
On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > I think there was a jumper that needed to be set for >32K, so maybe someone > installed the memory and forgot the jumper? When we added memory to our 360-40, they screwed up the jumper and memory access was screwy until it was fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 01:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r46p6t41n8@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210365 |
On 2020-03-09, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > A 30 with 8K? What good would that be? A minimum DOS Sysgen would use > ALL of that, more likely it would gen at around 10-12K. > > As those systems came out, there was some confusion. A shop I worked in > was running all their apps on 2 16K 14xx's. The 30 showed up with 32K. > It' didn't take long to realize that wasn't going to cut it. 32K was a > miniumum. If you wanted to run HLL compilers, you'd be better off with > 64K. If you wanted to run more than one job at a time, 64K was the > minimum. In a few years, spoolers became common. Even one job at a > time required 64K. > > I told an IBM salesman once that IBM had so bollixed up the architecture > that our application programs were easily twice as large as they were on > the 14xx. He checked with his technical people and had to concede the > point. Or maybe it was like the Univac salesmen who consistently low-balled memory requirements to get a low bid. Many customers found themselves buying memory expansions they were told they'd never need, after their new installation bogged down. Eventually even the documentation admitted to memory requirements of various packages being more than they originally claimed. Besides, the memory size limits on the various 360 processors were largely self-imposed. At worst it took a bit of work with a soldering iron to work around them. I once used a 360/30 with 128K of core; the switch and indicator for the extra address bit had a definite home-brewed look to them. Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1f58432-16ad-4176-b33d-ce1796895912@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210374 |
On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 9:06:55 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Or maybe it was like the Univac salesmen who consistently low-balled > memory requirements to get a low bid. Many customers found themselves > buying memory expansions they were told they'd never need, after their > new installation bogged down. Eventually even the documentation admitted > to memory requirements of various packages being more than they originally > claimed. They say IBM lowballed, too (see above). FWIW, our 90/30 was adequately configured. I think we had 256k. Of course, we weren't doing very much online work, it was mostly batch and single stream. > Besides, the memory size limits on the various 360 processors were > largely self-imposed. At worst it took a bit of work with a soldering > iron to work around them. I once used a 360/30 with 128K of core; the > switch and indicator for the extra address bit had a definite home-brewed > look to them. > Greyhound computer bought up a lot of 360/30 processors that had come > off lease, and hung as much as 512K on them. Anyone know how a bus company got into computers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r48ndt0236c@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210417 |
On 2020-03-10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 9:06:55 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Or maybe it was like the Univac salesmen who consistently low-balled >> memory requirements to get a low bid. Many customers found themselves >> buying memory expansions they were told they'd never need, after their >> new installation bogged down. Eventually even the documentation admitted >> to memory requirements of various packages being more than they originally >> claimed. > > They say IBM lowballed, too (see above). > > FWIW, our 90/30 was adequately configured. I think we had 256k. > Of course, we weren't doing very much online work, it was mostly > batch and single stream. Luxury! I don't know whether any 90/30 shop here in Vancouver had 256K. Most were 192K; there were some 128K shops, but they were uncomfortably tight. This didn't stop Univac from advertising that their equivalent of CICS (confusingly called IMS/90) could run in as little as 32K. The fine print mentioned that this was for a system running three terminals doing simple inquiries into a single ISAM file. And in subsequent releases they admitted you needed 64K for even that. (Actually, make that "65K". Since this is sales literature, the "salesman's K" is used throughout. Where else but in the wild and wacky world of marketing could you add 32 and 32 to get 65?) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e57be35-11b7-470c-9538-4d5ebb8533bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210424 |
On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > This didn't stop Univac from advertising that their equivalent of > CICS (confusingly called IMS/90) could run in as little as 32K. > The fine print mentioned that this was for a system running three > terminals doing simple inquiries into a single ISAM file. And in > subsequent releases they admitted you needed 64K for even that. I don't recall the name of the online monitor Univac provided us, but it was a total piece of crap. We never could run anything on it. Unlike even early versions of CICS, it required extensive hex and binary coding for both the screen maps and applications. We had training at Univac HQ and that was crap too. The instructor was unprepared. There was no computer time available as needed. Last minute arrangements were rushed. I was shocked Univac would offer something to a customer so crappy. I was too low on the totem pole to know background, but I didn't quite understand the point of the 90 series product line. Unlike other Univac products, it was a byte machine like a S/360. But even though it was similar to a S/360 architecture, it wasn't marketed as such. So, it really didn't fit in the Univac world. We had conflicts where others would code in ways that cause abends--they didn't understand you needed a carriage control and couldn't have spaces in a numeric field in the 360 world. They didn't understand ISAM. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/series_90/Univac_90_30_System_Brochure_Mar74.pdf I think Univac would've done better if they just marketed it as a S/360 compatible box. As mentioned, the only positive I saw out of the whole experience was that Univac personnel were friendly nice people, more down to earth than IBM people. (I heard a few months after I left that employer they ditched the Univac and got a different machine. A new director also fired most of the staff. Glad I left early.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-10 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r495cd01478@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210425 |
On 2020-03-10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> This didn't stop Univac from advertising that their equivalent of >> CICS (confusingly called IMS/90) could run in as little as 32K. >> The fine print mentioned that this was for a system running three >> terminals doing simple inquiries into a single ISAM file. And in >> subsequent releases they admitted you needed 64K for even that. > > I don't recall the name of the online monitor Univac > provided us, but it was a total piece of crap. We never > could run anything on it. That would have been IMS. I described it as being designed to maximize system and programmer activity. Every time you sneezed you had to regenerate it, a process that consumed 45 minutes and spat out a couple of hundred pages of largely useless listings. Testing was limited to after hours, since you'd have to take over the entire user network. I eventually wrote a single user-simulator that would read an IMSgen deck and configure itself at startup (in approximately zero seconds), and which only took over the programmer's network (which ran on a different set of lines with a totally different protocol). This meant I could run quick tests during the day, if I could persuade the rest of the programming staff to go for coffee. Allinson-Ross, in Toronto, developed a monitor called TIP/30, which was easier to use - and it could run on the same network as the programming utilities, which made life a lot easier. TIP/30 had a programming editor which IIRC was based on an editor from Bell Labs, and you also had online access to spool files, which was nice for reviewing test runs. > Unlike even early versions of CICS, it required extensive > hex and binary coding for both the screen maps and applications. Ah, yes... however, DICE (device-independent control expressions) simplified things somewhat. I got pretty adept at building and dissecting control strings in COBOL68. (COBOL74's STRING and UNSTRING verbs were a godsend.) > We had training at Univac HQ and that was crap too. The > instructor was unprepared. There was no computer time > available as needed. Last minute arrangements were rushed. I once went to a JCL cource at Univac, and was asking so many questions that the instructor had me get up and run part of the class. :-) > I was shocked Univac would offer something to a customer > so crappy. > > I was too low on the totem pole to know background, > but I didn't quite understand the point of the 90 series > product line. Unlike other Univac products, it was a > byte machine like a S/360. But even though it was similar > to a S/360 architecture, it wasn't marketed as such. I think there was a lot of the NIH syndrome involved. I remember one sales rally which I was required to attend; the presenter was going on about "product differentiation", which I took to mean: "Make it different, even if it means screwing it up." > So, it really didn't fit in the Univac world. We had > conflicts where others would code in ways that cause > abends--they didn't understand you needed a carriage > control and couldn't have spaces in a numeric field > in the 360 world. They didn't understand ISAM. I never did get a chance to play with the 1100 series machines. They were a totally different beast, handled by a different department within the Univac office. > http://bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/series_90/Univac_90_30_System_Brochure_Mar74.pdf > > I think Univac would've done better if they just marketed > it as a S/360 compatible box. It was definitely a workalike. The 90/30's non-privileged instruction set was bit-for-bit identical with that of the 360/50. The I/O architecture and most privileged instructions were completely different, though. > As mentioned, the only positive I saw out of the whole > experience was that Univac personnel were friendly nice > people, more down to earth than IBM people. +1 > (I heard a few months after I left that employer they ditched > the Univac and got a different machine. A new director also > fired most of the staff. Glad I left early.) Yup, you dodged that bullet... :-) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05084293-cadb-4b7b-a103-96e2e36bfce5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210428 |
On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 6:47:02 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > I think Univac would've done better if they just marketed > > it as a S/360 compatible box. > > It was definitely a workalike. The 90/30's non-privileged > instruction set was bit-for-bit identical with that of the > 360/50. The I/O architecture and most privileged instructions > were completely different, though. Hmm...according to Wikipedia, the 90 series was a popular and profitable product line for Univac. Apparently it was derived from both the 9700 series and RCA's Spectra series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_Series_90 For customers, a key issue is cost. My guess was that our 90/30 was approximately the same as a 370-135 but without virtual storage. My guess is that Univac was cheaper, maybe a lot cheaper than IBM. But, as mentioned, that particular employer didn't seem very sure of what the wanted to do on the machine beyond some statistical reporting. As mentioned, they brought in a variety of COBOL programs but none of them worked due to the byte/word incompatibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r4bfcp02aoe@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210448 |
On 2020-03-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > As mentioned, they brought in a variety of COBOL programs > but none of them worked due to the byte/word incompatibility. This would make it just as hard to convert programs from an 1100-series machine to a 360 as to a 90/30. The issue was the 1100's word-based architecture. Converting between 90/30 and 360, or earlier Univac 360-lookalikes, was fairly simple, at least from the standpoint of data files. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ceb1d3d-7e0e-4a14-a9bf-68a59817d5dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210450 |
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:50:51 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2020-03-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > > As mentioned, they brought in a variety of COBOL programs > > but none of them worked due to the byte/word incompatibility. > > This would make it just as hard to convert programs from an > 1100-series machine to a 360 as to a 90/30. The issue was the > 1100's word-based architecture. Converting between 90/30 and > 360, or earlier Univac 360-lookalikes, was fairly simple, at > least from the standpoint of data files. It was hard converting RPG programs from the 9700 to 90/30. I don't know if object or load decks from the 90/30 would run on a System/360, but my guess is that recompiling would be easy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 19:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r4e1be118p5@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #210454 |
On 2020-03-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:50:51 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2020-03-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >>> As mentioned, they brought in a variety of COBOL programs >>> but none of them worked due to the byte/word incompatibility. >> >> This would make it just as hard to convert programs from an >> 1100-series machine to a 360 as to a 90/30. The issue was the >> 1100's word-based architecture. Converting between 90/30 and >> 360, or earlier Univac 360-lookalikes, was fairly simple, at >> least from the standpoint of data files. > > It was hard converting RPG programs from the 9700 to 90/30. I once converted a set of RPG programs from an IBM System/38 to OS/3. These were 3000-line interactive monsters that proved that the world had forgotten what RPG stood for. It was not fun. > I don't know if object or load decks from the 90/30 would > run on a System/360, Definitely not. Different format, different ABIs. > but my guess is that recompiling would be easy. Yup. A few system-specific features (particularly the H card), but otherwise things were pretty much the same. I once converted a fairly large assembly-language batch program from OS/3 to DOS/VS. Aside from the different APIs (e.g. I/O), it wasn't too difficult. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-12 16:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r4e6r4$b05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210491 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > On 2020-03-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:50:51 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2020-03-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> >>>> As mentioned, they brought in a variety of COBOL programs >>>> but none of them worked due to the byte/word incompatibility. >>> >>> This would make it just as hard to convert programs from an >>> 1100-series machine to a 360 as to a 90/30. The issue was the >>> 1100's word-based architecture. Converting between 90/30 and >>> 360, or earlier Univac 360-lookalikes, was fairly simple, at >>> least from the standpoint of data files. >> >> It was hard converting RPG programs from the 9700 to 90/30. > > I once converted a set of RPG programs from an IBM System/38 > to OS/3. These were 3000-line interactive monsters that > proved that the world had forgotten what RPG stood for. > It was not fun. > >> I don't know if object or load decks from the 90/30 would >> run on a System/360, > > Definitely not. Different format, different ABIs. > >> but my guess is that recompiling would be easy. > > Yup. A few system-specific features (particularly the H card), > but otherwise things were pretty much the same. > > I once converted a fairly large assembly-language batch program > from OS/3 to DOS/VS. Aside from the different APIs (e.g. I/O), > it wasn't too difficult. Where you would definitely get in trouble is in screen read/write. That has to be the least compatible thing in the computer industry. IBM z systems have a slew of ways to do screen I/O, none of them compatible. Pics CICS, IMS/DC, ISPF, TSO, VTAM, they're all different and not close to compatible. Even in the Linux world we have Qt, Gtk, Tk, Curses. This appears to be unsolved science too, Qt and Gtk keep coming out with new semi-compatible versions. So, I had to move a bunch of interactive stuff from IBM S/34 (similar to the 38 mentioned above) to Wang/VS. I was able to take the S/34 source screen definitions and write a compatible interpreter for Wang/VS. The application was COBOL and it moved with very little work. If I had to do the screens over it would have been a much bigger job. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web