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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94962 > unrolled thread

Is This An Old Folks Home?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:51 +0100
      On the on-topicness of tape drives (was: Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:47 +0000
        Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 04:14 +0000
          Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 17:29 -0500
            Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:52 +0000
              Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 19:11 -0500
                Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-06 02:41 +0000
                  Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 22:31 -0500
                    Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
                      Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:41 +0000
                        Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:39 -0800
                          Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:30 +0000
                            Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 15:26 -0800
                              Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:15 +0000
                              Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-08 11:28 +0000
                                Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 18:14 +0000
            Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-06 05:59 +0000
              Re: Tape Drives Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 06:18 +0000
                Re: Tape Drives Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 18:40 +0800
                  Re: Tape Drives Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:33 -0700
                    Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 13:12 -0500
                  Re: Tape Drives "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 14:32 +0000
                    Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:31 -0500
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:08 -0500
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 02:26 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-11-04 09:55 +0800
      Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:14 -0500
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-04 03:54 +0000
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 06:21 +0000
            Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-11-05 20:40 -0500
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 21:52 -0500
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-06 14:28 +0100
            My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-06 18:37 -0800
              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 00:51 -0500
                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:20 -0800
                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:38 -0700
                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 02:47 +0000
                    Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-08 04:23 +0000
                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 05:00 +0000
                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 20:50 -0500
                          Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 03:53 +0000
                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:06 +0100
                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:01 +0100
                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:31 -0700
                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:52 -0800
                    Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 20:09 -0500
                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-08 08:08 +0000
                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:24 -0500
                          Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 18:34 -0800
                            Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 22:54 -0500
                              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 04:39 +0000
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:08 -0500
                                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:25 +0000
                                    Re: My Computer History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:32 +0000
                                      Re: My Computer History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 23:07 -0500
                                      Re: My Computer History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
                                    Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 22:49 -0500
                                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-10 06:03 -0800
                                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
                                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:08 +0000
                              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 07:29 -0700
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 16:11 +0000
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:19 -0500
                                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-11-10 14:31 +0000
                            Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-09 07:48 -1000
                              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:55 -0500
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 21:35 -0700
                          Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-09 16:56 +0000
                            Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:46 -0500
                              Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-10 18:06 +0000
                                Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:45 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-04 19:15 +0000
      Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-04 20:38 +0000
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:51 +0000
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-11-05 17:48 +0100
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-05 16:56 +0000
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 20:55 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 12:23 -0500
      Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-06 19:25 +0000
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 15:59 -0500
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:50 +0000
            Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 09:03 +0000
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 21:55 +0000
                  Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:01 +0000
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 18:31 +0000
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:39 -0500
                  Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 19:07 +0000
                    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 14:30 -0500
            Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:01 -0500
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 15:54 -0500
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-08 00:33 -0500
                  Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:05 -0500
                    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-10 05:30 -0500
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#95427 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

>
>   UniVac, Honeywell, DEC, Burroughs etc ... they
>   all died for various reasons. Only IBM survives.

I'm sure that Unisys (nee Burroughs) would dispute that assertion.

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

#95383 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/8/26 20:54, c186282 wrote:
> On 11/8/26 21:34, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>     A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were
>>>>>     VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to
>>>>>     be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored
>>>>>     in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up
>>>>>     a huge amount of time.
>>>>
>>>> Hence spooling.
>>>
>>>    Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta
>>>    actually read/write to the shitty slow media. Also
>>>    spooling requires RAM ... which was in short supply
>>>    for a long time. I remember big cubes full of mag-core
>>>    memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory either.
>>
>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a 
>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we 
>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant 
>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as 
>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we 
>> all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make 
>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily 
>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control 
>> system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to 
>> their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM 
>> clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on 
>> such frills!!
> 
>    16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!!  :-)
> 
>    The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller.
> 
>    Also EXPENSIVE as all hell ... hey, little ferrite
>    doughnuts hand-placed on wires .......
> 
>    The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts
>    hand-placed on long strands of wires. the old
>    Lunar Excursion Module computer used it. NASA
>    basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ...

Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing?

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

#95385 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 09/11/2026 14:29, Peter Flass wrote:
>> The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts
>>    hand-placed on long strands of wires. the old
>>    Lunar Excursion Module computer used it. NASA
>>    basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ...
> 
> Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing?

  Yes. It was ROM. Every bit hand stitched.
RAM was called core memory

-- 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to 
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

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

#95396 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/9/26 09:29, Peter Flass wrote:
> On 11/8/26 20:54, c186282 wrote:
>> On 11/8/26 21:34, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were
>>>>>>     VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to
>>>>>>     be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored
>>>>>>     in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up
>>>>>>     a huge amount of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence spooling.
>>>>
>>>>    Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta
>>>>    actually read/write to the shitty slow media. Also
>>>>    spooling requires RAM ... which was in short supply
>>>>    for a long time. I remember big cubes full of mag-core
>>>>    memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory either.
>>>
>>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a 
>>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we 
>>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant 
>>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as 
>>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, 
>>> we all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make 
>>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily 
>>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version 
>>> control system, their auditing programs making sure the programs 
>>> adhered to their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at 
>>> how IBM clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend 
>>> it on such frills!!
>>
>>    16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!!  :-)
>>
>>    The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller.
>>
>>    Also EXPENSIVE as all hell ... hey, little ferrite
>>    doughnuts hand-placed on wires .......
>>
>>    The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts
>>    hand-placed on long strands of wires. the old
>>    Lunar Excursion Module computer used it. NASA
>>    basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ...
> 
> Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing?

   Yes, ROM, not RAM. Not sure WHAT the L.E.M. had
   for RAM. 2K maybe ? It's sure to be documented
   somewhere.

   Try :
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

   As said, there was already much better tech but
   the govt contracting process kinda had them locked
   in to 1962.

   Apparently they DID have grannies weaving the
   rope-ROM to spec.

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

#95424 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On Mon, 09 Nov 2026 21:19:59 -0500, c186282 wrote:

> On 11/9/26 09:29, Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 11/8/26 20:54, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 11/8/26 21:34, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were VERY SLOW
>>>>>>>     by any modern standard. Slow enough to be hilarious these
>>>>>>>     days. CPU speed barely factored in - the I/O speed with
>>>>>>>     cards/tapes/etc used up a huge amount of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence spooling.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta actually
>>>>>    read/write to the shitty slow media. Also spooling requires RAM
>>>>>    ... which was in short supply for a long time. I remember big
>>>>>    cubes full of mag-core memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory
>>>>>    either.
>>>>
>>>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a
>>>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we
>>>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant
>>>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as
>>>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory,
>>>> we all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make
>>>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily
>>>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version
>>>> control system, their auditing programs making sure the programs
>>>> adhered to their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at
>>>> how IBM clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend
>>>> it on such frills!!
>>>
>>>    16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!!  :-)
>>>
>>>    The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller.
>>>
>>>    Also EXPENSIVE as all hell ... hey, little ferrite doughnuts
>>>    hand-placed on wires .......
>>>
>>>    The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts hand-placed on
>>>    long strands of wires. the old Lunar Excursion Module computer
>>>    used it. NASA basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ...
>> 
>> Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing?
> 
>    Yes, ROM, not RAM. Not sure WHAT the L.E.M. had for RAM. 2K maybe ?
>    It's sure to be documented somewhere.
> 
>    Try : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
> 
>    As said, there was already much better tech but the govt contracting
>    process kinda had them locked in to 1962.
> 
>    Apparently they DID have grannies weaving the rope-ROM to spec.

Excellent lecture here, that I attended last month:

 https://youtu.be/vVqGy5cd1Uw?si=LnqF80ExKKtiseAq

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

#95388 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes:
> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a
> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we
> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant
> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as
> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we
> all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make
> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily
> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control
> system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to
> their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM
> clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on
> such frills!!

I was undergraduate when 360/67 arrived and hired originally full-time
responsible for OS/360 (360/67, running as 360/65).

Then CSC came out to install (virtual machine) CP/67 (3rd after CSC
itself and MIT Lincoln Labs) and I mostly get to play with it during my
weekend 48hr window. I then spend a few months rewriting pathlengths for
running OS/360 in virtual machine. Bare machine test ran 322secs
... initially 856secs (CP67 CPU 534secs). After a few months I had CP67
CPU down from 534secs to 113secs. I then start rewriting the
dispatcher/scheduler (dynamic adaptive resource manager/default fair
share scheduling policy), paging, adding ordered seek queuing (from
FIFO) and mutli-page transfer channel programs (from FIFO and optimized
for transfers/revolution, getting 2301 paging drum from 70-80 4k
transfers/sec to channel transfer peak of 270). I was invited to spring
SHARE meeting in Houston for "official" CP67/CMS announcement. Six
months after univ initial CP/67 install, CSC was giving one week class
in LA. I arrive on Sunday afternoon and asked to teach the class, it
turns out that the people that were going to teach it had resigned the
Friday before to join one of the 60s CSC CP67 commercial online
spin-offs.

Then before I graduate, I was hired into small group in Boeing CFO
office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services
(consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit). When I
graduate I join the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center that had 768kbyte
360/67 (104 pageable 4k pages, and I upgrade the page replacement
algorithm with my global "LRU" algorithm).

Then Grenoble Science Center got a 1mbyte 360/67 (155 pageable 4k pages)
running CP67/CMS and modify page replacement to local "LRU" algorithm
from 60s academic literature. Both centers had similar CMS workload,
except I got 75-80 users with better response and throughput than
Grenoble running 35 users.

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

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

#95401 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/9/26 12:48, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes:
>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a
>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we
>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant
>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as
>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we
>> all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make
>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily
>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control
>> system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to
>> their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM
>> clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on
>> such frills!!
> 
> I was undergraduate when 360/67 arrived and hired originally full-time
> responsible for OS/360 (360/67, running as 360/65).
> 
> Then CSC came out to install (virtual machine) CP/67 (3rd after CSC
> itself and MIT Lincoln Labs) and I mostly get to play with it during my
> weekend 48hr window. I then spend a few months rewriting pathlengths for
> running OS/360 in virtual machine. Bare machine test ran 322secs
> ... initially 856secs (CP67 CPU 534secs). After a few months I had CP67
> CPU down from 534secs to 113secs. I then start rewriting the
> dispatcher/scheduler (dynamic adaptive resource manager/default fair
> share scheduling policy), paging, adding ordered seek queuing (from
> FIFO) and mutli-page transfer channel programs (from FIFO and optimized
> for transfers/revolution, getting 2301 paging drum from 70-80 4k
> transfers/sec to channel transfer peak of 270). I was invited to spring
> SHARE meeting in Houston for "official" CP67/CMS announcement. Six
> months after univ initial CP/67 install, CSC was giving one week class
> in LA. I arrive on Sunday afternoon and asked to teach the class, it
> turns out that the people that were going to teach it had resigned the
> Friday before to join one of the 60s CSC CP67 commercial online
> spin-offs.
> 
> Then before I graduate, I was hired into small group in Boeing CFO
> office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services
> (consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit). When I
> graduate I join the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center that had 768kbyte
> 360/67 (104 pageable 4k pages, and I upgrade the page replacement
> algorithm with my global "LRU" algorithm).
> 
> Then Grenoble Science Center got a 1mbyte 360/67 (155 pageable 4k pages)
> running CP67/CMS and modify page replacement to local "LRU" algorithm
> from 60s academic literature. Both centers had similar CMS workload,
> except I got 75-80 users with better response and throughput than
> Grenoble running 35 users.

   The newbies won't be much interested in any of
   this 'ancient shit' ... have NO clue as to where
   it all CAME from, and thus NO inspirations for
   the future. The AI will tell them what/how to
   think from now on, until it makes them obsolete.

   By reports, the AIs can already self-program/evolve.
   So far this is being prevented because it's SCARY.

   IS scary.

   They ain't US ... more like 'aliens'.

   I see the 'philosophers' are STILL trying
   to offer 'reasons' why they're not True
   Consciousness ........ wow ......

   Anthropic offered 100+ pages of info on why
   they ARE basically 'beings' in its IPO
   documents. Hope, and WARNINGS.

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

#95409 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/9/26 19:55, c186282 wrote:
> On 11/9/26 12:48, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes:
>>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a
>>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we
>>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant
>>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as
>>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we
>>> all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make
>>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily
>>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control
>>> system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to
>>> their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM
>>> clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on
>>> such frills!!
>>
>> I was undergraduate when 360/67 arrived and hired originally full-time
>> responsible for OS/360 (360/67, running as 360/65).
>>
>> Then CSC came out to install (virtual machine) CP/67 (3rd after CSC
>> itself and MIT Lincoln Labs) and I mostly get to play with it during my
>> weekend 48hr window. I then spend a few months rewriting pathlengths for
>> running OS/360 in virtual machine. Bare machine test ran 322secs
>> ... initially 856secs (CP67 CPU 534secs). After a few months I had CP67
>> CPU down from 534secs to 113secs. I then start rewriting the
>> dispatcher/scheduler (dynamic adaptive resource manager/default fair
>> share scheduling policy), paging, adding ordered seek queuing (from
>> FIFO) and mutli-page transfer channel programs (from FIFO and optimized
>> for transfers/revolution, getting 2301 paging drum from 70-80 4k
>> transfers/sec to channel transfer peak of 270). I was invited to spring
>> SHARE meeting in Houston for "official" CP67/CMS announcement. Six
>> months after univ initial CP/67 install, CSC was giving one week class
>> in LA. I arrive on Sunday afternoon and asked to teach the class, it
>> turns out that the people that were going to teach it had resigned the
>> Friday before to join one of the 60s CSC CP67 commercial online
>> spin-offs.
>>
>> Then before I graduate, I was hired into small group in Boeing CFO
>> office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services
>> (consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit). When I
>> graduate I join the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center that had 768kbyte
>> 360/67 (104 pageable 4k pages, and I upgrade the page replacement
>> algorithm with my global "LRU" algorithm).
>>
>> Then Grenoble Science Center got a 1mbyte 360/67 (155 pageable 4k pages)
>> running CP67/CMS and modify page replacement to local "LRU" algorithm
>> from 60s academic literature. Both centers had similar CMS workload,
>> except I got 75-80 users with better response and throughput than
>> Grenoble running 35 users.
> 
>    The newbies won't be much interested in any of
>    this 'ancient shit' ... have NO clue as to where
>    it all CAME from, and thus NO inspirations for
>    the future. The AI will tell them what/how to
>    think from now on, until it makes them obsolete.
> 
>    By reports, the AIs can already self-program/evolve.
>    So far this is being prevented because it's SCARY.
> 
>    IS scary.
> 
>    They ain't US ... more like 'aliens'.
> 
>    I see the 'philosophers' are STILL trying
>    to offer 'reasons' why they're not True
>    Consciousness ........ wow ......
> 
>    Anthropic offered 100+ pages of info on why
>    they ARE basically 'beings' in its IPO
>    documents. Hope, and WARNINGS.

They better watch out - the next thing they'll want to do is unionize, 
and go on strike.

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

#95386 — Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

According to c186282  <c186282@nnada.net>:
>On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb:
>> 
>>>     A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were
>>>     VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to
>>>     be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored
>>>     in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up
>>>     a huge amount of time.
>> 
>> Hence spooling.
>
>   Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta
>   actually read/write to the shitty slow media. ...Also
>   spooling requires RAM ... 

Depends how you do it. IBM 70xx mainframes read and wrote everything to and from
tape. Then there was a cheaper 1401 with a tape drive, card reader/punch and
printer that did card->tape and tape->card and tape->print.

Later on a customer tied together a 7090 and a slower 7040 with a high-speed
interconnect so the 7040 did all the I/O and job management, spooling card and
print to disk, and the 7090 just ran the jobs.



-- 
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]

#95399 — Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/9/26 11:56, John Levine wrote:
> According to c186282  <c186282@nnada.net>:
>> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb:
>>>
>>>>      A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were
>>>>      VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to
>>>>      be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored
>>>>      in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up
>>>>      a huge amount of time.
>>>
>>> Hence spooling.
>>
>>    Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta
>>    actually read/write to the shitty slow media. ...Also
>>    spooling requires RAM ...
> 
> Depends how you do it. IBM 70xx mainframes read and wrote everything to and from
> tape. Then there was a cheaper 1401 with a tape drive, card reader/punch and
> printer that did card->tape and tape->card and tape->print.
> 
> Later on a customer tied together a 7090 and a slower 7040 with a high-speed
> interconnect so the 7040 did all the I/O and job management, spooling card and
> print to disk, and the 7090 just ran the jobs.

   I'll have to try and find the I/O speed specs
   for that setup.

   My guess is that it was just *awful* ...

   In theory drum memory COULD have been used
   for spooling - it was the fastest thing to
   be had with any capacity at the time.
   Electronic RAM was insanely expensive and
   small for a long time.

   Met a guy who worked with the guy who
   invented the more modern disk drive.
   Cobalt-plated disks initially. Only
   later moved to ferrite. Solid metal
   won't take densely-packed bits, too
   much 'bleed-over'.

   On the plus, cobalt is HARD ... could
   tolerate the occasional head crash.

   BUT, again, as slow as those old units were
   they were STILL vastly faster and more accurate
   than having humans do all the calculations.
   So relatively fast they got the rep as 'electronic
   brains' - spawned many a sci-fi movie !

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

#95433 — Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 2026-11-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>
>    I'll have to try and find the I/O speed specs
>    for that setup.
>
>    My guess is that it was just *awful* ...
>
>    In theory drum memory COULD have been used
>    for spooling - it was the fastest thing to
>    be had with any capacity at the time.
>    Electronic RAM was insanely expensive and
>    small for a long time.
>
>    Met a guy who worked with the guy who
>    invented the more modern disk drive.
>    Cobalt-plated disks initially. Only
>    later moved to ferrite. Solid metal
>    won't take densely-packed bits, too
>    much 'bleed-over'.
>
>    On the plus, cobalt is HARD ... could
>    tolerate the occasional head crash.
>
>    BUT, again, as slow as those old units were
>    they were STILL vastly faster and more accurate
>    than having humans do all the calculations.
>    So relatively fast they got the rep as 'electronic
>    brains' - spawned many a sci-fi movie !

I was told by a (different) professor that he once witnessed a
washing-machine-sized disk drive that got a fleck of dust under a
head, which rather quickly cascaded to a shaving of most/all of
the oxide.  He said he and his coworkers used square-mouthed
shovels to scoop the shredded oxide out of the cabinet.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

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

#95439 — Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 2026-11-10, Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:

> I was told by a (different) professor that he once witnessed a
> washing-machine-sized disk drive that got a fleck of dust under a
> head, which rather quickly cascaded to a shaving of most/all of
> the oxide.  He said he and his coworkers used square-mouthed
> shovels to scoop the shredded oxide out of the cabinet.

One head crash we had was bad enough that you could see bits
of bare aluminum gleaming among the debris on the pack.
(I never did see one that sprayed oxide around much.)

One day we had a CE in to do preventive maintenance on our
drives.  While the CE was bent over with his head in the
drive well, someone came in and asked me what he was doing.
I explained, with a straight face, that he was adjusting the
speed at which the disk pack spun, since if it spun too fast
the bits would come flying off and have to be scraped off the
inside of the well.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#95122

In article <18e45d18dce2f904$1893$2999836$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>,
Farley Flud  <ff@gnulinux.rocks> wrote:
>Ha, ha, [snip] ha, ha!

I do wish more people, young and old, would comply with RFC 1855.
Everyone should give it a (re)read. :)

-- 
Brian "Beej Jorgensen" Hall | beej@beej.us

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

#95131

On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen wrote:

> 
> I do wish more people, young and old, would comply with RFC 1855.
> Everyone should give it a (re)read. :)
>

Usenet is beyond doubt superior to all of the fashionable web forums
that are controlled by single entities and heavily moderated (i.e censored)
and also data mined.

But it seems that Usenet, or at least a lot of formerly popular groups,
is no longer used for free discussion but only only to alleviate the
loneliness of decrepit old-timers that can't find anything better to
do with their empty time.

Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet
is your personal taproom.


-- 
Gentoo/LFS: Is there any-fucking-thing else?

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

#95144

On 2026-11-04, Farley Flud wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen wrote:
>
>> 
>> I do wish more people, young and old, would comply with RFC 1855.
>> Everyone should give it a (re)read. :)
>>
>
> Usenet is beyond doubt superior to all of the fashionable web forums
> that are controlled by single entities and heavily moderated (i.e censored)
> and also data mined.
>
> But it seems that Usenet, or at least a lot of formerly popular groups,
> is no longer used for free discussion but only only to alleviate the
> loneliness of decrepit old-timers that can't find anything better to
> do with their empty time.
>
> Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet
> is your personal taproom.

(No, this is the *tape*-room.)

... why didn't you set Followup-To: to a group discussing hypocrisy?

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#95164

On Wed, 04 Nov 2026 20:38:16 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

> Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet
> is your personal taproom.

'netcop' and 'self-proclaimed moderator' come to mind.

-- 
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.
		- Julius Caesar

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

#95165

On 2026-11-05, s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2026 20:38:16 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:
>
>> Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet
>> is your personal taproom.
>
> 'netcop' and 'self-proclaimed moderator' come to mind.

Please don't feed the trolls.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

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

#95174

On 05/11/2026 16:48, s|b wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2026 20:38:16 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:
> 
>> Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet
>> is your personal taproom.
> 
> 'netcop' and 'self-proclaimed moderator' come to mind.
> 
I thought Farley was plonked. Seems to have nym shifted
Re plonked


-- 
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, 
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

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

#95243

On 11/2/2026 6:08 PM, Farley Flud wrote:

> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid
> home for decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens?
> 
> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers.


So why no SSD?


> I, and many others, want cutting edge philosophy on GNU/Linux/FOSS.
> 
> Otherwise, go bury yourselves, grandpas.
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!


Any OS benefits from an SSD.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

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

#95246

On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 12:23:08 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:

> On 11/2/2026 6:08 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> 
>> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid
>> home for decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens?
>> 
>> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers.
> 
> 
> So why no SSD?
> 

The reasons were explicitly stated many times already.

Perhaps the surge of endorphins that you experience with each
dildo that slides up your ass has caused you to forget.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Degenerate sodomite.


> 
> Any OS benefits from an SSD.
>

None whatsoever.

Unless, for you, SSD = Self-Satisfying Dildo.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Degenerate sodomite.


-- 
Gentoo/LFS: Is there any-fucking-thing else?

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web