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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162906

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

Show all headers | View raw

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.

The only disk failure I ever saw was the one I caused by
using a rag to slow down the drive rotation for a quick pack
change.  The rag touched the heads and that was it for the drive.
Only took a few hours to fix.

> If you go back to pre-S/360 days, the hardware was even less
> reliable.  Yes, an electronic computer had advantages over
> electro-mechanical card machines, but in those days it was
> understandable for a manager to be nervous.

I started before S/360.
The machines I worked with were way more reliable than the old
EAM stuff.

> Also, in those days, there was a shortage of competent qualified
> programmers.  Histories (various books by MIT Press) report
> that sometimes industry got stuck with academics who developed
> notoriously poor systems, that didn't have good controls nor 
> backup, and proved to be a mess in actual service.  Author
> Alvin Townsend (Up the Organization) also wrote about this.
>
> Unfortunately, back then many managers were at the mercy
> of the new fellows--it was so new then few had the experience--
> and managers weren't equipped to accurately judge if someone
> was just bullsh** or not.

All true.

>> All of my experience showed new, well designed automation
>> could be error proof compared to card shuffling EAM based
>> systems.
>
> The key word was "well designed".  

Yes, well designed included not punching out cards,
no requiring pre-sort, etc.

> Our first assignment in my college computer class was to 
> bring in an example of a poor computer system.  Every
> kid brought in not one, but multiple examples of systems
> that they personally had trouble with.  Clearly, there were
> lots of systems out there that, for whatever reason, were
> not "well designed".

This must have been the age of online systems.
There are so many to choose from.

> Fast forward to the present, I know of an expensive Oracle 
> system that was supposed to replace a mainframe system.  Ten 
> years later, the mainframe app remains in service in parallel 
> since certain sub-functions were never developed, and 
> certain things still do not work properly.

Not surprised.  I put together many 14xx systems with internal
business logic that your average COBOLer could stumble over.
Just because a "legacy" system is old doesn't mean that it
isn't full of finely crafted business logic.

-- 
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