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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162915

Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)?

Show all headers | View raw

Dan Espen wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 10:43:13 AM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote:
>>
>>> > Management likes control and predictability, and they had more
>>> > of that in the tab world than with electronic computers.
>>>
>>> Sounds like you're making excuses for those idiots.
>>
>> Certainly, many managers are idiots.  However, managers do
>> have a different perspective--and responsibility--on the
>> situation than the workers, so it is understandable they
>> would make different decisions.
>>
>>
>>> Your argument about disk being unpredictable (especially
>>> compared to card systems) is clearly wrong.
>>
>> Computer mainframe hardware was significantly less reliable
>> than it is today.  Today, it is extremely rare for our
>> mainframe and CICS applications to be unavailable.  Forty
>> years ago, outages (for various reasons) were common.  The
>> 360-40, 158 and supporting peripherals and operating systems
>> did not have the reliability as today's systems.
>
> That does not change the fact that a IBM 14xx with a 1311 drive
> could and did operate for years without ever reporting a disk
> error.

<snip>

Then the OS and field service were doing a very good job
dealing with bad spots on the disk and preventive
maintenance.

/BAH

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-24 13:06 +0000
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:41 +1000

csiph-web