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 23 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 30 Next page →
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-01 20:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: block moves, 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <35cf0325-e0e6-4ced-8a94-50c6a00918b1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213560 |
On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 12:14:30 PM UTC+10, John Levine wrote: > In article <7.......@googlegroups.com>, > Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since the 370 came along in the early 1970s you could write something like > >> > >> LA 2,PRINT target area > >> LA 3,132 target length > >> LA 5,X'40' > >> SLL 5,24 padding byte in high byte, length zero > >. > >I think that SR 5,5 and IC 5,=X'40' would be better than the previous > >two instructions, or even one straight L. > > The fill character has to be in the high byte of the register, not the low > byte. I suppose you could do ICM 5,8,=X'40' I meant to write ICM, of course. I also said that a plain L would do. Anyway I corrected the post. > but I don't see why that would > be better than LA and SLL which don't have the extra memory reference. SLL is slow for a large number of shifts. > >> MVCL 2,4 > >> > >> this is probably too clever for a 132 byte field but the POO says it's the fastest > >> way to clear a block bigger than 256 bytes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <125332216.620745360.063335.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213556 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 4:08:37 AM UTC+10, John Levine wrote: >> In article <r.......@dont-email.me>, >> Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>>> >>>>> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you >>>>> had a Fortran program fragment like >>>>> >>>>> DIMENSION A(4,11) >>>>> DO 10 J=1,9 >>>>> DO 10 I=1,4 >>>>> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 >>>>> ... >>>> In PL/I, one might write >>>> A = 2.0; >> Sure, you can do that in modern Fortran, too. > . > True, but the OP was referring to earlier verstions of FORTRAN > up to FORTRAN 77. > The difference is that in PL/I, its been possible to write that > since 1966. > . All the languages are borrowing from each other. Newer PL/Is have taken a lot from C, even some of the infelicitous parts. C is borrowing from PL/I (or Algol), etc. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-01 20:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <bc56e8ce-9623-42f1-bc03-8a86a3c08b2cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213532 |
On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 4:08:37 AM UTC+10, John Levine wrote: > In article <r.......@dont-email.me>, > Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: > >Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >> > >>> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you > >>> had a Fortran program fragment like > >>> > >>> DIMENSION A(4,11) > >>> DO 10 J=1,9 > >>> DO 10 I=1,4 > >>> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 > >>> ... > >> In PL/I, one might write > >> A = 2.0; > Sure, you can do that in modern Fortran, too. . True, but the OP was referring to earlier verstions of FORTRAN up to FORTRAN 77. The difference is that in PL/I, its been possible to write that since 1966. . > >Anyway, that's a common way to clear a print area, except it's done: > > > > MVI PRINT,X'40' > > MVC PRINT+1(131),PRINT > > > >I was always suspicious that this would cause a performance hit > >so I preferred to define an area of 132 spaces and move that to > >areas that needed clearing. > > Since the 370 came along in the early 1970s you could write something like > > LA 2,PRINT target area > LA 3,132 target length > LA 5,x'40' > SLL 5,24 padding byte in high byte, length zero . I think that SR 5,5 and ICM 5,...=X'40' specifying the upper byte would be better than the previous two instructions, or even one straight L. . > MVCL 2,4 > > this is probably too clever for a 132 byte field but the POO says it's the fastest > way to clear a block bigger than 256 bytes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-02 00:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <rin5nq$llu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213563 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 4:08:37 AM UTC+10, John Levine wrote: >> In article <r.......@dont-email.me>, >> Dan Espen <d......@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> >> >> >>> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you >> >>> had a Fortran program fragment like >> >>> >> >>> DIMENSION A(4,11) >> >>> DO 10 J=1,9 >> >>> DO 10 I=1,4 >> >>> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 >> >>> ... >> >> In PL/I, one might write >> >> A = 2.0; >> Sure, you can do that in modern Fortran, too. > . > True, but the OP was referring to earlier verstions of FORTRAN > up to FORTRAN 77. > The difference is that in PL/I, its been possible to write that > since 1966. > . >> >Anyway, that's a common way to clear a print area, except it's done: >> > >> > MVI PRINT,X'40' >> > MVC PRINT+1(131),PRINT >> > >> >I was always suspicious that this would cause a performance hit >> >so I preferred to define an area of 132 spaces and move that to >> >areas that needed clearing. >> >> Since the 370 came along in the early 1970s you could write something like >> >> LA 2,PRINT target area >> LA 3,132 target length >> LA 5,x'40' >> SLL 5,24 padding byte in high byte, length zero > . > I think that SR 5,5 and ICM 5,...=X'40' specifying the upper byte > would be better than the previous two instructions, or even one straight L. So, 2 instructions with one memory reference is better than 2 instructions with no memory reference. I always thought it was odd that IBM never got around to optimizing it's literal pool. If you do: ICM R1,8,=X'40' MVC CARDIN,=CL80' ' MVC PRINTAREA,=CL132' ' You end up with 132+80+1 spaces in the literal pool. Another reason for a smart programmer to define an area of blanks as large as the codes largest use and use that instead of literals. That's not only true for HLASM but for all the high level languages I ever looked at code generation for. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-01 18:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <37e5f87f-766d-4dc4-98f1-0ed66f3d8841n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213523 |
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:19:17 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > > >> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you > >> had a Fortran program fragment like > >> > >> DIMENSION A(4,11) > >> DO 10 J=1,9 > >> DO 10 I=1,4 > >> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 > >> > >> you could have one index register for I running from 0 to 3 and > >> another index register for J running from 0 to 32 in increments > >> of four, and then just or them together. > > > > That's an interesting optimisation. > > > > In PL/I, one might write > > A = 2.0; > > and that would be optimised to > > MVC A,B(4) > > MVC A+4,A(44*4-4) > > > > where B is the constant 2.0. > Those length specifications belong on the first operand. It's stylised assembler. I figured that it would be easier to follow. > > Those move character instructions with data overlap > are all specified by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being > moved: . That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. . > For MOVE (MVC), each operand is processed left to > right. When the operands overlap, the result is > obtained as if the operands were processed one byte > at a time and each result byte were stored immedi- > ately after fetching the necessary operand byte. . The CPU must do it that way, otherwise the overlapped fields would not work. . > I don't know if the hardware has an optimization to recognize the > overlap offset is 4 bytes and it can fetch/store 4 bytes at a time. . It doesn't. . > The hardware would need another optimization to realize it can > parallelize the whole operation and not wait to see what's in > the next 4 bytes. > > Anyway, that's a common way to clear a print area, except it's done: > > MVI PRINT,X'40' > MVC PRINT+1(131),PRINT It's done that way because the set-up is simpler (a move of one byte) > I was always suspicious that this would cause a performance hit > so I preferred to define an area of 132 spaces and move that to > areas that needed clearing. What a waste ! The MVC still moves the 132 bytes a byte at a time, storing one byte before fetching the next and storing that, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-01 22:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <rin086$utf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213555 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:19:17 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >> Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> > >> >> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you >> >> had a Fortran program fragment like >> >> >> >> DIMENSION A(4,11) >> >> DO 10 J=1,9 >> >> DO 10 I=1,4 >> >> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 >> >> >> >> you could have one index register for I running from 0 to 3 and >> >> another index register for J running from 0 to 32 in increments >> >> of four, and then just or them together. >> > >> > That's an interesting optimisation. >> > >> > In PL/I, one might write >> > A = 2.0; >> > and that would be optimised to >> > MVC A,B(4) >> > MVC A+4,A(44*4-4) >> > >> > where B is the constant 2.0. >> Those length specifications belong on the first operand. > > It's stylised assembler. I figured that it would be easier to follow. Stylized? I guess wrong is always easier to follow. >> Those move character instructions with data overlap >> are all specified by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being >> moved: > . > That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. So, the internal data path on S/360 is always a byte at a time. The things I learn on the internet. >> For MOVE (MVC), each operand is processed left to >> right. When the operands overlap, the result is >> obtained as if the operands were processed one byte >> at a time and each result byte were stored immedi- >> ately after fetching the necessary operand byte. > . > The CPU must do it that way, otherwise the overlapped > fields would not work. > . >> I don't know if the hardware has an optimization to recognize the >> overlap offset is 4 bytes and it can fetch/store 4 bytes at a time. > . > It doesn't. > . >> The hardware would need another optimization to realize it can >> parallelize the whole operation and not wait to see what's in >> the next 4 bytes. >> >> Anyway, that's a common way to clear a print area, except it's done: >> >> MVI PRINT,X'40' >> MVC PRINT+1(131),PRINT > > It's done that way because the set-up is simpler (a move of one byte) Yep, 2 instructions are always simpler than one. Got it. >> I was always suspicious that this would cause a performance hit >> so I preferred to define an area of 132 spaces and move that to >> areas that needed clearing. > > What a waste ! > The MVC still moves the 132 bytes a byte at a time, storing one > byte before fetching the next and storing that, etc. I'm not a hardware engineer so I'm glad you could clear that up for me. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-02 02:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <rin1cc$1ru7$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213561 |
In article <rin086$utf$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Those move character instructions with data overlap >>> are all specified by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being moved: >> . >> That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. > >So, the internal data path on S/360 is always a byte at a time. >The things I learn on the internet. Not really, it's an "as if" rule: When the operands overlap, the result is obtained as if the operands were processed one byte at a time and each result byte were stored immediately after fetching the necessary operand byte. Given how common that idiom is, I expect modern CPUs recognize it and do a block fill rather than load and store one byte at a time. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-01 23:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <rin4u1$llu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213562 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: > In article <rin086$utf$1@dont-email.me>, > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Those move character instructions with data overlap are all >>>> specified by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being >>>> moved: >>> . That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block >>> transfer. >> >>So, the internal data path on S/360 is always a byte at a time. The >>things I learn on the internet. > > Not really, it's an "as if" rule: > > When the operands overlap, the result is obtained as if the operands > were processed one byte at a time and each result byte were stored > immediately after fetching the necessary operand byte. > > Given how common that idiom is, I expect modern CPUs recognize it and > do a block fill rather than load and store one byte at a time. Yes, I guess so too. The original speculation on my part was whether a S/360 (or it's modern equivalents) would be smart enough to use the same optimization when there was a 4 byte overlap. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-01 20:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <d8ab25d5-e0ea-433d-9057-5e514dad7405n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213561 |
On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 12:32:40 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:19:17 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >> > > >> >> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you > >> >> had a Fortran program fragment like > >> >> > >> >> DIMENSION A(4,11) > >> >> DO 10 J=1,9 > >> >> DO 10 I=1,4 > >> >> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 > >> >> > >> >> you could have one index register for I running from 0 to 3 and > >> >> another index register for J running from 0 to 32 in increments > >> >> of four, and then just or them together. > >> > > >> > That's an interesting optimisation. > >> > > >> > In PL/I, one might write > >> > A = 2.0; > >> > and that would be optimised to > >> > MVC A,B(4) > >> > MVC A+4,A(44*4-4) > >> > > >> > where B is the constant 2.0. > >> Those length specifications belong on the first operand. > > > > It's stylised assembler. I figured that it would be easier to follow. > Stylized? > > I guess wrong is always easier to follow. . It isn't wrong for my purpose. . > >> Those move character instructions with data overlap > >> are all specified by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being > >> moved: > > . > > That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. > So, the internal data path on S/360 is always a byte at a time. > The things I learn on the internet. > >> For MOVE (MVC), each operand is processed left to > >> right. When the operands overlap, the result is > >> obtained as if the operands were processed one byte > >> at a time and each result byte were stored immedi- > >> ately after fetching the necessary operand byte. > > . > > The CPU must do it that way, otherwise the overlapped > > fields would not work. > > . > >> I don't know if the hardware has an optimization to recognize the > >> overlap offset is 4 bytes and it can fetch/store 4 bytes at a time. > > . > > It doesn't. > > . > >> The hardware would need another optimization to realize it can > >> parallelize the whole operation and not wait to see what's in > >> the next 4 bytes. > >> > >> Anyway, that's a common way to clear a print area, except it's done: > >> > >> MVI PRINT,X'40' > >> MVC PRINT+1(131),PRINT > > > > It's done that way because the set-up is simpler (a move of one byte) > Yep, 2 instructions are always simpler than one. If you want one instruction, define a byte containing a blank. amd immediately follow it with the definition of the print area. Then you can use MVC PRINT(132),PRINT-1 . > Got it. > >> I was always suspicious that this would cause a performance hit > >> so I preferred to define an area of 132 spaces and move that to > >> areas that needed clearing. > > > > What a waste ! > > The MVC still moves the 132 bytes a byte at a time, storing one > > byte before fetching the next and storing that, etc. . > I'm not a hardware engineer so I'm glad you could clear that up for me. . It's in the manual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <741219609.620745192.620580.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213555 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:19:17 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >> Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>> >>>> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you >>>> had a Fortran program fragment like >>>> >>>> DIMENSION A(4,11) >>>> DO 10 J=1,9 >>>> DO 10 I=1,4 >>>> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 >>>> >>>> you could have one index register for I running from 0 to 3 and >>>> another index register for J running from 0 to 32 in increments >>>> of four, and then just or them together. >>> >>> That's an interesting optimisation. >>> >>> In PL/I, one might write >>> A = 2.0; >>> and that would be optimised to >>> MVC A,B(4) >>> MVC A+4,A(44*4-4) >>> >>> where B is the constant 2.0. >> Those length specifications belong on the first operand. > > It's stylised assembler. I figured that it would be easier to follow. >> >> Those move character instructions with data overlap >> are all specified by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being >> moved: > . > That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. It’s not defined. It operates AS IF it accesses operands one byte at a time, but who knows what the microcode is doing. Of course, since it can only operate on up to 256 bytes, maybe it isn’t worth optimizing. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-02 10:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <rio9it$onu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213594 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:19:17 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >>> Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+10, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>>> >>>>> There could be a use, though, but it would be narrow. Assuming you >>>>> had a Fortran program fragment like >>>>> >>>>> DIMENSION A(4,11) >>>>> DO 10 J=1,9 >>>>> DO 10 I=1,4 >>>>> 10 A(I,J) = 2.0 >>>>> >>>>> you could have one index register for I running from 0 to 3 and >>>>> another index register for J running from 0 to 32 in increments >>>>> of four, and then just or them together. >>>> >>>> That's an interesting optimisation. >>>> >>>> In PL/I, one might write >>>> A = 2.0; >>>> and that would be optimised to >>>> MVC A,B(4) >>>> MVC A+4,A(44*4-4) >>>> >>>> where B is the constant 2.0. >>> Those length specifications belong on the first operand. >> >> It's stylised assembler. I figured that it would be easier to follow. >>> >>> Those move character instructions with data overlap >>> are all specified by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being >>> moved: >> . >> That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. > > It’s not defined. It operates AS IF it accesses operands one byte at a > time, but who knows what the microcode is doing. Of course, since it can > only operate on up to 256 bytes, maybe it isn’t worth optimizing. I would guess moving 256 byte areas 8 bytes at a time is a big win. The larger machine have word, double word and I think larger data paths. I'm not a hardware engineer so I don't know for sure if word alignment plays a part but I've always endevoured to keep large areas I move around double word aligned to give the machine a fighting chance to do whatever optimizations it can. I always thought that's why IBM keeps 01 levels in COBOL double word aligned even when they don't contain binary fields. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-02 16:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <rioini1mmg@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #213602 |
On 2020-09-02, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:19:17 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> Those move character instructions with data overlap are all specified >>>> by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being moved: >>> >>> That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. >> >> It’s not defined. It operates AS IF it accesses operands one byte at a >> time, but who knows what the microcode is doing. Of course, since it can >> only operate on up to 256 bytes, maybe it isn’t worth optimizing. > > I would guess moving 256 byte areas 8 bytes at a time is a big win. Perhaps, but the microcode has to do all sorts of magic to handle data that isn't double-word aligned, not to mention that the two operands will likely have different offsets from a double-word boundary. > The larger machine have word, double word and I think larger data paths. > I'm not a hardware engineer so I don't know for sure if word alignment > plays a part but I've always endevoured to keep large areas I move > around double word aligned to give the machine a fighting chance to > do whatever optimizations it can. > > I always thought that's why IBM keeps 01 levels in COBOL double word aligned > even when they don't contain binary fields. Sounds like a good idea... -- /~\ 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 | 2020-09-02 13:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <riokon$eno$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213617 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > On 2020-09-02, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:19:17 PM UTC+10, Dan Espen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Those move character instructions with data overlap are all specified >>>>> by POP to be treated as if one byte at a time is being moved: >>>> >>>> That's the way it works. MVC on the IBM series never does a block transfer. >>> >>> It’s not defined. It operates AS IF it accesses operands one byte at a >>> time, but who knows what the microcode is doing. Of course, since it can >>> only operate on up to 256 bytes, maybe it isn’t worth optimizing. >> >> I would guess moving 256 byte areas 8 bytes at a time is a big win. > > Perhaps, but the microcode has to do all sorts of magic to handle > data that isn't double-word aligned, not to mention that the two > operands will likely have different offsets from a double-word boundary. Agree. I've often wondered how the hardware deals with that. I suppose if data fetch and store are independent things it might not be a problem. I'm guessing we don't have any IBM Micro code (Millicode?) experts in the group to clear this up. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-31 15:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <c849d85e-96b3-4aa5-aa0a-e95d3e273189o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213464 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-6, John Levine wrote: > In article <36ca64c0-91b8-4120-9976-6bd580ce7d41o@googlegroups.com>, > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 5:09:19 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >> Of course, once the 7094 arrived, they had more index registers to play > >> with, because they removed that weird "or" mode. (Not sure if the > >> compiler ever used that). > >That's not _strictly_ accurate. The 7094 allowed the programmer to turn off that > >"weird OR mode", but it wasn't removed from the machine, which was perfectly > >capable of running in compatibility mode. > I have asked a few times whether anyone actually used weird OR mode, > or whether it was just an artifact of the wiring of the 704 that IBM, > being IBM, documented just in case. Nobody ever said that they did. > Given that the 704 was sign-magnitude but indexing did two's > complement subtraction, it would have needed some seriously funky > programming to do anything useful with it. > I suppose someone must have sometime if it was worth keeping it as the > default in the 7094. One possibility is that IBM simply found it easier to include strictly compatible operation in the 7094 than to go out and check if this mode was ever used. (Later on, they did drop the ASCII bit in the PSW going from the 360 to the 370, on the basis that it was never used, but here the sample size was smaller, as they really only had to check the operating systems they wrote themselves.) It is also _possible_ that it was actually used simply on the basis that the set of IBM 704 programmers surviving today is a subset of the total set of people who programmed the IBM 704. Too much time has passed to be really sure about things like this. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-31 17:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <1384099580.620612562.544022.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213498 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-6, John Levine wrote: >> In article <36ca64c0-91b8-4120-9976-6bd580ce7d41o@googlegroups.com>, >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 5:09:19 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >>>> Of course, once the 7094 arrived, they had more index registers to play >>>> with, because they removed that weird "or" mode. (Not sure if the >>>> compiler ever used that). > >>> That's not _strictly_ accurate. The 7094 allowed the programmer to turn off that >>> "weird OR mode", but it wasn't removed from the machine, which was perfectly >>> capable of running in compatibility mode. > >> I have asked a few times whether anyone actually used weird OR mode, >> or whether it was just an artifact of the wiring of the 704 that IBM, >> being IBM, documented just in case. Nobody ever said that they did. > >> Given that the 704 was sign-magnitude but indexing did two's >> complement subtraction, it would have needed some seriously funky >> programming to do anything useful with it. > >> I suppose someone must have sometime if it was worth keeping it as the >> default in the 7094. > > One possibility is that IBM simply found it easier to include strictly > compatible operation in the 7094 than to go out and check if this mode was ever > used. (Later on, they did drop the ASCII bit in the PSW going from the 360 to > the 370, on the basis that it was never used, but here the sample size was > smaller, as they really only had to check the operating systems they wrote > themselves.) > > It is also _possible_ that it was actually used simply on the basis that the set > of IBM 704 programmers surviving today is a subset of the total set of people > who programmed the IBM 704. Too much time has passed to be really sure about > things like this. If they’d asked, people probably would have said “yes” on the principle that “I don’t know, but if I am using it somewhere I don’t want to find out later.” > > John Savard > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-31 22:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <071bc62f-8180-4290-b2b8-56a45589ed55n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213498 |
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 8:50:40 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-6, John Levine wrote: > > In article <3.......@googlegroups.com>, > > Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > I suppose someone must have sometime if it was worth keeping it as the > > default in the 7094. > One possibility is that IBM simply found it easier to include strictly > compatible operation in the 7094 than to go out and check if this mode was ever > used. (Later on, they did drop the ASCII bit in the PSW going from the 360 to > the 370, on the basis that it was never used, . But we have seen that the ASCII feature was not recognized, so no-one could use it. . > but here the sample size was > smaller, as they really only had to check the operating systems they wrote > themselves.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-31 22:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 70X index OR mode, Fortran, not KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <604c4931-54d1-4b6a-a9c2-160eaa76b3c2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213498 |
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 8:50:40 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-6, John Levine wrote: > > In article <3.......@googlegroups.com>, > > Quadibloc <j.....@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > I suppose someone must have sometime if it was worth keeping it as the > > default in the 7094. > One possibility is that IBM simply found it easier to include strictly > compatible operation in the 7094 than to go out and check if this mode was ever > used. (Later on, they did drop the ASCII bit in the PSW going from the 360 to > the 370, on the basis that it was never used, . But we have seen that the ASCII feature was not recognized by the OS, so no-one could use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Marshall <spam@capuchin.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 18:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <877dti1wlu.fsf@capuchin.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #213326 |
On Fri, Aug 28 2020, Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > I remember one at ICL kidsgrove - or does that not count? Not sure what it was used for but I could find out.. Robert -- Robert Marshall twitter: @rajm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 15:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <ccc1240a-ffcc-42b9-9bed-186e0385b87do@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213324 |
On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 4:38:29 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: > The idea that it had 8 bit instructions but no character handling > seems a bit weird. The 8080 and 6800 had lots of 8-bit instructions, but they didn't have instructions like Move Characters, Translate and Test, or Edit and Mark. So a computer can have instructions that handle one 8-bit unit at a time, without instructions similar to the "character" instructions of the 360 and 1401. Instructions like that generally have to be microprogrammed on bigger computers. Before the IBM 360 came along, because the scientific IBM 7090 was a big and powerful computer, while the IBM 1401 was a much smaller-scale system, people did use the IBM 7090 for business applications, and it was rational to do so, when they had a lot of work to do, even though it was not as well optimized for those applications. Small computers were more expensive per unit of work (Grosch's Law). John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 18:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad |
| Message-ID | <1841118769.620355803.643737.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213369 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 4:38:29 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote: > >> The idea that it had 8 bit instructions but no character handling >> seems a bit weird. > > The 8080 and 6800 had lots of 8-bit instructions, but they didn't have > instructions like Move Characters, Translate and Test, or Edit and Mark. So a > computer can have instructions that handle one 8-bit unit at a time, without > instructions similar to the "character" instructions of the 360 and 1401. > > Instructions like that generally have to be microprogrammed on bigger computers. > Before the IBM 360 came along, because the scientific IBM 7090 was a big and > powerful computer, while the IBM 1401 was a much smaller-scale system, people > did use the IBM 7090 for business applications, and it was rational to do so, > when they had a lot of work to do, even though it was not as well optimized for > those applications. Small computers were more expensive per unit of work > (Grosch's Law). > Places that had PDP-10s for scientific or academic work also used them for things like payroll and accounting. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web