| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #309989 is a reply to message #309985] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 14:41   |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Could someone explain "tightly coupled" vs. "loosely coupled" vs.
> simply having two separate machines, shared disks, and a split
> workload?
>
> (A few years later they replaced the 158 with a 30xx box, but I don't
> recall what. The new machine was still maxed out as they added
> more applications to it.)
tightly-coupled from 360/65 days were two processors that shared memory
..... but had their own dedicated private channels. IBM simulated shared
i/o configuration by having controllers with two-channel switch ... so
they were connected to two channels, one for channel connected to each
processor. It had the characteristic that the shared memory could be
disabled and the two processors operated independently as two separate
single processor systems.
however, 360/67 multiprocessor (tightly-coupled) did have "channel
controller" that allowed processors to share both memory as well as all
sharing channels (all processors addressing all channels), but had the
capability to configure complex as independent single processor machines
with dedicated memory and channels).
loosely-coupled were independent systems (no shared memory) that shared
devices .... via having channels connected to controllers with
capability for connecting to multiple channels.
my wife had been in the gburg JES group ... she was one of the catchers
for ASP turning it into JES3. She was also co-author for JESUS (JES
unified system) which included features from JES2 (i.e. HASP) and JES3
that the respective customers couldn't live w/o (for various reasons
never shipped). posts mentioning HASP, JES2, NJE/NJI, etc
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#hasp
she was then con'ed into going to POK to be in charge of loosely-coupled
architecture. While there she did peer-coupled shared data architecture
.... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#shareddata
she didn't remain very long because of 1) little uptake except for IMS
hotstandby until SYSPLEX¶llel SYSPLEX (two decades later) and 2)
constant battles with communication group trying to force her into using
SNA/VTAM for loosely-coupled operation.
in the mid-70s, they introduced "attached processor" tightly-coupled for
370/158 & 370/168 ... it was standard two processors shared memory where
the 2nd processor didn't have any dedicated channels (purely processor
capacity and not able to be partitioned into two two independently
operating single processor systems).
after the failure of the FS effort ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
there was mad rush to get products back into the 370 pipeline. This
included POK kicking off the Q&D 303x and 3081/xa efforts in parallel
.... some discussion here
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm
3033 started out being 168-3 logic mapped to 20% faster chips. Also the
integrated channel microcode from 370/158 was moved into a separate
dedicated channel box. A 3031 was two 370/158 engines, a 370/158 engine
with just the 370 microcode and no integrated microcode and a 2nd
370/158 engine with the integrated channel microcode (and no 370
microcode). A 3032 was a 370/168 tweaked to use the 370/158 integrated
channel box as external channels. A 3033 then was 168-3 logic remapped
to 20% faster chips and one or more 370/158 integrated channel microcode
boxes. 370/158 integrated channel microcode provided support for six
channels. To have a system with 16 channels reguired three 370/158
integrated channel microcode boxes.
3081 (as memo125.htm describes) started out being a multiprocessor box
only (until they were forced to do 3083 with only one processor
removed). 3081 was referred to as dyadic (two processors) to
differentiate it from the early "tightly-coupled" designation
.... because it wasn't able to partition it into two independent
operating (single-processor) systems.
posts mentioning SMP, multiprocessor, tightly-coupled, also compare&swap
instruction
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #309993 is a reply to message #309989] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 15:38 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:41:43 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> in the mid-70s, they introduced "attached processor" tightly-coupled for
> 370/158 & 370/168 ... it was standard two processors shared memory where
> the 2nd processor didn't have any dedicated channels (purely processor
> capacity and not able to be partitioned into two two independently
> operating single processor systems).
Thanks for the explanation.
Did the "attached processor" on the 158 make a significant improvement
in throughput performance?
I don't recall the specific details other than the 158 was maxed out,
meaning program compilation and testing had to be done during offpeak
hours. Response time was slow, although that may have been, in part
due to relatively low speed analog comm lines supporting many terminals
off of a single line. I _think_ the data rate was 4800, synchronous,
on private "conditioned" lines. (Soon afterwards, they went to 9600,
then went to digital. Digital lines took some effort to become
reliable.)
Also, back then, overall reliability wasn't so great, for a variety
of reasons--CICS crash, comm line failure, remote modem/controller
failure, central comm controller crash, CPU crash, etc.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310011 is a reply to message #309915] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 17:14 |
|
|
Originally posted by: terry-groups
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 8:57:27 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
> After the Berlin wall fell, JMF learned about fUSSR computing. He was
> awed by what their hard/software engineers managed to get done with the
> crap they had to work with. He also shuddered at the thought of what
> mihgt have happened if the fUSSR had gotten "modern" hardware.
There is a lot of misinformation out there on the various Soviet PDP-11 clones. Part of this is the "Wikipedia feedback loop", but even that doesn't explain some of it.
I have here on my desk an 11/73 clone CPU. It looks just like a DEC DCJ11 except that it has a thin blue substrate instead of the thick white ceramic of the genuine DEC part. I've also seen these CPUs with a green or white substrate. It looks like it might be a drop-in replacement for the DEC part.
I also have what I believe is an 11/23 clone. It doesn't have any direct DEC equivalent - it is built on a 46-pin substrate about as wide as the DCJ11, but not as long. It has 4 chips mounted on that substrate.
These parts have dates in 1988 and 1989. I don't know how long before that they were being made, although the Soviets were certainly capable of copying 7400-based PDP-11 systems long before that - they had copied the 74181 and the 2901 bit-slice building blocks early on.
Here is a picture of the Soviet clone CPUs (genuine DCJ11 included for reference): https://www.glaver.org/transient/DSCF1285-s.jpg
I remember hearing a story (which may or may not be true) about some of the first VAX 8600s being "mislaid" while being shipped from DEC to a customer and then turning up in the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310012 is a reply to message #310011] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 17:21 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, terry-groups@glaver.org wrote:
> I remember hearing a story (which may or may not be true) about some of
> the first VAX 8600s being "mislaid" while being shipped from DEC to a
> customer and then turning up in the Soviet Union.
>
That sounds vaguely familiar.
Though, at this point I may have heard it as a story in a newsgroup, like
this one.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310023 is a reply to message #309779] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:20 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601251315180.9697@darkstar.example.org...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? I thought at least some
>>> computer
>>> stuff was restricted in where it could be sold. And even if not, buying
>>> outside of the USSR meant needing "hard currency", which I thought was
>>> often lacking. They had to spend it on the important things.
>>
>> At computer conferences in the 1970s I saw a clone of a DEC computer
>> made in Hungary, and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of
>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in
>> the U.S.
>>
>> So it's unlikely the Soviets would have real DEC machines, but they
>> could well have similar looking home made ones.
>>
>>
> Yes. There was an article in Byte at some point (so it was probably close
> to the end of the USSR) about their "home" computers, and they showed a
> few, basically copies of US computers. But they also had copies of US
> microprocessors, but at least one needed two or three ICs
> rather than the single IC in the US. SO that was an indication that they
> were lagging in what they could produce.
>
The Soviets reached a point in the development of their digital
electronics... where they decided it was more effective to *steal* Western
technology than to design their own. I remember a 60 Minutes segment many
years ago; they showed a microscopic picture of a Russian-built 1 k memory
chip. The micrograph of the chip still had the Intel logo etched into it.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310024 is a reply to message #309892] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:23 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message
news:slrnnaeb2s.8je.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:17:26 -0500, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, John Levine wrote:
>>
>>>> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? I thought at least some
>>>> computer
>>>> stuff was restricted in where it could be sold. And even if not,
>>>> buying
>>>> outside of the USSR meant needing "hard currency", which I thought was
>>>> often lacking. They had to spend it on the important things.
>>>
>>> At computer conferences in the 1970s I saw a clone of a DEC computer
>>> made in Hungary, and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of
>>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in
>>> the U.S.
>>>
>>> So it's unlikely the Soviets would have real DEC machines, but they
>>> could well have similar looking home made ones.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. There was an article in Byte at some point (so it was probably
>> close
>> to the end of the USSR) about their "home" computers, and they showed a
>> few, basically copies of US computers. But they also had
>> copies of US microprocessors, but at least one needed two or three ICs
>> rather than the single IC in the US. SO that was an indication that they
>> were lagging in what they could produce.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
> The USSR PDP-11 clone on eBay a while back was a one-piece desktop unit
> like a large Apple ][. Probably a bit too expensive new for any
> average Soviet worker!
>
ISTM that the "average Soviet worker" would *not* be allowed to own a
computer. Even back in the 80s, one could get five years hard labor in
prison... for owning an unlicensed copy machine.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310027 is a reply to message #309842] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:26 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601251933430.10634@darkstar.example.org...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:48:00 AM UTC-7, John Levine wrote:
>>> and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of
>>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in
>>> the U.S.
>>
>> The BESM-6 had a 48 bit word size - it preceded the EC/Ryad computers
>> which were
>> the imitation 360s.
>>
>> When Soviet spies attempted to smuggle American computers to Russia, the
>> VAX was
>> a popular target.
>>
> Maybe that explains the DEC in the tv show.
>
> They'd procured it through legal channels, then had to wait till they had
> some scheme to get it back to Russia. In the meanwhile, they set it up at
> the embassy so they could play moonlander and the like.
>
Computer sales to the Soviets were restricted because the U.S. did *not*
want to sell the Soviets computers that might increase their ability to
create weapons. I don't think that VT-100s would qualify for that. There
was *nothing* in the VT-100 that was all that technically advanced. IMHO.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310028 is a reply to message #309993] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:26 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Did the "attached processor" on the 158 make a significant improvement
> in throughput performance?
>
> I don't recall the specific details other than the 158 was maxed out,
> meaning program compilation and testing had to be done during offpeak
> hours. Response time was slow, although that may have been, in part
> due to relatively low speed analog comm lines supporting many terminals
> off of a single line. I _think_ the data rate was 4800, synchronous,
> on private "conditioned" lines. (Soon afterwards, they went to 9600,
> then went to digital. Digital lines took some effort to become
> reliable.)
>
> Also, back then, overall reliability wasn't so great, for a variety
> of reasons--CICS crash, comm line failure, remote modem/controller
> failure, central comm controller crash, CPU crash, etc.
the issue is what software. standard IBM mainframe cache two-processor
system slowed the processor cycle down by 10% to allow for cross-cache
signalling (and any actual cross-cache signalling slowed things down
further) ... so two processor hardware starts out only 1.8 times a
single processor. Then if the operating system had lots of lock
contention and other multiprocessor coordination ... it further reduced
effective throughput. MVS on 370s in the 70s claimed muiltiprocessor
throughput 1.3-1.5 times single processor.
I had done some slight of hand for vm370 multiprocessor throughput that
had extremely low lock contention and multiprocessor coordination
overhead. In cache machines, typical MIPS rate is based on some expected
cache miss rate, high-cache miss rate results in much lower
MIPS/throughput than the nominal announced MIP rate ... and very low
cache miss rate will have higher than nominal announced MIP rate.
I had some attached-processor configurations that had run 100% CPU
utilization and relatively high I/O rate before adding the 2nd
processor. Asynchronous I/O interrupts involved displaying application
cache contents with device driver cache contents (very high
instantaneous cache miss rates) ... and then switching back to running
appliction reversed the process, replacing device driver cache contents
with application cache contents (again very high cache miss rates)
.... all of which much lower measured MIPS rate and throughput. The
applications code running on the 2nd processor now had much higher MIPS
rate and throughput (because there was no longer the asynchronous I/O
interrupts. The processor with channels & I/O interrupts frequently had
higher throughput also .... since it periodically effectively batched
several I/O interrupts in sequence, while device driver code still
remained in cache, significantly improving its cache-hit rate, MIPS-rate
and throughput.
The very low operating system multiprocessor overhead plus careful
management of the cache effects could get more than twice the throughput
of a single processor (from hardware that nominally was only 1.8 times
that of a single processor) ... compared to the 1.3-1.5 times
experienced by MVS users.
past posts mentioning SMP, shared-memory, multiprocessor, etc
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp
Note that CICS didn't get multiprocessor support until 2004. Original
CICS implementation was single task/process and then did its own
finegrain task multithreading within the CICS environment. To take
advantage of more powerful computers and multiple processors
.... customers started running multiple CICS instances (each as its own
independent operating system task). Early in the century ... an
outsorucer that ran the dataprocessing backend that managed cable tv
settop boxes for most of the cable countries in the US ... was running
over 120 CICS instances on a single (multiprocessor) machine.
past posts mentioning CICS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#cics
trivia ... as undergraduate in the 60s, I got hired fulltime by the
univ. to support their production IBM mainframe. The univ. library got
an ONR grant to do online catelogue and used part of the money to get
2321 datacell. The project was also selected to be one of the betatest
sites for the original CICS program product ... and I got to do a lot of
debugging of the betatest CICS code.
Some of the history from CICS site ... gone 404, but lives on at
the wayback machine:
The Evolution of CICS: CICS and Multi-region Operation (1980)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040705000349/http://www.yelavic h.com/history/ev198001.htm
The Evolution of CICS: CICS and Multiprocessor Exploitation (2004)
http://web.archive.org/web/20041023110006/http://www.yelavic h.com/history/ev200402.htm
webpage
http://web.archive.org/web/20050509233156/http://www.yelavic h.com/
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310029 is a reply to message #309923] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <n87ve9$b84$1@solani.org>, rsw@therandymon.com says...
>
> On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Something serious in the workplace"?
>>
>> Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks
>> with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an
>> '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today.
>> There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally
>> those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live
>> data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel
>> architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most
>> businesses need.
>
> The fact that modern desktops have the computing power of old PDPs
> doesn't have anything to do with deciding whether the old 'centralized'
> model of computing has benefits that would be interesting today. Ask
> any sysadmin who has had to deal with a fleet of PCs, each user storing
> his stuff locally, people emailing each other documents to collaborate,
> etc.
>
> If modern PCs have high specs, hooray. Now put a souped-up, modern,
> high spec version of what used to be called a PDP down in the basement,
> and put a thin client on every desk. Live happily ever after.
> Ostensibly, if desktops are 1x10^6 times more powerful, our servers are,
> too: a recipe for happiness.
I already addressed the point you think you are introducing. If you
want to beat a dead horse be my guest.
However your souped up PDP, which is going to be pathetically puny
compared to any PC, is still going to require a PC on the desktop of
every user in order to have any functionality. Of course it may be
called a "terminal" or a "thin client" or some such, but the cheap way
to manufacturer such today is to buy a commodity PC and cripple it.
Oh, by the way, since you're on about PDPs and suchlike, let me remind
you that I drive a z machine for a living.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310030 is a reply to message #309936] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:37 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <iefknc-ml6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
first@last.name.invalid says...
>
> In article <n87ve9$b84$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Something serious in the workplace"?
>>>
>>> Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks
>>> with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an
>>> '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today.
>>> There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally
>>> those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live
>>> data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel
>>> architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most
>>> businesses need.
>>
>> The fact that modern desktops have the computing power of old PDPs
>> doesn't have anything to do with deciding whether the old 'centralized'
>> model of computing has benefits that would be interesting today. Ask
>> any sysadmin who has had to deal with a fleet of PCs, each user storing
>> his stuff locally, people emailing each other documents to collaborate,
>> etc.
>>
>> If modern PCs have high specs, hooray. Now put a souped-up, modern,
>> high spec version of what used to be called a PDP down in the basement,
>> and put a thin client on every desk. Live happily ever after.
>> Ostensibly, if desktops are 1x10^6 times more powerful, our servers are,
>> too: a recipe for happiness.
>
> A lot of this cloud stuff will move back to "computers that you
> own but are located somewhere on the net" from "computers that someone
> else owns but are located somewhere on the net".
>
> A lot of the moves towards others computers has been founded on
> a huge squeeze in hosting. If you go out and buy colo (i.e. rack space)
> you will pay around $2k/rack/month for rack, power, connectivity; if
> you buy single racks without any particular buying power; and you need
> reasonable access ; i.e. within EU, near large city. Building the
> same redundancy in your own basement will cost lots more. Orders of
> magintude more. Just having the diesels, power, batteries, cooling in
> costs millions. And double if you are in a standard office building.
>
> If you are Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, IBM you build all
> of this yourself, or contract 1km2 or more. Then you pay $350/rack/month
> to yourself. They can then sell the service LOTS cheaper, and will
> include their services; and still make a bundle. And they have it available
> now, not 7 months into the future.
>
> Never mind that this is located in the Nevada desert, or in the Finnish
> woods.
We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That
Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern
though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements
and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310031 is a reply to message #309863] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:32 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:14a94742-5cff-45ba-ac4b-986fef591c43@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-7, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> They'd procured it through legal channels, then had to wait till they had
>> some scheme to get it back to Russia. In the meanwhile, they set it up
>> at
>> the embassy so they could play moonlander and the like.
>
> You need a GT40 to play Lunar Lander, not a VT100!
>
> I know, I played it once.
>
Strangly enough, John, there were implementations of Lunar Lander that had
*no* graphics. Yeah, I don't think it would be any fun either... but it was
a "text only" game. The actual name may be something like Lunar LEM Rocket
or something, but people called it Lunar Lander and it represented landing
the LEM on the moon.
See the BASIC source In one of David Ahl's books at:
http://tinyurl.com/h79xavb
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310032 is a reply to message #309934] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:38 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <3oudnWDG_IrdFTrLnZ2dnUU78TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
am.swallow@btinternet.com says...
>
> On 26/01/2016 14:35, RS Wood wrote:
>> On 2016-01-25, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:48:00 AM UTC-7, John Levine wrote:
>>>> and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of
>>>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in
>>>> the U.S.
>>>
>>> The BESM-6 had a 48 bit word size - it preceded the EC/Ryad computers which were
>>> the imitation 360s.
>>>
>>> When Soviet spies attempted to smuggle American computers to Russia, the VAX was
>>> a popular target.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>> #
>> These links look like interesting food for thought:
>>
>> First, a book called Perspectives on #soviet and Russian Computing:
>> https://books.google.co.ug/books?id=-jSqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA21 8&lpg=PA218&dq=soviet+computers+minicomputers&so urce=bl&ots=a4PfPVZV1k&sig=YCs1FBm6iFZQ3CmxzuPtZ-gJZ LE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet %20computers%20minicomputers&f=false
>>
>> Good luck with that stupidly long Google URL.
>>
>> This Wikipedia article is helpful and goes a bit into the BESM and
>> others:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_i n_Soviet_Bloc_countries
>>
>> This page points out the BESM were mainframes, but the DVK family (???)
>> ? PDP-11 clones and the Elektronica were DEC clones
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_computer_system s
>>
>> That leads me to believe they were at least trying hard to duplicate
>> American hardware. The comment above about PCs being not yet on
>> desktops in 1982 makes me wonder what the FBI must be using there - I'll
>> try to get a screenshot. Something like wyse terminals? Or IBM 3270s
>> networked to a mainframe or something? The FBI would have had money in
>> 1982 to buy whatever they wanted, I'd think.
>>
>
> In 1982 the FBI could have had glass TTY as terminals. RS232 links to
> the computer.
While you could access a mainframe that way it was a lot happier with
SNA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310037 is a reply to message #309916] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:43 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM00052A3CF4346EF5@aca46c41.ipt.aol.com...
> Michael Black wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're
>>> not,
> I
>>> can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982
> Washington
>>> DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off.
>>>
>>> Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian
>>> embassy
> to
>>> the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a lot of
>>> prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks.
>>>
>>> At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the
> terminals
>>> look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the desks of
>>> the
>>> FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the VT100
>>> reigned
>>> from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the show.
>>>
>> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers?
>
One way the Soviets bought modern computers is to have a third-party in some
other country, like Germany or France, to buy the U.S. computer. The
computer would be transferred to the USSR in secret. So the Soviets could
*not* legally buy advanced US computers, but they could buy them through
back-alley deals.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310042 is a reply to message #310027] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 18:57 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 26-Jan-16 17:26, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> They'd procured it through legal channels, then had to wait till
>> they had some scheme to get it back to Russia. In the meanwhile,
>> they set it up at the embassy so they could play moonlander and the
>> like.
>
> Computer sales to the Soviets were restricted because the U.S. did
> *not* want to sell the Soviets computers that might increase their
> ability to create weapons. I don't think that VT-100s would qualify
> for that. There was *nothing* in the VT-100 that was all that
> technically advanced. IMHO.
The US _still_ has tough restrictions on exports of "dual use"
technology, including any software containing encryption--which is
virtually everything these days. All of our allies are whitelisted, and
you can guess the countries that are blacklisted, but you still need a
license to export to those in between. It's utterly ridiculous since
anyone in any of the gray or blacklisted countries can download any
encryption they want off the Internet.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310067 is a reply to message #309761] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 14:16 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Eric Pozharski
with <n85jju$15lh$1@miucha.iecc.com> John Levine wrote:
>> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? I thought at least some
>> computer stuff was restricted in where it could be sold. And even if
>> not, buying outside of the USSR meant needing "hard currency", which I
>> thought was often lacking. They had to spend it on the important
>> things.
>
> At computer conferences in the 1970s I saw a clone of a DEC computer
> made in Hungary, and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of
> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in
> the U.S.
BESM was true home-made (with hilarity):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM .
While clone of S360 was ESEVM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM .
> So it's unlikely the Soviets would have real DEC machines, but they
> could well have similar looking home made ones.
Yes, watch Jackson-Vanik at work. Apparently, history isn't going to
repeat itself this time.
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310069 is a reply to message #310028] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 22:25 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:26:42 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> Note that CICS didn't get multiprocessor support until 2004. Original
> CICS implementation was single task/process and then did its own
> finegrain task multithreading within the CICS environment. To take
> advantage of more powerful computers and multiple processors
> ... customers started running multiple CICS instances (each as its own
> independent operating system task). Early in the century ... an
> outsorucer that ran the dataprocessing backend that managed cable tv
> settop boxes for most of the cable countries in the US ... was running
> over 120 CICS instances on a single (multiprocessor) machine.
At that time, they had at least four CICS regions, two for production
(different applications) and two for testing.
There were different ways to code an application program under CICS.
A recommended 'standard' method was most efficient, but some
programmers used the wrong method which was inefficient. (This
may have been pseudo-conversational vs. conversational, though I
don't recall exactly). Some of the CICS used back then in COBOL
programs was macro level, then they switched to command level.
They originally used TSO, but found it resource intensive, and
switched to the ADR product, ROSCOE. (ADR, like most mainframe
utility software, is owned by CA).
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310071 is a reply to message #310031] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 22:31 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:32:55 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:
> Strangly enough, John, there were implementations of Lunar Lander that had
> *no* graphics. Yeah, I don't think it would be any fun either... but it was
> a "text only" game. The actual name may be something like Lunar LEM Rocket
> or something, but people called it Lunar Lander and it represented landing
> the LEM on the moon.
Back in the 1970s all we had were text only games, intended for use
on a Teletype.
Some folks published calendars with a different game for every month.
The HP 2000 had a neat MAZE program. It was originally limited to
fairly small mazes, but it was easily modified to create a very long
maze, almost impossible to solve.
Seems that every kid who knew BASIC and took physics class wrote some
sort of game, utilizing his newly learned equations. In essence,
the user would match calculation skills with the computer in firing
a rocket or cannon.
I think bitsavers has some books full of BASIC games, although it is just
the listing, which would have to be typed in.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310081 is a reply to message #310031] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 22:46 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-01-26, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:14a94742-5cff-45ba-ac4b-986fef591c43@googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-7, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> They'd procured it through legal channels, then had to wait till they had
>>> some scheme to get it back to Russia. In the meanwhile, they set it up
>>> at
>>> the embassy so they could play moonlander and the like.
>>
>> You need a GT40 to play Lunar Lander, not a VT100!
>>
>> I know, I played it once.
>
> Strangly enough, John, there were implementations of Lunar Lander that had
> *no* graphics. Yeah, I don't think it would be any fun either... but it was
> a "text only" game. The actual name may be something like Lunar LEM Rocket
> or something, but people called it Lunar Lander and it represented landing
> the LEM on the moon.
I spent a lot of happy hours playing Ladder on my IMSAI. ASCII graphics...
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310085 is a reply to message #310030] |
Tue, 26 January 2016 22:58 |
Roger Blake
Messages: 167
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That
> Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern
> though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements
> and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard.
Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and organizations
wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party. Once you do that
you have no idea where your information will ultimately wind up or who
will have access to it under what conditions.
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310096 is a reply to message #310085] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 01:16 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:58:32 -0000 (UTC)
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That
>> Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern
>> though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements
>> and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard.
>
> Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and
> organizations wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party.
> Once you do that you have no idea where your information will ultimately
> wind up or who will have access to it under what conditions.
For once you and I are in complete agreement.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310097 is a reply to message #310031] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 01:14 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:32:53 -0600
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:14a94742-5cff-45ba-ac4b-986fef591c43@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-7, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> They'd procured it through legal channels, then had to wait till they
>>> had some scheme to get it back to Russia. In the meanwhile, they set
>>> it up at
>>> the embassy so they could play moonlander and the like.
>>
>> You need a GT40 to play Lunar Lander, not a VT100!
>>
>> I know, I played it once.
>>
>
> Strangly enough, John, there were implementations of Lunar Lander that
> had *no* graphics. Yeah, I don't think it would be any fun either... but
Yes there were, I played one on an 1130 console (with the golfball)
got hooked and lost my booking privileges for a while when the operator
who showed it to me ratted on me. It was frustratingly difficult to land the
thing safely.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310113 is a reply to message #310031] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 09:28 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:14a94742-5cff-45ba-ac4b-986fef591c43@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-7, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> They'd procured it through legal channels, then had to wait till they had
>>> some scheme to get it back to Russia. In the meanwhile, they set it up
>>> at
>>> the embassy so they could play moonlander and the like.
>>
>> You need a GT40 to play Lunar Lander, not a VT100!
>>
>> I know, I played it once.
>>
>
> Strangly enough, John, there were implementations of Lunar Lander that had
> *no* graphics. Yeah, I don't think it would be any fun either... but it was
> a "text only" game. The actual name may be something like Lunar LEM Rocket
> or something, but people called it Lunar Lander and it represented landing
> the LEM on the moon.
>
> See the BASIC source In one of David Ahl's books at:
I first played it on a PDP-8. That version was written in FOCAL.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310117 is a reply to message #310037] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 10:42 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM00052A3CF4346EF5@aca46c41.ipt.aol.com...
>> Michael Black wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're
>>>> not,
>> I
>>>> can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982
>> Washington
>>>> DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off.
>>>>
>>>> Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian
>>>> embassy
>> to
>>>> the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a lot of
>>>> prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks.
>>>>
>>>> At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the
>> terminals
>>>> look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the desks of
>>>> the
>>>> FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the VT100
>>>> reigned
>>>> from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the show.
>>>>
>>> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers?
>>
>
> One way the Soviets bought modern computers is to have a third-party in some
> other country, like Germany or France, to buy the U.S. computer. The
> computer would be transferred to the USSR in secret. So the Soviets could
> *not* legally buy advanced US computers, but they could buy them through
> back-alley deals.
They tried that but the VAX was intercepted, IIRC, in Germany.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310118 is a reply to message #310011] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 10:42 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
terry-groups@glaver.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 8:57:27 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> After the Berlin wall fell, JMF learned about fUSSR computing. He was
>> awed by what their hard/software engineers managed to get done with the
>> crap they had to work with. He also shuddered at the thought of what
>> mihgt have happened if the fUSSR had gotten "modern" hardware.
>
> There is a lot of misinformation out there on the various Soviet PDP-11
clones. Part of this is the "Wikipedia feedback loop", but even that doesn't
explain some of it.
One of the problems with successful development in the fUSSR is the
restrictions their hard/software engineers had. their politicians
managed all the developments of engineering, science and manufaturing.
With those kinds of extreme restrictions (where breaking the rules would
kill you), it's understanable that they would have to resort to
reverse engineering in order to have any computing power the country
needed for defense. These were very, very, very bright people who had
their hands tied behind their backs and their thumbs duck-taped to
opposing walls. Now consider what they did acomplish; that's why JMF
was in awe of their work.
<snip>
I picked up two Russian programming text books at the Southboro
dump. What's amaing is that I can understand quite a bit.
Computer langaage is the universal language :-).
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310119 is a reply to message #310085] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 10:42 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That
>> Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern
>> though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements
>> and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard.
>
> Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and
organizations
> wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party. Once you do that
> you have no idea where your information will ultimately wind up or who
> will have access to it under what conditions.
>
This kind of stuff is cyclical. Corporations run their own internal
systems; after a while, they deem it easier and cheaper to contract
the work out. A similar thing is happening now. Contracting out
byte management is the current norm. In about 6 years, the cycle
will move to every system owner managing their own bytes.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310135 is a reply to message #309743] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 12:03 |
Evan Koblentz
Messages: 29
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
The former* MARCH (Mid-Atlantic Retro Computing Hobbyists -- 2005-2015) provided most of the computers EXCEPT those in the FBI set to "The Americans" when the show began four years ago. MARCH also provided a few small updates as the show progressed.
The back story is, Americans prop staff approached MARCH (of which I was president) through mutual friends. The had already purchased the FBI set stuff, along with a couple of PETs. We told them those weren't the smartest choices :) so they asked how to best use what they already had. We advised them to put the PETs in the travel agency set and that the FBI set would be tolerable... we then provided another couple of PETs to finish their travel agency, all of the DEC terminals, and some randoms printers and stuff. They wanted hulking IBM mainframe tape drives, which we couldn't provide (and wouldn't even if we had them), so those are just made-up props. We were not involved in the construction. For season three we also helped them get a Commodore 64 and stuff.
We also provided computers for Halt & Catch Fire; National Geographic TV's Jobs v. Gates episode; and an upcoming major Hollywood blockbuster (sorry, I'm under NDA).
* In its place, I and others formed the Vintage Computer Federation, which is is a 501c3 non-profit. "VCF" (get it?) is national in scope and immediately formed a Mid-Atlantic chapter. The old MARCH already owned the Vintage Computer Festival East. Vintage Computer Festival founder Sellam Ismail donated rights to the Vintage Computer Festival West. (All other Festivals remain independent.) Meanwhile, Erik Klein donated his Vintage Computer Forum (web integration is almost finished). Thus, the new group -- an IRS-sanctioned non-profit, no longer just individuals -- now operates VCF East/West, the VC Forum, and chapters such as the legacy MARCH. Web site is under construction, but you can see what's there so far at www.vcfed.org.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310136 is a reply to message #310135] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 12:07 |
Evan Koblentz
Messages: 29
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
|
PS. Season four starts on March 16th. Obviously I started watching it for the computers, but quickly found that it's a REALLY GOOD SHOW. I would absolutely watch it even if there were no computers in it at all. Tip: the show is NOT suitable for children. Lots of graphic sex and extreme violence.
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310144 is a reply to message #310085] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 13:14 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
On 2016-01-27, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That
>> Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern
>> though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements
>> and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard.
>
> Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and organizations
> wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party. Once you do that
> you have no idea where your information will ultimately wind up or who
> will have access to it under what conditions.
Or whether you'll be allowed to get it back.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310153 is a reply to message #310023] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 14:40 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <n88uq5$l31$1@dont-email.me>,
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> The Soviets reached a point in the development of their digital
> electronics... where they decided it was more effective to *steal* Western
> technology than to design their own. I remember a 60 Minutes segment many
> years ago; they showed a microscopic picture of a Russian-built 1 k memory
> chip. The micrograph of the chip still had the Intel logo etched into it.
Sounds like the Tu-4, an unauthorized copy of the B-29 in which it's been
said they went so far as to copy the "Boeing" script on the rudder pedals.
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310160 is a reply to message #310071] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 16:10 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-01-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:32:55 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> Strangly enough, John, there were implementations of Lunar Lander that had
>> *no* graphics. Yeah, I don't think it would be any fun either... but it was
>> a "text only" game. The actual name may be something like Lunar LEM Rocket
>> or something, but people called it Lunar Lander and it represented landing
>> the LEM on the moon.
>
> Back in the 1970s all we had were text only games, intended for use
> on a Teletype.
>
> Some folks published calendars with a different game for every month.
>
> The HP 2000 had a neat MAZE program. It was originally limited to
> fairly small mazes, but it was easily modified to create a very long
> maze, almost impossible to solve.
>
> Seems that every kid who knew BASIC and took physics class wrote some
> sort of game, utilizing his newly learned equations. In essence,
> the user would match calculation skills with the computer in firing
> a rocket or cannon.
>
> I think bitsavers has some books full of BASIC games, although it is just
> the listing, which would have to be typed in.
>
That is a loss.
--
greymaus
.
.
....
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310180 is a reply to message #310135] |
Wed, 27 January 2016 17:31 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> wrote:
> The former* MARCH (Mid-Atlantic Retro Computing Hobbyists -- 2005-2015)
> provided most of the computers EXCEPT those in the FBI set to "The
> Americans" when the show began four years ago. MARCH also provided a few
> small updates as the show progressed.
>
> The back story is, Americans prop staff approached MARCH (of which I was
> president) through mutual friends. The had already purchased the FBI set
> stuff, along with a couple of PETs. We told them those weren't the
> smartest choices :) so they asked how to best use what they already had.
> We advised them to put the PETs in the travel agency set and that the FBI
> set would be tolerable... we then provided another couple of PETs to
> finish their travel agency, all of the DEC terminals, and some randoms
> printers and stuff. They wanted hulking IBM mainframe tape drives, which
> we couldn't provide (and wouldn't even if we had them), so those are just
> made-up props. We were not involved in the construction. For season three
> we also helped them get a Commodore 64 and stuff.
>
> We also provided computers for Halt & Catch Fire; National Geographic
> TV's Jobs v. Gates episode; and an upcoming major Hollywood blockbuster
> (sorry, I'm under NDA).
>
> * In its place, I and others formed the Vintage Computer Federation,
> which is is a 501c3 non-profit. "VCF" (get it?) is national in scope and
> immediately formed a Mid-Atlantic chapter. The old MARCH already owned
> the Vintage Computer Festival East. Vintage Computer Festival founder
> Sellam Ismail donated rights to the Vintage Computer Festival West. (All
> other Festivals remain independent.) Meanwhile, Erik Klein donated his
> Vintage Computer Forum (web integration is almost finished). Thus, the
> new group -- an IRS-sanctioned non-profit, no longer just individuals --
> now operates VCF East/West, the VC Forum, and chapters such as the legacy
> MARCH. Web site is under construction, but you can see what's there so
> far at www.vcfed.org.
>
Very interesting, thank you.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310221 is a reply to message #310135] |
Thu, 28 January 2016 05:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: RS Wood
On 2016-01-27, Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> wrote:
> The former* MARCH (Mid-Atlantic Retro Computing Hobbyists --
> 2005-2015) provided most of the computers EXCEPT those in the FBI set
> to "The Americans" when the show began four years ago. MARCH also
> provided a few small updates as the show progressed.
This is fantastic information, thank you. (Had wondered why any travel
agent would have a PET on their desk. Fun computer, but not overly
business-friendly at the time ... can only assume they're not accessing
SABRE with it).
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310235 is a reply to message #310221] |
Thu, 28 January 2016 10:26 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 3:17:09 AM UTC-7, RS Wood wrote:
> This is fantastic information, thank you. (Had wondered why any travel
> agent would have a PET on their desk. Fun computer, but not overly
> business-friendly at the time ... can only assume they're not accessing
> SABRE with it).
While I don't recall anything like that being done, a PET probably would be
capable of running a 2741 emulator, even if a 3270 emulator would be far beyond
its capabilities.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310237 is a reply to message #310221] |
Thu, 28 January 2016 11:36 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2016-01-27, Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The former* MARCH (Mid-Atlantic Retro Computing Hobbyists --
>> 2005-2015) provided most of the computers EXCEPT those in the FBI set
>> to "The Americans" when the show began four years ago. MARCH also
>> provided a few small updates as the show progressed.
>
> This is fantastic information, thank you. (Had wondered why any travel
> agent would have a PET on their desk. Fun computer, but not overly
> business-friendly at the time ... can only assume they're not accessing
> SABRE with it).
>
Odd things happened.
Even 20 years ago, one venue here was using an Atari ST for it's ticket
booth. I assume they got in "early" and there was a whole package using
that computer and specific software, so they had to keep using it later
than intended. There was a time when you could see Radio Shack Model 100
laptops in McDonalds, doing something, again probably a package using
sofware specifically for the whatever it was doing.
So maybe a PET was used somewhere because of the IEEE-488 buss. I can't
see why that would fit into a travel agency, but since the PET had it
built in, it was a way to get a "cheap controller" for such peripherals.
If there was special hardware that needed it, so long as the PET met other
requirements, I can see someone creating a package and selling the
computer with the software. And the PET did have a built in terminal at a
time when that wasn't so common, which might have been an advantage.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310240 is a reply to message #310160] |
Thu, 28 January 2016 11:49 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2016-01-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:32:55 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Strangly enough, John, there were implementations of Lunar Lander that had
>>> *no* graphics. Yeah, I don't think it would be any fun either... but it was
>>> a "text only" game. The actual name may be something like Lunar LEM Rocket
>>> or something, but people called it Lunar Lander and it represented landing
>>> the LEM on the moon.
>>
>> Back in the 1970s all we had were text only games, intended for use
>> on a Teletype.
>>
>> Some folks published calendars with a different game for every month.
>>
>> The HP 2000 had a neat MAZE program. It was originally limited to
>> fairly small mazes, but it was easily modified to create a very long
>> maze, almost impossible to solve.
>>
>> Seems that every kid who knew BASIC and took physics class wrote some
>> sort of game, utilizing his newly learned equations. In essence,
>> the user would match calculation skills with the computer in firing
>> a rocket or cannon.
>>
>> I think bitsavers has some books full of BASIC games, although it is just
>> the listing, which would have to be typed in.
>>
>
> That is a loss.
>
They could fix that. If anyone actually typing in a game could send a
copy that would become downloadable, then maybe eventually all the
programs would be keyed in.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310244 is a reply to message #310067] |
Thu, 28 January 2016 13:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Jack Myers
In alt.folklore.computers Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> wrote:
> with <n85jju$15lh$1@miucha.iecc.com> John Levine wrote:
>> At computer conferences in the 1970s I saw a clone of a DEC computer
>> made in Hungary, and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of
>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in
>> the U.S.
> BESM was true home-made (with hilarity):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM .
> While clone of S360 was ESEVM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM .
In 1978 we hired a recent refugee from Russia at a PPOE. He arrived on
the job with a thick computer reference book for a research computer
He carried it out in his luggage. The book covered the whole gamut from
digital circuitry, architecture, hw/sw interfaces, macro programming,
software system design, and on to high-level languages.
If you were restricted to just one S/360 reference, that would be
the one to own.
--
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward.
- Lewis Carroll
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310247 is a reply to message #310221] |
Thu, 28 January 2016 13:31 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 5:17:09 AM UTC-5, RS Wood wrote:
> This is fantastic information, thank you. (Had wondered why any travel
> agent would have a PET on their desk. Fun computer, but not overly
> business-friendly at the time ... can only assume they're not accessing
> SABRE with it).
I presume the travel agent's computer terminal prop was based on what
was affordably available to the show and more or less represented the
era, not on technical accuracy. There is only so much time and budget
for the prop department to get stuff, they want something fast and
cheap that will look good on TV.
A close examination of this show, or any TV show or movie, for technical
accuracy will yield a great many errors. Indeed, when computers are or
were shown in a production, often components of different manufacturers
were mixed together in a mish-mosh.
For instance, scenes on a TV show are often filmed on different days.
They try to be consistent from day to day with props, but sometimes
they're off. Very often, in what the viewer sees as a single scene,
the character is using different models of telephone sets. 99% of
viewers wouldn't notice it at all, but a telephone collector would.
Likewise with trains--the 'same' train could be shown with different
locomotives of different railroads.
In the case of "The Americans", it is filmed in the NYC area, even
though some subplots take place in the Soviet Union or other cities.
One urban scene was very clearly in Queens, NYC, under the No. 7
elevated, yet was supposed to be in Philadelphia (they didn't bother
to change the street signs). One railroad station scene was supposed
to be in Russia, but was an LIRR station with a few Russian posters.
(Some movie, taking place in NYC, was filmed in Phila, and they did
change the street signs and subway station signs, making 22nd &
Market in Phila look like Sixth Ave in NYC).
|
|
|
|
| Re: DEC and The Americans [message #310271 is a reply to message #310071] |
Thu, 28 January 2016 16:32 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:1808a3ce-8759-457d-9a03-30e4b15c520b@googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
>
> I think bitsavers has some books full of BASIC games, although it is just
> the listing, which would have to be typed in.
>
That's how we "real programmers" got most of our BASIC computer games back
in the 70s... we "fat fingered" the games in ourselves!!! Sure, it was a
lot of work... but when you had the game typed in, then you had the game!
Do *not* be afraid of a little work!!! ;-)
I remember typing a 2 kilobyte Tiny Basic into my minimal Motorola 6800
system in *hex*!!! And it worked, too!!! If you have a small system and
*no* access to an assembler, and you *really* want that software... the work
is takes to "fat finger" the stuff in can be accepted. I also typed in FIG
Forth from a listing... typing in the hex and relocating the addresses as I
went.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
