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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162902

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

Show all headers | View raw

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:35:03 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote:
>
>
>> Sounds like your EAM procedures got moved to the computer without
>> redesign.
>
> In many installations, that was the whole idea--a relatively
> painless way to install a real computer to replace a tab
> operation.
>
> Actually, it's not really a bad approach.  After the site gets
> used to running the new machine--and there is a lot to get used
> to after using tab machines--they can then slowly modernize the
> old applications, like using disk and tape for intermediate files,
> a program to do what the collator used to do, etc.
>
>
>> I had a lot of designs handed to me that involved punching out
>> new cards.  Somehow I managed to resist all that nonsense.
>
> If you were already conversant in computer technology (e.g. JCL,
> utilities, programming), it would be useful for you to upgrade
> the old applications.  However, you would likely also need to
> do some considerable training of the operators and other
> programmers on new procedures, including abend recovery steps.
>
> When I was a young-un, I had little patience for old time
> managers who resisted new technology.  However, now that I
> am old, I can now see their point.  The reality is that too often
> many promises were (are) made for the power of new technology,
> and too much is done too soon, resulting in a big mess.  I've
> seen many early mainframe applications where far too much was
> imposed on the limited hardware of era, creating a very slow
> running and cumbersome system.
>
> For example, in our S/360-40 shop, we did a lot of offline
> sorting on our 082.  I didn't understand why we didn't use
> the computer for that, as it presumably would be faster.  It
> was explained here that with limited I/O and memory of the time,
> sorting on the mainframe could be slow and not as efficient.
> Also, some of the files being sorted were 1401 files, and sorting
> on-line would've required changing the applications, not so easy.
>
> The old tab machine applications were 'harder', that is, they
> tended to run reasonably reliably.  They took time to run, but they
> tended to meet their schedules day after day.  In the mainframe
> world, there once were lots of outages--hardware faults in the
> CPU, disk, tape, printer, card reader, etc.  Disk technology
> could be unpredictable, with unexpected problems.
>
> 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.

Your argument about disk being unpredictable (especially
compared to card systems) is clearly wrong.

All of my experience showed new, well designed automation
could be error proof compared to card shuffling EAM based
systems.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

Thread

Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-04-15 07:16 -0700
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-15 17:16 +0200
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 19:55 +1000
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-21 11:10 +0100
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 22:17 -0400
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-15 14:03 -0700
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-17 10:36 -0400
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-17 15:46 +0100
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-04-17 09:52 -0600
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-04-17 17:18 -0700
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-22 11:01 -0400
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-26 08:22 +0100
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-26 08:20 +0100
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-19 11:44 -0700
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-20 01:36 +0000
        Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-20 16:58 -0700
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:52 +0000
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-21 12:37 -0700
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 16:25 -0400
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 17:35 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 21:51 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 20:58 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 11:34 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:53 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:45 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 11:34 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:55 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:18 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:38 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 21:21 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-21 22:21 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-04-21 21:53 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 15:22 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-22 17:55 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:31 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 10:43 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-23 12:48 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-23 16:21 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 18:12 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 20:44 -0500
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-04-24 09:09 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-25 15:08 +0000
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-25 13:39 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 18:07 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-25 13:48 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 17:33 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 19:47 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-04-25 22:56 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-04-26 17:51 -0500
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-21 21:40 +0000
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-21 22:31 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-22 15:22 +0000
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-04-22 07:15 +0100
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-22 14:44 +0000
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:16 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 17:10 -0400
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 22:38 -0700
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-23 16:28 +0000
          Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 12:35 -0400
            Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-21 12:41 -0700
              Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 16:25 -0400
                Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-22 12:18 -0700

csiph-web