Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #210335 > unrolled thread
| Started by | robin.vowels@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-03-08 16:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-03-08 17:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 590 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Page 21 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 30 Next page →
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? |
| Message-ID | <969552000.620263805.602279.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213268 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > In article <cbfb79b9-14a8-4419-8843-801d4af656c1n@googlegroups.com>, > Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: >>> While I programmed machines >>> that did have those (PDP-8 and PDP-10) the 360 had enough registers that >>> if you knew what you were doing, you could keep most of your counters >>> in registers and use LA and BCT to count up and down. >> >> BCT is a DECREMENT instruction (and optional branch). > > Yeah, I know. Use LA to count up, BCT to count down. > >>> Given their conflicting goals of having compact code on small >>> machines, efficient code on large machines, and good performance for >>> commercial, scientific, and system code, they did pretty well. >> >> Except for the code bloat, which went against the smaller machines in the >> series, and the pockets of the purchasers. > > Like I said, it was a tradeoff. If you rented a 360/30, you knew that > you could upgrade to a /40, /50, or beyond without reprogramming. > > The 360/20 had an almost subset of the full instruction set which > allowed direct addressing but didn't make the code much smaller. IBM > clearly did find that they had a gap at the low end since they > introduced the S/3 in 1969 for small RPG users. > Which, I believe, had an even smaller instruction set. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 00:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? |
| Message-ID | <ri9koa$2jdl$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213303 |
In article <969552000.620263805.602279.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The 360/20 had an almost subset of the full instruction set which >> allowed direct addressing but didn't make the code much smaller. IBM >> clearly did find that they had a gap at the low end since they >> introduced the S/3 in 1969 for small RPG users. > >Which, I believe, had an even smaller instruction set. It was very cost reduced so it could rent for $1000/mo. The minimum memory size was 4K which was too small, but 8K was apparently usable. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 12:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? |
| Message-ID | <6672d305-0c5c-49df-97ab-446992c7df73o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213303 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 7:40:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > The 360/20 had an almost subset of the full instruction set which > > allowed direct addressing but didn't make the code much smaller. IBM > > clearly did find that they had a gap at the low end since they > > introduced the S/3 in 1969 for small RPG users. > > > > Which, I believe, had an even smaller instruction set. The early S/3 instruction set is on bitsavers. Very interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 16:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? |
| Message-ID | <ribok9$bk2$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213346 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 7:40:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> > The 360/20 had an almost subset of the full instruction set which >> > allowed direct addressing but didn't make the code much smaller. IBM >> > clearly did find that they had a gap at the low end since they >> > introduced the S/3 in 1969 for small RPG users. >> > >> >> Which, I believe, had an even smaller instruction set. > > The early S/3 instruction set is on bitsavers. Very interesting. There's a fairly succinct explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/3#Instruction_set -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-26 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <897aa796-5d62-41b7-b2fe-5b91ae920f5cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213156 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 7:11:05 AM UTC+10, h......@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 2:28:47 AM UTC-4, Robin Vowels wrote: > > On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 3:23:36 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote: > > > On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-6, h......@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > > > > > In my humble opinion, 8k would simply be too small, even > > > > for a rudimentary mainframe system. Heck, while you > > > > could get by with 32k (and I think some folks here did so), > > > > it was a tight squeeze. > > > It is certainly true that 32 K bytes would be a tight squeeze for an IBM 360. > > > > > > Since the IBM 360 had a reputation for being inefficient in its use of memory, I > > > wonder how well it managed with 128 K of memory. > > > > Our 360/50 had 128 K. > > There was not a heap of spare room once OS/360 was running. > > That wasn't enough to run FORTRAN H compiler, which required 256K > > but it was enough to run PL/I. > > > > It wasn't that the S/360 was "inefficient" in its use of memory; > > it was that the instruction set was inefficient. > > > > To increment a word in memory, needed 3 instructions, each of 4 bytes, > > thus consuming 12 bytes. > > > > To load a word in a array of words required: > > a load of the index variable; > > a shift of 2 places; > > a load of the relevant word. > > Total: 12 bytes. > > Had automatic shifting of the index been provided, > > only 8 bytes of instructions would have been needed. > > > > The look-alikes were the same. > > We should note that the S/360 architecture was > a compromise so it could be a universal machine, > large and small. The approach adopted wasn't > totally efficient for either large or small systems. > Indeed, during planning, there were many at IBM > bitterly opposed to the plan. > > One manager (Haanstra?) even built a 1401 using > new chips. Got into trouble for doing it. Don't > know how it performed. > > But with the benefit of hindsight, the S/360 > design was brilliant and did exactly as desired. Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing memory being 24 bits. With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to run 4 programs concurrently. single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). > It provided an easy growth path for users go > from small to large, and for users to get > new machines. And users have been doing just > that for the last 50 years. We sure have. > > Note that there was a machine, the 1410, that > was a growth option for the 1401. It was > similar, but NOT compatible with the 1401. > One had to throw a physical switch and go > into compatibility mode to run 1401 programs. > You did not have to do that on S/360. Heck, > we have programs 40 years old running along > just fine. You probably do, too. (Other > than application changes, but that's > separate than hardware.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-26 21:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ri73b4$hvm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213230 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > Consider the KDF9, running in 1964. > Instructions were 8 bits, with instructions referencing > memory being 24 bits. > With 32K of memory (48-bit words), it was able to > run 4 programs concurrently. > single and double precision floating-point (48 and 96 bits), > and single and double precision integers (48 and 96 bits). I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: USELESS Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in use in UK universities and technical colleges. No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 02:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <ri76fl$2mmi$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213232 |
In article <ri73b4$hvm$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > >USELESS > >Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > > he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > use in UK universities and technical colleges. > >No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > >I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in >universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? The Wikipedia page also says that one was in use at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK until 1980. If this computer was useless, so was its contemporary the IBM 7094. Both were designed to do scientific and engineering computation, not accounting. Some people may not find value in the kinds of calculations that determine whether a bridge design will collapse in a strong wind, but I suspect the people who use the bridge would disagree. FYI, at the same time they built the much less interesting KDF8 for commercial computing, a clone of the RCA 501. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 00:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <ri7bc6$lbq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213233 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: > In article <ri73b4$hvm$1@dont-email.me>, > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >> >>USELESS >> >>Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. >> >> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the >> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in >> use in UK universities and technical colleges. >> >>No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. >> >>I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in >>universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? > > The Wikipedia page also says that one was in use at the National > Physical Laboratory in the UK until 1980. Missed that. Still, just one? > If this computer was > useless, so was its contemporary the IBM 7094. Both were designed to > do scientific and engineering computation, not accounting. How is the 7094 introduced in January 1962 a contemporary of a machine from 1967. > Some people may not find value in the kinds of calculations that > determine whether a bridge design will collapse in a strong wind, but > I suspect the people who use the bridge would disagree. > > FYI, at the same time they built the much less interesting KDF8 > for commercial computing, a clone of the RCA 501. Isn't that the one that was a sales failure? -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 06:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <d5f0a03c-52fc-49cd-94da-fcb0079a2e27n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213237 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 2:04:25 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > John Levine <j.....@taugh.com> writes: > > > In article <r......@dont-email.me>, > > Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > >> > >>USELESS > >> > >>Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > >> > >> he KDF9 was designed for, and used almost entirely in, the > >> mathematical and scientific processing fields – in 1967, nine were in > >> use in UK universities and technical colleges. > >> > >>No byte addressing. No decimal arithmetic. > >> > >>I wonder, the Wikipedia page implies it was only installed in > >>universities. Did it ever have any real world usage? > > > > The Wikipedia page also says that one was in use at the National > > Physical Laboratory in the UK until 1980. > Missed that. Still, just one? > > If this computer was > > useless, so was its contemporary the IBM 7094. Both were designed to > > do scientific and engineering computation, not accounting. > How is the 7094 introduced in January 1962 a contemporary of a > machine from 1967. The KDF9 was running in 1964. > > Some people may not find value in the kinds of calculations that > > determine whether a bridge design will collapse in a strong wind, but > > I suspect the people who use the bridge would disagree. > > > > FYI, at the same time they built the much less interesting KDF8 > > for commercial computing, a clone of the RCA 501. > Isn't that the one that was a sales failure? IIRC, the KDF8 preceded the KDF9.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 15:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24F800DC030B43437000017A038F@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213237 |
> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > > > > > > USELESS > > > > > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. Inter alia, the design calculations for Concorde were done on KDF9s, as were those for the UK's fusion research labs. -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 11:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <ri8ike$4rb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213261 |
Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >> > > >> > > USELESS >> > > >> > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > > What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. Yes, it's deeply ignorant to remark about what your personal experience has been. Even when your personal experience spans 66 years. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 17:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <ri8qke$1hcj$2@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213264 |
In article <ri8ike$4rb$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. > >Yes, it's deeply ignorant to remark about what your personal experience >has been. Even when your personal experience spans 66 years. Good point. I've been driving for 50 years but I've never had any need to drive a semi-trailer or a dump truck, so they are useless too. Can we stop now, please? -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 23:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <3e09fcc3-c125-46c5-a79d-9b3bcccba98eo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213264 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 9:14:24 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: > Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > >> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > >> > > USELESS > >> > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > > What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. > Yes, it's deeply ignorant to remark about what your personal experience > has been. Even when your personal experience spans 66 years. You have 66 years of personal experience with computers, and yet you've never seen a computer put to use for any purpose for which an English Electric KDF9 computer would be useful? I find that somewhat hard to believe. Another claim to fame for the KDF9 computer is that one of the early ALGOL 60 compilers was written for it, and a consequence of that is that the Whetstone floating-point performance benchmark was first developed for the KDF9. Ah, I see: you were commenting on the fact that it did not have the ability to address individual bytes in storage, nor did it have hardware instructions to carry out decimal arithmetic. It was a scientific machine, not a commercial one. Accounts recievable and that sort of thing *can* be carried out on a computer that only has binary integer arithmetic. Doing arithmetic on decimal numbers saves the time taken to convert to binary, which may be more efficient despite decimal calculations being slower and more complicated, if numbers are stored as text, and only a very limited amount of calculation is performed before the results are stored again. I see, however, that your statement has some justification. The KDF9 had an assembly language called Usercode. It had two Algol 60 compilers and a FORTRAN compiler. But while English Electric promised that it would have a COBOL compiler, it never ended up being delivered. So while in theory it would not have been 'useless' for commercial work, in practice it would have been somewhat impractical, as Algol or FORTRAN would have to be used for programming it. The IBM 7090 computer, another scientific computer, was provided with a COBOL compiler by IBM - and so was the PDP-10 by DEC - so scientific computers can be used for business. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 06:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <riamr3$7ia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213318 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 9:14:24 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: >> Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >> >> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > >> >> > > USELESS > >> >> > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > >> > What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. > >> Yes, it's deeply ignorant to remark about what your personal experience >> has been. Even when your personal experience spans 66 years. > > You have 66 years of personal experience with computers, and yet you've never > seen a computer put to use for any purpose for which an English Electric KDF9 > computer would be useful? All those years and all I did was commercial work. No rocket trajectories, no numerical control, not even any Fortran. But why would I do those things? My skill was in developing complex systems not rendering formulas into code or whatever it is they do in Fortran shops. On the other hand, I have worked with computers that could and did complex calculations (like sales forecasting). I just never worked with computers that could ONLY do complex calculations. > I find that somewhat hard to believe. I can't see why. There was and is a massive amount of work being done running businesses with computers. So, while a KDF9 could do some of the things I've seen computers do, it wouldn't have much value doing the other things that business would need, hence my somewhat wry comment about the machine being useless. It was being put forward as some kind of ultimate expression of ideal computer design. The idea that it had 8 bit instructions but no character handling seems a bit weird. The 14xx machines had lots of instructions that were only 7 bits. But that was when you were using the storage addresses left over from previous instructions. I wonder how the KDF9 pulled that off. Were those 8 bit instructions using pre-ordained registers? Cause that would be bad, in this same thread a poster decried need for load/store as part of doing arithmetic. So, in 8 bits how was a storage address determined? -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 06:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <5f7d74a7-0522-4b4b-a44c-f1f2c59a704an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213324 |
On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 8:38:29 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > Quadibloc <j......@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > > > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 9:14:24 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Bill Findlay <f.......@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > >> >> > Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: > > > >> >> > > USELESS > > > >> >> > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. > > > >> > What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. > > > >> Yes, it's deeply ignorant to remark about what your personal experience > >> has been. Even when your personal experience spans 66 years. > > > > You have 66 years of personal experience with computers, and yet you've never > > seen a computer put to use for any purpose for which an English Electric KDF9 > > computer would be useful? > > All those years and all I did was commercial work. > No rocket trajectories, no numerical control, not even any Fortran. > But why would I do those things? My skill was in developing complex > systems not rendering formulas into code or whatever it is they do in > Fortran shops. > > On the other hand, I have worked with computers that could and did > complex calculations (like sales forecasting). I just never worked with > computers that could ONLY do complex calculations. > > I find that somewhat hard to believe. > > I can't see why. There was and is a massive amount of work being done > running businesses with computers. > > So, while a KDF9 could do some of the things I've seen computers do, > it wouldn't have much value doing the other things that business would > need, hence my somewhat wry comment about the machine being useless. Um, I already pointed out that a KDF9 was installed at Lyons Electronic Office for its catering business. Other users includede -- Wills Tobacco Sun Life Assurance National Computing Ceter ICI Baric. There are a some 6 KDF9 installations as yet unidentified. > It was being put forward as some kind of ultimate expression of ideal > computer design. > > The idea that it had 8 bit instructions but no character handling > seems a bit weird. KDF9 had instructions for converting characters to and from binary. > The 14xx machines had lots of instructions that > were only 7 bits. But that was when you were using the storage > addresses left over from previous instructions. > > I wonder how the KDF9 pulled that off. KDF9 was a stack machine, using a push-down pop-up stack of fast registers holding values. > Were those 8 bit instructions > using pre-ordained registers? Cause that would be bad, in this same > thread a poster decried need for load/store as part of doing arithmetic. > So, in 8 bits how was a storage address determined? I just explained that. Wiki would tell you. An add instruction, for example, took the two two values from the stack added them, and returned the sum to the top of the stack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 10:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <rib653$3og$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213326 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 8:38:29 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >> Quadibloc <j......@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >> >> > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 9:14:24 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: >> >> Bill Findlay <f.......@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >> >> >> > Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >> > >> >> >> > > USELESS >> > >> >> >> > > Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. >> > >> >> > What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. >> > >> >> Yes, it's deeply ignorant to remark about what your personal experience >> >> has been. Even when your personal experience spans 66 years. >> > >> > You have 66 years of personal experience with computers, and yet you've never >> > seen a computer put to use for any purpose for which an English Electric KDF9 >> > computer would be useful? >> >> All those years and all I did was commercial work. >> No rocket trajectories, no numerical control, not even any Fortran. >> But why would I do those things? My skill was in developing complex >> systems not rendering formulas into code or whatever it is they do in >> Fortran shops. >> >> On the other hand, I have worked with computers that could and did >> complex calculations (like sales forecasting). I just never worked with >> computers that could ONLY do complex calculations. >> > I find that somewhat hard to believe. >> >> I can't see why. There was and is a massive amount of work being done >> running businesses with computers. >> >> So, while a KDF9 could do some of the things I've seen computers do, >> it wouldn't have much value doing the other things that business would >> need, hence my somewhat wry comment about the machine being useless. > > Um, I already pointed out that a KDF9 was installed at > Lyons Electronic Office for its catering business. > > Other users includede -- > Wills Tobacco > Sun Life Assurance > National Computing Ceter > ICI > Baric. > There are a some 6 KDF9 installations as yet unidentified. > >> It was being put forward as some kind of ultimate expression of ideal >> computer design. >> >> The idea that it had 8 bit instructions but no character handling >> seems a bit weird. > > KDF9 had instructions for converting characters to and from binary. > >> The 14xx machines had lots of instructions that >> were only 7 bits. But that was when you were using the storage >> addresses left over from previous instructions. >> >> I wonder how the KDF9 pulled that off. > > KDF9 was a stack machine, using a push-down pop-up > stack of fast registers holding values. > >> Were those 8 bit instructions >> using pre-ordained registers? Cause that would be bad, in this same >> thread a poster decried need for load/store as part of doing arithmetic. >> So, in 8 bits how was a storage address determined? > > I just explained that. Wiki would tell you. > An add instruction, for example, took the two two values > from the stack added them, and returned the sum to the top of the stack. So, that stack is somethings like registers and to do binary arithmetic and save results in storage you have to push and pop from the stack. On the S/360 you can add to any register. On this machine it sounds like you have to work on only the top of the stack. Sounds like working on 2 or more computations at once would involve a lot of stack manipulation. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 10:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <1083797776.620327512.354271.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213332 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 8:38:29 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >>> Quadibloc <j......@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>> >>>> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 9:14:24 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: >>>>> Bill Findlay <f.......@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >>>>>>>> Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm going to go out on a limb here and consider it: >>>> >>>>>>>>> USELESS >>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, useless for any use I've ever seen a computer put to use for. >>>> >>>>>> What a deeply ignorant and silly claim. >>>> >>>>> Yes, it's deeply ignorant to remark about what your personal experience >>>>> has been. Even when your personal experience spans 66 years. >>>> >>>> You have 66 years of personal experience with computers, and yet you've never >>>> seen a computer put to use for any purpose for which an English Electric KDF9 >>>> computer would be useful? >>> >>> All those years and all I did was commercial work. >>> No rocket trajectories, no numerical control, not even any Fortran. >>> But why would I do those things? My skill was in developing complex >>> systems not rendering formulas into code or whatever it is they do in >>> Fortran shops. >>> >>> On the other hand, I have worked with computers that could and did >>> complex calculations (like sales forecasting). I just never worked with >>> computers that could ONLY do complex calculations. >>>> I find that somewhat hard to believe. >>> >>> I can't see why. There was and is a massive amount of work being done >>> running businesses with computers. >>> >>> So, while a KDF9 could do some of the things I've seen computers do, >>> it wouldn't have much value doing the other things that business would >>> need, hence my somewhat wry comment about the machine being useless. >> >> Um, I already pointed out that a KDF9 was installed at >> Lyons Electronic Office for its catering business. >> >> Other users includede -- >> Wills Tobacco >> Sun Life Assurance >> National Computing Ceter >> ICI >> Baric. >> There are a some 6 KDF9 installations as yet unidentified. >> >>> It was being put forward as some kind of ultimate expression of ideal >>> computer design. >>> >>> The idea that it had 8 bit instructions but no character handling >>> seems a bit weird. >> >> KDF9 had instructions for converting characters to and from binary. >> >>> The 14xx machines had lots of instructions that >>> were only 7 bits. But that was when you were using the storage >>> addresses left over from previous instructions. >>> >>> I wonder how the KDF9 pulled that off. >> >> KDF9 was a stack machine, using a push-down pop-up >> stack of fast registers holding values. >> >>> Were those 8 bit instructions >>> using pre-ordained registers? Cause that would be bad, in this same >>> thread a poster decried need for load/store as part of doing arithmetic. >>> So, in 8 bits how was a storage address determined? >> >> I just explained that. Wiki would tell you. >> An add instruction, for example, took the two two values >> from the stack added them, and returned the sum to the top of the stack. > > So, that stack is somethings like registers and to do binary arithmetic and > save results in storage you have to push and pop from the stack. > > On the S/360 you can add to any register. > On this machine it sounds like you have to work on only the top of the > stack. Sounds like working on 2 or more computations at once > would involve a lot of stack manipulation. > > Sounds like the B5500. The top two stack elements were registers and the rest storage. I think later designs used more registers. It also sounds a lot like the 8087 and successors, with the FP register stack. I hate it, but mostly perhaps because x86 is not a stack architecture, so I need two different register allocation schemes. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 19:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9 |
| Message-ID | <290dca44-cefc-4628-930c-886a7f1f4848n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213335 |
On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 3:15:24 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote: > Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: > > Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 8:38:29 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > >>> Quadibloc <j......@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > >>> > >>>> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 9:14:24 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: > >>>>> Bill Findlay <f.......@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > >>>>>>>> Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just explained that. Wiki would tell you. > >> An add instruction, for example, took the two two values > >> from the stack added them, and returned the sum to the top of the stack. > > > > So, that stack is somethings like registers and to do binary arithmetic and > > save results in storage you have to push and pop from the stack. > > > > On the S/360 you can add to any register. > > On this machine it sounds like you have to work on only the top of the > > stack. Sounds like working on 2 or more computations at once > > would involve a lot of stack manipulation. > > Sounds like the B5500. Yes; the KDF9 and the Burroughs machines were designed independently at about the same time -- c. 1960 > The top two stack elements were registers and the > rest storage. I think later designs used more registers. It also sounds a > lot like the 8087 and successors, with the FP register stack. I hate it, > but mostly perhaps because x86 is not a stack architecture, so I need two > different register allocation schemes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 19:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <ribmdn$2t4b$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213332 |
In article <rib653$3og$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> KDF9 was a stack machine, using a push-down pop-up >> stack of fast registers holding values. >> >>> Were those 8 bit instructions >>> using pre-ordained registers? Cause that would be bad, in this same >>> thread a poster decried need for load/store as part of doing arithmetic. >>> So, in 8 bits how was a storage address determined? >> >> I just explained that. Wiki would tell you. >> An add instruction, for example, took the two two values >> from the stack added them, and returned the sum to the top of the stack. > >So, that stack is somethings like registers and to do binary arithmetic and >save results in storage you have to push and pop from the stack. > >On the S/360 you can add to any register. >On this machine it sounds like you have to work on only the top of the >stack. Sounds like working on 2 or more computations at once >would involve a lot of stack manipulation. The IBM SJ article on the design of the 360 said they considered making it a stack machine but decided on multiple registers instead. The good thing about stack machines is that the code is compact with many zero-address instructions and is easy for compilers to generate. (Register assignments by compilers wasn't well undestood until the late 1970s.) The bad thing is that you do indeed have a fair number of instructions doing stack manipulation and keeping the top N stack elements in fast registers and spilling the rest to memory was hard to make fast. I'm surprised you never ran into stack machines. The Burroughs B5000 and its successors in the 1960s and 1970s used a stack as did the later HP3000. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 16:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <ribo2h$bk2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213343 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: > In article <rib653$3og$1@dont-email.me>, > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> KDF9 was a stack machine, using a push-down pop-up >>> stack of fast registers holding values. >>> >>>> Were those 8 bit instructions >>>> using pre-ordained registers? Cause that would be bad, in this same >>>> thread a poster decried need for load/store as part of doing arithmetic. >>>> So, in 8 bits how was a storage address determined? >>> >>> I just explained that. Wiki would tell you. >>> An add instruction, for example, took the two two values >>> from the stack added them, and returned the sum to the top of the stack. >> >>So, that stack is somethings like registers and to do binary arithmetic and >>save results in storage you have to push and pop from the stack. >> >>On the S/360 you can add to any register. >>On this machine it sounds like you have to work on only the top of the >>stack. Sounds like working on 2 or more computations at once >>would involve a lot of stack manipulation. > > The IBM SJ article on the design of the 360 said they considered > making it a stack machine but decided on multiple registers instead. > The good thing about stack machines is that the code is compact with > many zero-address instructions and is easy for compilers to generate. > (Register assignments by compilers wasn't well undestood until the > late 1970s.) The bad thing is that you do indeed have a fair number of > instructions doing stack manipulation and keeping the top N stack > elements in fast registers and spilling the rest to memory was hard to > make fast. > > I'm surprised you never ran into stack machines. The Burroughs B5000 > and its successors in the 1960s and 1970s used a stack as did the > later HP3000. Doubtless some of the many UNIX systems I worked with were stack oriented. But I had no need to know what C was doing under the covers. Well, I did look on Sun hardware and looked in great detail on z/OS systems. Actually now I think about it, later z/os systems had a call stack which I used a bit. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web