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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162612

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

Show all headers | View raw

In article <ner7s0121rv@news3.newsguy.com>,
 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> t's an interesting idea, but the technology wasn't up to it.  First of
> all, it was hard enough to get the timing right for fixed-pitch spacing.

Printers were expensive enough already. If the demand were there it could
be done; demand at the prices demanded, course. We remember that society
as a whole was poorer then and technology more expensive.

Economics again. Funny how often that comes up.

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

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 07:09 -0700
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-15 17:20 +0000
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-15 19:03 +0000
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-15 15:24 -0400
    Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-17 10:44 -0400
      Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 17:57 +0100
  Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-04-15 10:39 -0700

csiph-web