|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365823 is a reply to message #365800] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 13:55   |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-29, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.
When a PPOE ordered a batch of personal computers, the pattern was
predictable. The managers got the biggest, most powerful machines
with the largest screens, even though they hardly touched them
(gotta have the status symbol, doncha know). As a programmer I
got a medium-sized machine. Our poor data entry clerk, being at
the bottom of the totem pole, got the smallest machine, with a
crappy little screen, even though she was using it more heavily
than anyone. (She really wasn't treated very nicely. Several
times she stormed out of the office in tears. One day she never
came back. Mind you, given the management invasion in progress
at the time, many of us - in all departments - walked eventually.)
--
/~\ 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: Old word processors [message #365825 is a reply to message #365790] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 13:55 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On our Univac 90/30, we had a film ribbon which we used from
> time to time to produce a directory that was photocopied. But
> the printer of the 90/30 was pretty crappy and even with a film
> ribbon the output looked lousy, indeed even worse, such as with
> only partly formed characters. Our office had a mag card, and
> that should've been used instead to maintain the directory, even
> if it meant duplicate typing.
Our 90/30 wrote a tape that we sent to a phototypesetting bureau.
One day we discovered that the bureau had closed down. However,
we had an old Laserwriter kicking around (God knows where it came
from). I bought and studied the PostScript manuals, and modified
our program to write PostScript to a disk file. We downloaded the
file to a personal computer, hung the laser printer on its serialo
port, and presto - camera-ready copy.
There's something about having a COBOL program write PostScript
that appealed to my sense of perversity.
--
/~\ 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: Old word processors [message #365826 is a reply to message #365797] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 13:55 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-28, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> My "E"s go away too on cheap keyboards. My current one is a Logitech
>>> gamer board with double-shot keys like IBM used to use. Those don't
>>> have that problem.
>>
>> Does it have a mark on the F and J keys?
>
> I don't recall encountering a keyboard in the last 30 years or so that
> did not have such a mark.
They exist. They're not nice.
--
/~\ 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: Old word processors [message #365827 is a reply to message #365823] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 14:14 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 29 Mar 2018 17:55:47 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2018-03-29, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>
>> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
>> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
>> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
>> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
>> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
>> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
>> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
>> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.
>
> When a PPOE ordered a batch of personal computers, the pattern was
> predictable. The managers got the biggest, most powerful machines
> with the largest screens, even though they hardly touched them
> (gotta have the status symbol, doncha know). As a programmer I
> got a medium-sized machine. Our poor data entry clerk, being at
> the bottom of the totem pole, got the smallest machine, with a
> crappy little screen, even though she was using it more heavily
> than anyone. (She really wasn't treated very nicely. Several
> times she stormed out of the office in tears. One day she never
> came back. Mind you, given the management invasion in progress
> at the time, many of us - in all departments - walked eventually.)
When we first got 386s, with math co-processor, in the computer lab
for a GKS and AutoCAD class, one of the Ph.Ds told me to put one in
his office. I smiled and said no.
He tried to make me, I laughed at him. He stomped out. The dean came
back with him. The dean pointed to the computer told the Ph.D to keep
his hands off. I smiled again. The Ph.D stomped out, the dean asked me
why I was smiling. I told him if he had grabbed one I was going to
have him arrested as I had been told under no circumstances were those
computers to leave that room.
Its possible the dean thought I was joking when I said I been about to
drop one of them on the foot of the thief. I wasn't. They were only
paying me minimum wage, but I don't like criminals.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365833 is a reply to message #365826] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 16:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:55:49 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-03-28, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> My "E"s go away too on cheap keyboards. My current one is a Logitech
>>>> gamer board with double-shot keys like IBM used to use. Those don't
>>>> have that problem.
>>>
>>> Does it have a mark on the F and J keys?
>>
>> I don't recall encountering a keyboard in the last 30 years or so that
>> did not have such a mark.
>
> They exist. They're not nice.
The IBM Model M doesn't have a mark. But those two keys are slightly more
'dished'. At least on some of them.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365834 is a reply to message #365809] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 16:44 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/2018 8:46 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes:
>>> On 27 Mar 2018 07:56:31 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Which is why my wife and mother, both of whom worked as secretaries at
>>>> one point, learned to type to music. On typewriters with blank keycaps
>>>> (no point in looking at the keyboard, that way). Indeed, on my Mother's
>>>> current PC keyboard, most of the keycaps at the left hand end have worn
>>>> away, but she has no trouble using it, whereas I find it nearly
>>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> Not a customer for Das Keyboard then.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Keyboard
>>>
>>> On my keyboards, the E tends to wear away. On my current
>>> keyboard, there is but the shadow of the letter on the key. Some
>>> other keys are also showing significant wear. I had not noticed
>>> previously, but they are all on the left side (C, S, D, A in declining
>>> wear).
>>>
>> On my keyboards, the 'L' and 'C' keys are the first to go (and are completely
>> blank now). Very little remains of the '>', '?' 'M', 'N' and 'K' key legends.
>>
>
> On some older typewriters, the keycaps are metal rings around the edge
> with clear plastic in the middle. Underneath the plastic is a paper
> with the letter or graphic printed on the paper. So your finger does
> *not* touch the actual imprint of the letter or graphic...
>
>
>
Now that *is* old. I used to have an old manual portable like that. Can't
recall the name, but I did a lot of schoolwork on it.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365838 is a reply to message #365834] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 17:01 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:44:28 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 3/28/2018 8:46 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes:
>>>> On 27 Mar 2018 07:56:31 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> > Which is why my wife and mother, both of whom worked as secretaries at
>>>> > one point, learned to type to music. On typewriters with blank keycaps
>>>> > (no point in looking at the keyboard, that way). Indeed, on my Mother's
>>>> > current PC keyboard, most of the keycaps at the left hand end have worn
>>>> > away, but she has no trouble using it, whereas I find it nearly
>>>> > impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Not a customer for Das Keyboard then.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Keyboard
>>>>
>>>> On my keyboards, the E tends to wear away. On my current
>>>> keyboard, there is but the shadow of the letter on the key. Some
>>>> other keys are also showing significant wear. I had not noticed
>>>> previously, but they are all on the left side (C, S, D, A in declining
>>>> wear).
>>>>
>>> On my keyboards, the 'L' and 'C' keys are the first to go (and are completely
>>> blank now). Very little remains of the '>', '?' 'M', 'N' and 'K' key legends.
>>>
>>
>> On some older typewriters, the keycaps are metal rings around the edge
>> with clear plastic in the middle. Underneath the plastic is a paper
>> with the letter or graphic printed on the paper. So your finger does
>> *not* touch the actual imprint of the letter or graphic...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Now that *is* old. I used to have an old manual portable like that. Can't
> recall the name, but I did a lot of schoolwork on it.
My grandmother's Royale Quiet Deluxe had such keys. She bought it
about 1950.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365839 is a reply to message #365781] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 17:13 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:58 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-28, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 27 Mar 2018 07:56:31 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Which is why my wife and mother, both of whom worked as secretaries
>>>> at one point, learned to type to music. On typewriters with blank
>>>> keycaps (no point in looking at the keyboard, that way). Indeed, on
>>>> my Mother's current PC keyboard, most of the keycaps at the left
>>>> hand end have worn away, but she has no trouble using it, whereas I
>>>> find it nearly impossible.
>>>
>>> Not a customer for Das Keyboard then.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Keyboard
>>>
>>> On my keyboards, the E tends to wear away. On my current
>>> keyboard, there is but the shadow of the letter on the key. Some
>>> other keys are also showing significant wear. I had not noticed
>>> previously, but they are all on the left side (C, S, D, A in
>>> declining wear).
>>
>> On my keyboards, the 'L' and 'C' keys are the first to go (and are
>> completely blank now). Very little remains of the '>', '?' 'M', 'N'
>> and 'K' key legends.
>
> For what it's worth, my main keyboard (an IBM-branded unit which I've
> used heavily for years - non-clicky keys, though) is showing wear on
> A, S, C, D, E, R, T, N, J, and L. Go figure.
>
My numlock key is the dirtiest, followed by Pause and Scroll lock.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365843 is a reply to message #365833] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 19:10 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-29, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:55:49 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-28, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > My "E"s go away too on cheap keyboards. My current one is a Logitech
>>>> > gamer board with double-shot keys like IBM used to use. Those don't
>>>> > have that problem.
>>>>
>>>> Does it have a mark on the F and J keys?
>>>
>>> I don't recall encountering a keyboard in the last 30 years or so that
>>> did not have such a mark.
>>
>> They exist. They're not nice.
>
> The IBM Model M doesn't have a mark. But those two keys are slightly more
> 'dished'. At least on some of them.
Another variation I've seen is to dish the D and K keys. Oh well, at least
it's something...
--
/~\ 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: Old word processors [message #365844 is a reply to message #365834] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 19:10 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-29, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> On some older typewriters, the keycaps are metal rings around the edge
>> with clear plastic in the middle. Underneath the plastic is a paper
>> with the letter or graphic printed on the paper. So your finger does
>> *not* touch the actual imprint of the letter or graphic...
>
> Now that *is* old. I used to have an old manual portable like that. Can't
> recall the name, but I did a lot of schoolwork on it.
I remember seeing those. I once saw one where the papers were blank:
an early version of Das Keyboard that was mentioned here recently.
--
/~\ 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: Old word processors [message #365845 is a reply to message #365843] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 19:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:10:26 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-03-29, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:55:49 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-28, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> My "E"s go away too on cheap keyboards. My current one is a
>>>> >> Logitech gamer board with double-shot keys like IBM used to use.
>>>> >> Those don't have that problem.
>>>> >
>>>> > Does it have a mark on the F and J keys?
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall encountering a keyboard in the last 30 years or so
>>>> that did not have such a mark.
>>>
>>> They exist. They're not nice.
>>
>> The IBM Model M doesn't have a mark. But those two keys are slightly
>> more 'dished'. At least on some of them.
>
> Another variation I've seen is to dish the D and K keys. Oh well, at
> least it's something...
Having said that, one of my later Model Ms does have a mark! I'm using it
now.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365846 is a reply to message #365800] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 19:48 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:09:21 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.
When PCs came out, every manager wanted one for the prestige
of it, and also wanted the better models (faster chip). The
people who actually did work got stuck with the lesser models.
So a manager would have a nice AT that never got touched, while
the clerk pounding away all day had the XT.
As to terminals, I think most places started off with a
terminal room where the terminals were shared among a large
staff of programmers. Then as the cost dropped, more and
more programmers got them. For us, it was in 1989 that
finally every programmer got a terminal.
One welcome terminal feature (I think provided by the controller)
was the ability to get multiple sessions and easily toggle between
them. This way a programmer could look at his source code and
then the execution on CICS.
(Another welcome feature was software that allowed one to step
through execution of a CICS program, being able to look at results
of each line and of all the fields. We had both the IBM product
and the one from an independent vendor.)
> other trivia: PROFS group had collecting some number of internal
> applications (including telephone books) and wrapping MENUs around
> them. They had taken very early version of VMSG for the email
> client. When the VMSG tried to offer them a much enhanced version, the
> PROFS group attempted to get him fired (since they had already claimed
> credit for everyting). Things quieted down when VMSG author
> demonstrated that every PROFS email had his initials in non-displayed
> field (after that the VMSG author only shared source with me and one
> other person).
Our corporate phone book was also on PROFS. Most useful.
I liked PROFS, and used it until it was unplugged. Others liked
the PC email packages.
It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
new. Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs. The S/360 development had a
lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.
Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
spurs people onward. Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
liked to purposely shake things up in the company. Personally,
I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
are best worked out at a low level when possible.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365851 is a reply to message #365846] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 20:58 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#15 Old word processors
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
> seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
> new. Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
> Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs. The S/360 development had a
> lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.
I've told the story before about the Gov. antitrust (turns out one of
the IBM people at the science center had relative that was MIT
economist(?) that was at the trial) ... where various members of the
bunch all testified that by the end of the 50s, all computer companies
knew that the single most important customer requirement was compatible
computer line (beginning of rapid growth in computer use ... so
projecting lots of upgrading) ... and only IBM top executives managed to
enforce it (none of the top executives at bunch managed to force plant
managers for various product lines to toe the line) ... compatible
product line was more important than features for any particular model.
in the wake of failure FS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
there was mad rush to get stuff back into product pipelines,
3033 & 3081 kicked off in parallel
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm
3033 started out 168-3 logic mapped to 20% faster chips.
4341 (endicott) came out in 1979, a little after 3033 (POK) ... but
cluster of 4341s was much cheaper than 3033, much more powerful
aggregate computing, much less aggregate footprint and
environmentals. Head of POK was apparently so threatened that at one
point managed to get allocation for critical 4341 manufacturing
component cut in half.
then there is my oft repeated tale about late 80s, a senior disk
engineer got a talk scheduled at internal, world-wide, annual,
communication group conference ... supposedly on 3174 performance
.... however he opened his talk with the statement that the head of the
communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the
disk division. The issue was that the communication group had
stranglehold on datacenters with corporate strategic ownership of
everything that crossed datacenter walls and were fiercely fighting off
distributed computing and client/server, trying to preserve their dumb
terminal paradigm and install base. The disk division was seeing data
fleeing datacenters to more distributed computing friendly platforms
with fall in disk sales. The disk division had come up with a number of
solution to address the opportunity, but they were constantly being
vetoed by the communication group. The mainframe datacenter stranglehold
wasn't just affecting disk sales and a few years later the company goes
into the red.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365852 is a reply to message #365844] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 21:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 29 Mar 2018 23:10:27 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2018-03-29, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On some older typewriters, the keycaps are metal rings around the edge
>>> with clear plastic in the middle. Underneath the plastic is a paper
>>> with the letter or graphic printed on the paper. So your finger does
>>> *not* touch the actual imprint of the letter or graphic...
>>
>> Now that *is* old. I used to have an old manual portable like that. Can't
>> recall the name, but I did a lot of schoolwork on it.
>
> I remember seeing those. I once saw one where the papers were blank:
> an early version of Das Keyboard that was mentioned here recently.
The manual Royals that we used in junior high school typing class were
like that--metal rings with clear plastic in the middle and since it
was a typing class no letters were marked.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365853 is a reply to message #365823] |
Thu, 29 March 2018 21:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 29 Mar 2018 17:55:47 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2018-03-29, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>
>> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
>> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
>> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
>> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
>> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
>> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
>> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
>> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.
>
> When a PPOE ordered a batch of personal computers, the pattern was
> predictable. The managers got the biggest, most powerful machines
> with the largest screens, even though they hardly touched them
> (gotta have the status symbol, doncha know). As a programmer I
> got a medium-sized machine. Our poor data entry clerk, being at
> the bottom of the totem pole, got the smallest machine, with a
> crappy little screen, even though she was using it more heavily
> than anyone. (She really wasn't treated very nicely. Several
> times she stormed out of the office in tears. One day she never
> came back. Mind you, given the management invasion in progress
> at the time, many of us - in all departments - walked eventually.)
For us upgrades happen when people leave. It takes the IT department
a few days to come retrieve the pieces and as long as all the pieces
are there they don't really care about the details, so the best of
whatever was there gets swapped for the worst that anybody in the area
was using and slowly systems get upgraded.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365864 is a reply to message #365846] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 09:45 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:09:21 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>
>
>> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
>> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
>> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
>> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
>> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
>> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
>> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
>> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.
>
> When PCs came out, every manager wanted one for the prestige
> of it, and also wanted the better models (faster chip). The
> people who actually did work got stuck with the lesser models.
> So a manager would have a nice AT that never got touched, while
> the clerk pounding away all day had the XT.
>
> As to terminals, I think most places started off with a
> terminal room where the terminals were shared among a large
> staff of programmers. Then as the cost dropped, more and
> more programmers got them. For us, it was in 1989 that
> finally every programmer got a terminal.
>
> One welcome terminal feature (I think provided by the controller)
> was the ability to get multiple sessions and easily toggle between
> them. This way a programmer could look at his source code and
> then the execution on CICS.
>
> (Another welcome feature was software that allowed one to step
> through execution of a CICS program, being able to look at results
> of each line and of all the fields. We had both the IBM product
> and the one from an independent vendor.)
>
>
>> other trivia: PROFS group had collecting some number of internal
>> applications (including telephone books) and wrapping MENUs around
>> them. They had taken very early version of VMSG for the email
>> client. When the VMSG tried to offer them a much enhanced version, the
>> PROFS group attempted to get him fired (since they had already claimed
>> credit for everyting). Things quieted down when VMSG author
>> demonstrated that every PROFS email had his initials in non-displayed
>> field (after that the VMSG author only shared source with me and one
>> other person).
>
> Our corporate phone book was also on PROFS. Most useful.
>
> I liked PROFS, and used it until it was unplugged. Others liked
> the PC email packages.
>
> It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
> seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
> new. Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
> Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs. The S/360 development had a
> lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.
>
> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
> spurs people onward. Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
> liked to purposely shake things up in the company. Personally,
> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
>
That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of lemmings
marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365865 is a reply to message #365843] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 10:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 29 Mar 2018 23:10:26 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2018-03-29, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:55:49 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-28, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> My "E"s go away too on cheap keyboards. My current one is a Logitech
>>>> >> gamer board with double-shot keys like IBM used to use. Those don't
>>>> >> have that problem.
>>>> >
>>>> > Does it have a mark on the F and J keys?
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall encountering a keyboard in the last 30 years or so that
>>>> did not have such a mark.
>>>
>>> They exist. They're not nice.
>>
>> The IBM Model M doesn't have a mark. But those two keys are slightly more
>> 'dished'. At least on some of them.
>
> Another variation I've seen is to dish the D and K keys. Oh well, at least
> it's something...
We had several different 'standard 101 key' keyboards hooked up to our
ms-dos computers at university in 1987. Some had an underline, some an
asterisk/*, and some a raised dot; all on different keys. But they
were all on the home row.
My curreny keyboard has an underline at the bottom of the F and J
keys.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365866 is a reply to message #365833] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 11:18 |
Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> J Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> hancock4 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it have a mark on the F and J keys?
>>>
>>> I don't recall encountering a keyboard in the last 30 years or so
>>> that did not have such a mark.
>>
>> They exist. They're not nice.
>
> The IBM Model M doesn't have a mark.
Both of mine (late 80's vintage) have 'bars' under the F and J
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365868 is a reply to message #365864] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 13:47 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-30, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
>> spurs people onward. Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
>> liked to purposely shake things up in the company. Personally,
>> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
>> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
>>
>
> That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of
> lemmings marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.
Unless you're the head lemming with a golden parachute to deploy
as you go over the edge.
--
/~\ 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: Old word processors [message #365871 is a reply to message #365868] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 14:18 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2018-03-30, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
>>> spurs people onward. Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
>>> liked to purposely shake things up in the company. Personally,
>>> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
>>> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
>>>
>>
>> That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of
>> lemmings marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.
>
> Unless you're the head lemming with a golden parachute to deploy
> as you go over the edge.
Actually, a herd of lemmings marching off a cliff is generally a
good thing (for the population of lemmings as a whole :-) albeit
a common misconception.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365872 is a reply to message #365871] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 14:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 18:18:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> On 2018-03-30, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
>>>> spurs people onward. Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
>>>> liked to purposely shake things up in the company. Personally,
>>>> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
>>>> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of
>>> lemmings marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.
>>
>> Unless you're the head lemming with a golden parachute to deploy
>> as you go over the edge.
>
> Actually, a herd of lemmings marching off a cliff is generally a
> good thing (for the population of lemmings as a whole :-) albeit
> a common misconception.
Yup, the 'natural world' photographers who sold that film to Disney
were found to have faked much of the footage. That includes the
lemmings annual jump off the cliff and drowning.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365874 is a reply to message #365846] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 15:50 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:09:21 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> other trivia: PROFS group had collecting some number of internal
>> applications (including telephone books) and wrapping MENUs around
>> them. They had taken very early version of VMSG for the email
>> client. When the VMSG tried to offer them a much enhanced version, the
>> PROFS group attempted to get him fired (since they had already claimed
>> credit for everyting). Things quieted down when VMSG author
>> demonstrated that every PROFS email had his initials in non-displayed
>> field (after that the VMSG author only shared source with me and one
>> other person).
>
> Our corporate phone book was also on PROFS. Most useful.
>
> I liked PROFS, and used it until it was unplugged. Others liked
> the PC email packages.
I liked PROFS, a little, but I felt the screens were designed
poorly.
Of course, with ISPF, it's pretty simple to put your own screens
in place of the ones supplied by IBM which is just what I did.
Mainly, I made sure to use all 7 colors available instead of
the 4 colors IBM insisted on using. Why IBM never adopted the
standard of underlining column headers was mystery to me which
I fixed too. A bit of reverse image, better compaction of
information and alignment and PROFS looked pretty good.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365878 is a reply to message #365769] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 15:58 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On 28 Mar 2018 03:17:00 GMT
> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> and also 386BSD stalled for a while as the author had in mind more
>> of a teaching tool than a supported, stable system and things didn't
>> take off for FreeBSD & NetBSD until it was forked.
>
> Yes, I discovered the BSDs shortly after the fork (1993) after
> trying Linux (bought on floppies) and finding it OK but not good enough for
> what I wanted. It was confusing 386BSD, BSD386, NetBSD, FreeBSD were all
> talked about with some people managing to mix up the first two (one was
> commercial for the 386) - I wound up asking on USENET and getting a good
> answer (even if it did claim that Linux was a toy).
I got my first intro to Unix in '89, realized immediately that this
was where I wanted to go. But there appeard to be a mare's nest of
legal and technical penc around the whole BSD shebang. I had remote
access to Unix so I kept putting it off. Didn't want to have to
figure out all the gnarly details of the conflict.
In '99 my Unix access threatened to go away so I bought a used Intel
486 machine and moved to Linux. Haven't looked back since. (Well,
except that my very first shot was Caldera Linux from a CD in a Great
Fat Book. That lasted only long enough to figure out how to get and
install Slackware.)
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365881 is a reply to message #365878] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 16:36 |
ted@loft.tnolan.com (
Messages: 161
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <874lkxibcu.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On 28 Mar 2018 03:17:00 GMT
>> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>> and also 386BSD stalled for a while as the author had in mind more
>>> of a teaching tool than a supported, stable system and things didn't
>>> take off for FreeBSD & NetBSD until it was forked.
>>
>> Yes, I discovered the BSDs shortly after the fork (1993) after
>> trying Linux (bought on floppies) and finding it OK but not good enough for
>> what I wanted. It was confusing 386BSD, BSD386, NetBSD, FreeBSD were all
>> talked about with some people managing to mix up the first two (one was
>> commercial for the 386) - I wound up asking on USENET and getting a good
>> answer (even if it did claim that Linux was a toy).
>
> I got my first intro to Unix in '89, realized immediately that this
> was where I wanted to go. But there appeard to be a mare's nest of
> legal and technical penc around the whole BSD shebang. I had remote
> access to Unix so I kept putting it off. Didn't want to have to
> figure out all the gnarly details of the conflict.
>
> In '99 my Unix access threatened to go away so I bought a used Intel
> 486 machine and moved to Linux. Haven't looked back since. (Well,
> except that my very first shot was Caldera Linux from a CD in a Great
> Fat Book. That lasted only long enough to figure out how to get and
> install Slackware.)
>
I have always run FreeBSD at home, but professionally, it always seems to
be Linux on the job (after it stopped being Sun). It didn't have to be
that way (and FreeBSD ran some major sites at one time I think) but that's
the way it's fallen out.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365882 is a reply to message #365878] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 16:44 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2018 16:58:57 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> I got my first intro to Unix in '89, realized immediately that this
> was where I wanted to go. But there appeard to be a mare's nest of
> legal and technical penc around the whole BSD shebang. I had remote
> access to Unix so I kept putting it off. Didn't want to have to
> figure out all the gnarly details of the conflict.
>
> In '99 my Unix access threatened to go away so I bought a used Intel
> 486 machine and moved to Linux. Haven't looked back since. (Well,
> except that my very first shot was Caldera Linux from a CD in a Great
> Fat Book. That lasted only long enough to figure out how to get and
> install Slackware.)
Here it's the other way round. I used Linux since 1998 (yeah, late bloomer ;-)
and still use it today, like writing this article on it. But I also
looked into some BSD distributions and have one on a another hard disk
partition ready to boot.
--
Andreas
My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365885 is a reply to message #365851] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 17:14 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 8:58:35 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
>> seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
>> new. Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
>> Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs. The S/360 development had a
>> lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.
>
> I've told the story before about the Gov. antitrust (turns out one of
> the IBM people at the science center had relative that was MIT
> economist(?) that was at the trial) ... where various members of the
> bunch all testified that by the end of the 50s, all computer companies
> knew that the single most important customer requirement was compatible
> computer line (beginning of rapid growth in computer use ... so
> projecting lots of upgrading) ... and only IBM top executives managed to
> enforce it (none of the top executives at bunch managed to force plant
> managers for various product lines to toe the line) ... compatible
> product line was more important than features for any particular model.
From what I've read, creating a compatible product line across
all four modes* in 1960 would require a lot of compromises that
would downgrade performance and increase cost. In 1960, computer
hardware was still extremely expensive, not that fast, so including
circuits to do unwanted functions was an unnecessary expense. Indeed,
even in the early days of S/360 and even PC's, floating point was an
optional feature. The addressing needs on a small machine are different
than a large machine; S/360 base+displacement was a compromise.
* Small business-oriented, large business, small science/engineering,
large sci/eng. Each type of orientation requires specific hardware.
Anyway, the product managers were expected to develop cost-effective
competitively priced hardware, which countered the goal of
compatibility. I can't blame them for being resistant; their
futures were threatened.
Note that the 1410/7010 wasn't exactly compatible with the 1401;
one had to throw a switch to run 1401 programs.
[snip]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365886 is a reply to message #365864] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 17:20 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:45:15 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
>> spurs people onward. Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
>> liked to purposely shake things up in the company. Personally,
>> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
>> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
> That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of lemmings
> marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.
Good point.
IMHO, good management is like parenting--you have to find the
optimum balance between too much and too little control. You want
people to grow and thrive, but, as you said, they do have to be
going in the right direction.
At Los Alamos during WW II, Gen. Groves was fanatic about everyone,
even high scientists, doing only their assigned work and nothing
else. Part of this was for security, but he felt that any digression
from assigned tasks was an unnecessary waste of time. Groves was not
popular, and even during wartime, I don't think I'd use his style
of management. (Despite all his security, there were some critical
leaks, and some badly needed good ideas came from outside the project
thanks to luck, such as the Navy's steam diffusion effort.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365887 is a reply to message #365853] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 17:22 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 9:42:01 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> For us upgrades happen when people leave. It takes the IT department
> a few days to come retrieve the pieces and as long as all the pieces
> are there they don't really care about the details, so the best of
> whatever was there gets swapped for the worst that anybody in the area
> was using and slowly systems get upgraded.
Our IT department takes away the hardware and shuts down the person's
account on or before the worker's last day. Also, the departing
worker must sign his life away in confidentiality, non-compete, and
conflict of interest forms.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365899 is a reply to message #365885] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 21:30 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Note that the 1410/7010 wasn't exactly compatible with the 1401;
> one had to throw a switch to run 1401 programs.
The only 1410 I programmed was under emulation so by then
the 2 different modes were a software issue.
With the original hardware, I assume, not that big a deal.
You had to press a lot of buttons to run a job anyway.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365906 is a reply to message #365885] |
Fri, 30 March 2018 22:29 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> From what I've read, creating a compatible product line across
> all four modes* in 1960 would require a lot of compromises that
> would downgrade performance and increase cost. In 1960, computer
> hardware was still extremely expensive, not that fast, so including
> circuits to do unwanted functions was an unnecessary expense. Indeed,
> even in the early days of S/360 and even PC's, floating point was an
> optional feature. The addressing needs on a small machine are different
> than a large machine; S/360 base+displacement was a compromise.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#15 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#16 Old word processors
claim was that in that emerging computing market, compatibility
outweighed model performance advantage.
majority of 360s were microprogrammed ... so it wasn't all those
circuits.
don't know much about 360 microprogramming ... a little more about
115-II/125-II and 138/148. they avg. 10 native instructions for every
(simulated 370).
115/125 was done by boeblingen (germany) ... it was nine-position memory
bus, 115 had all microprocessors the same ... but with different
microcode loads, 370 instruction, controlleres, etc. 125 was the
identical except the processor running 370 instructions was 50% faster
than the others. 115 was about 800kips processor doing 370 at about
80kips (1/10), 125 was about 1.2mips, doing 370 at 120kips. boeblingen
got their hands "slapped" for doing general 9 position memory bus
implementation.
I got sucked into doing design for 5-way 125 smp that had five of the
processors running 370 microcode (that never shipped). some past
posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#bounce
general SMP posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp
about same time, Endicott sucked me into ECPS ... that wanted highest
used 6kbytes of kernel instructions to drop into microcode. following is
study I did ... showing kernel instructions segments sorted by percent
of kernel CPU (6k bytes accounted for 79.55% of kernel CPU execution)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21 370 ECPS VM microcode assist
FS posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
at about same time FS imploded and there was mad rush to get products
back into 370 pipeline ... kick off 3033 and 3081 about the same time
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm
they took 370/158 with integrated channel and removed the 370 microcode
and used 158 engine with just the integrated channel microcode for
external 303x channel director (six channels). A 3031 then was 158
engine with just the 370 microcode and 2nd 158 engine with just the
integrated channel microcode (channel director and a 2-way 3031 smp was
four 158 engines). A 3032 was 168-3 repackaged to use channel
director(s) as external channels (replacing 2860, 2870, 2880). A 3033
then was 168-3 logic remapped to 20% faster chips.
I periodically claimed that father of risc in the mid-70s did risc the
exact opposite of FS (using FS as example of how not to do something).
Circa 1980, 801/risc Iliad was to be the wide variety of internal
microprocessors used in controllers, 370, etc. ... AS/400 followon to
s/36&s/38, 4361&4381 followon toe 4331&4341, etc ... then for various
reasons all these efforts imploded and things returned to standard
customer CISC (and some number of Iliad chip engineers left for risc
projects at other vendors). 801/risc posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801
earlier posts in this thread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#94 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#100 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#103 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#109 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#1 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#7 Old word processors
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365908 is a reply to message #365825] |
Sat, 31 March 2018 01:12 |
Bernd Felsche
Messages: 123
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On our Univac 90/30, we had a film ribbon which we used from
>> time to time to produce a directory that was photocopied. But
>> the printer of the 90/30 was pretty crappy and even with a film
>> ribbon the output looked lousy, indeed even worse, such as with
>> only partly formed characters. Our office had a mag card, and
>> that should've been used instead to maintain the directory, even
>> if it meant duplicate typing.
> Our 90/30 wrote a tape that we sent to a phototypesetting bureau.
> One day we discovered that the bureau had closed down. However,
> we had an old Laserwriter kicking around (God knows where it came
> from). I bought and studied the PostScript manuals, and modified
> our program to write PostScript to a disk file. We downloaded the
> file to a personal computer, hung the laser printer on its serialo
> port, and presto - camera-ready copy.
> There's something about having a COBOL program write PostScript
> that appealed to my sense of perversity.
About a decade go, I noticed that a customer of mine was about to
start printing forms for a manual stocktake of each of their 5
warehouses so the "production" manager was trying to spend every
spare minute that he didn't have, creating forms for each location
in MicroSnot Word. I couldn't bear to watch the suffering so I
hacked a quick program to generate PCL for each warehouse directly,
with a page for each stock location together with part numbers
(nominally at that location) and empty squares for physical counts.
He'd done half a dozen by hand by the time that I'd tested the
program enough for user exposure. Showed him the menu option in
the ERP system and asked him why he wasn't using that. ;-)
He tried it, specifying a small range of local stock locations and
the main printer started printing out sheets at about one per
second.
"Low-hanging fruit" harvested.
They'd been doing it the stupid way for more than 10 years. Just
following their documented procedure manuals.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365975 is a reply to message #365906] |
Mon, 02 April 2018 16:40 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:29:39 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> hancock4@ writes:
>> From what I've read, creating a compatible product line across
>> all four modes* in 1960 would require a lot of compromises that
>> would downgrade performance and increase cost. In 1960, computer
>> hardware was still extremely expensive, not that fast, so including
>> circuits to do unwanted functions was an unnecessary expense. Indeed,
>> even in the early days of S/360 and even PC's, floating point was an
>> optional feature. The addressing needs on a small machine are different
>> than a large machine; S/360 base+displacement was a compromise.
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#15 Old word processors
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#16 Old word processors
>
> claim was that in that emerging computing market, compatibility
> outweighed model performance advantage.
>
> majority of 360s were microprogrammed ... so it wasn't all those
> circuits.
I dare say that if the S/360-30 did not have to be compatible,
it probably could've been a lot cheaper, even with micro-code.
I don't know the innards or functionality of a 1410, but
according to the bitsavers manuals, it had a lot of extra
features that were optional or not even available on the 1401.
I'm only guessing, but I suspect a 1410 built with SLT chips
would've been quite a machine with excellent performance/cost
and quite popular.
Note that even in the "compatible" S/360 line, they built certain
model 2x that were not fully compatible in order to keep the
price down. More significantly, the System/3 line and successors,
had to be built with a totally separate incompatible architecture
in order to keep their price down, and that was in 1970.
On the other end of the line, I don't believe today's IBM
super computers are compatible with the S/360 (Z series).
I'm guessing those who seek supercomputers are not planning
to run their payroll or general ledger on them.
Actually, I do wonder what percentage of S/360 customers did
_both_ business and science/engineering programming on their
machines. I think colleges did a lot of this--the researchers
shared the machine with the business office. But how common
was it for some modest sized business, with their model 30
or model 40, doing some Fortran alongside their payroll?
It just seemed to me that companies that were doing heavy-duty
research that needed a computer got a PDP dedicated to lab
work; some got an 1130. (Obviously there were some organizations
that did both, but how many?)
> don't know much about 360 microprogramming ... a little more about
> 115-II/125-II and 138/148. they avg. 10 native instructions for every
> (simulated 370).
This bitsavers document gives a good introduction:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/GF20-0385-0_An_Introduc tion_to_Microprogramming_Dec71.pdf
[snip]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365980 is a reply to message #365975] |
Mon, 02 April 2018 20:49 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:29:39 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> hancock4@ writes:
>>> From what I've read, creating a compatible product line across
>>> all four modes* in 1960 would require a lot of compromises that
>>> would downgrade performance and increase cost. In 1960, computer
>>> hardware was still extremely expensive, not that fast, so including
>>> circuits to do unwanted functions was an unnecessary expense. Indeed,
>>> even in the early days of S/360 and even PC's, floating point was an
>>> optional feature. The addressing needs on a small machine are different
>>> than a large machine; S/360 base+displacement was a compromise.
>>
>> re:
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#15 Old word processors
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#16 Old word processors
>>
>> claim was that in that emerging computing market, compatibility
>> outweighed model performance advantage.
>>
>> majority of 360s were microprogrammed ... so it wasn't all those
>> circuits.
>
> I dare say that if the S/360-30 did not have to be compatible,
> it probably could've been a lot cheaper, even with micro-code.
>
> I don't know the innards or functionality of a 1410, but
> according to the bitsavers manuals, it had a lot of extra
> features that were optional or not even available on the 1401.
> I'm only guessing, but I suspect a 1410 built with SLT chips
> would've been quite a machine with excellent performance/cost
> and quite popular.
>
> Note that even in the "compatible" S/360 line, they built certain
> model 2x that were not fully compatible in order to keep the
> price down. More significantly, the System/3 line and successors,
> had to be built with a totally separate incompatible architecture
> in order to keep their price down, and that was in 1970.
>
Any machine using a 6-bit code would soon have been obsolete. 36-bit word
machines could switch relatively painlessly to 7-or 9-bit codes, bit the
character size was hardwired into the 14xx machines.
Haanstra wanted to build a machine compatible with some 1400 box using the
SLT developed fir System/360, but he got slapped down.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #366005 is a reply to message #365980] |
Tue, 03 April 2018 16:24 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 8:49:28 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
> <hancock4> wrote:
>> I dare say that if the S/360-30 did not have to be compatible,
>> it probably could've been a lot cheaper, even with micro-code.
>>
>> I don't know the innards or functionality of a 1410, but
>> according to the bitsavers manuals, it had a lot of extra
>> features that were optional or not even available on the 1401.
>> I'm only guessing, but I suspect a 1410 built with SLT chips
>> would've been quite a machine with excellent performance/cost
>> and quite popular.
>>
>> Note that even in the "compatible" S/360 line, they built certain
>> model 2x that were not fully compatible in order to keep the
>> price down. More significantly, the System/3 line and successors,
>> had to be built with a totally separate incompatible architecture
>> in order to keep their price down, and that was in 1970.
> Any machine using a 6-bit code would soon have been obsolete. 36-bit word
> machines could switch relatively painlessly to 7-or 9-bit codes, bit the
> character size was hardwired into the 14xx machines.
> Haanstra wanted to build a machine compatible with some 1400 box using the
> SLT developed fir System/360, but he got slapped down.
In terms of strictly short-term cost, I think a 6 bit machine
would've been quite popular and adequate for many years. After
all, many users continued 1401 emulation for decades. Obviously
individual users varied, but I don't think lower case or other
uses of an expanded code weren't needed until roughly 1980 onward.
But as it turned out, many S/360-model 30 users ended up upgrading to
a better machine, or migrated to low-end S/370, so Haanstra ended
up being wrong and IBM mgmt was right to demand compatibility.
But, as mentioned, IBM eventually had to compromise on that to
introduce the model 20 and the System/3, which were not compatible.
Heck, IBM originally planned for everyone to be on "OS", but that
proved to be too much for the low-end machines to run, so they had
to rush out DOS for the low end machines. DOS (VSE) turned out to
be very popular.
My employer got S/360 technology back in 1967 and programs written
for it back then remained in service for decades, despite many
upgrades of hardware. The compatible architecture really proved
its worth, including a lot of assembler programs that manipulated
bits to fit inside a small memory (converting that stuff to Y2K
was not easy.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #366007 is a reply to message #366005] |
Tue, 03 April 2018 17:08 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> But as it turned out, many S/360-model 30 users ended up upgrading to
> a better machine, or migrated to low-end S/370, so Haanstra ended
> up being wrong and IBM mgmt was right to demand compatibility.
> But, as mentioned, IBM eventually had to compromise on that to
> introduce the model 20 and the System/3, which were not compatible.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#16 Old word processors
SHARE
https://www.share.org/
old case study of fastest growing customer was Amoco Research in Tulsa
that had IBM 1800 and then installed 370/135 with vm370 ... within
something like 18-24(?) months they had multiple 370/168s with vm370.
a big objective of (unix) posix was to free customers from proprietary
hardware ... allowing customers to migrate their posix applications
easily between hardware vendors ... big advances in software technology
and commoditizing hardware.
this was somewhat started in the 80s with startups doing new systems ...
with CPU chips, the cost of system hardware development had dropped
dramatically (leaving system software development the enormous cost).
Using UNIX, then dropped the cost of system software development to more
than the drop in system hardware development.
In parallel with that was IBM/PC market starting from dedicated desktop
and volume allowing players into the market to expand into much of the
rest of the computer market ... although Linux (unix work alike) comes
out of the left field. Full source got the hobby market ... but also got
the expanding cluster supercomputer and cloud megadatacenter market
(... and needing full source for the increasing number of players to
tailor for the new computing system paradigm). Linux with full source
also captures many of the other non-traditional emerging (& rapdidly
growing) computing markets.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #366031 is a reply to message #366005] |
Wed, 04 April 2018 16:36 |
|
|
Originally posted by: rnetzlof
On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 4:24:17 PM UTC-4, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Heck, IBM originally planned for everyone to be on "OS", but that
> proved to be too much for the low-end machines to run, so they had
> to rush out DOS for the low end machines. DOS (VSE) turned out to
> be very popular.
I'm not sure it was that straight-forward. Before DOS there was BPS (Basic Program Support) a card syatem, BOS (Basic Operating System); then TOS (Tape Operating System) as well as DOS. But at the same time, there were OS/360 PCP (Primary Control Program) a card system, OS/360 BCP (Basic Control Program) and the full OS/360.
In time, BPS, BOS, TOS, OS PCP, OS BCP withered away. Eventually DOS became DOS/VS, then DOS/VSE, while OS/360 wandered off into MFT (Multiple Fixed number of Tasks, MVT (Multiple Variable number of Tasks), SVS (Single Virtual Storage) and finally MVS (Multiple Virtual Storage).
Bob Netzlof
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #366033 is a reply to message #366031] |
Wed, 04 April 2018 17:34 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:36:57 -0700 (PDT), rnetzlof@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 4:24:17 PM UTC-4, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Heck, IBM originally planned for everyone to be on "OS", but that
>> proved to be too much for the low-end machines to run, so they had
>> to rush out DOS for the low end machines. DOS (VSE) turned out to
>> be very popular.
>
> I'm not sure it was that straight-forward. Before DOS there was BPS
> (Basic Program Support) a card syatem, BOS (Basic Operating System);
> then TOS (Tape Operating System) as well as DOS. But at the same time,
> there were OS/360 PCP (Primary Control Program) a card system, OS/360
> BCP (Basic Control Program) and the full OS/360.
After that (1974) there was of course CP/M. Various 8088 and Z80 based
computers later had it as operating system. Along with word processors
like StarWriter. No need for MS-DOS. :-D
They also had some dialect of BASIC. Usually made by Microsoft though.
--
Andreas
My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wo rdprocessors-and-spread.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #366040 is a reply to message #366031] |
Wed, 04 April 2018 21:41 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rnetzlof@gmail.com writes:
> In time, BPS, BOS, TOS, OS PCP, OS BCP withered away. Eventually DOS
> became DOS/VS, then DOS/VSE, while OS/360 wandered off into MFT
> (Multiple Fixed number of Tasks, MVT (Multiple Variable number of
> Tasks), SVS (Single Virtual Storage) and finally MVS (Multiple Virtual
> Storage).
MFT became VS1 ... and MVT became VS2 ... VS2 initially started with SVS
.... very similar to MVT running in 16mbyte virtual machine ...
DOS/VS, VS1 and SVS (before MVS) were essentially all the earlier
non-virtual version layed out in single virtual address spaces (larger
than typical real storage). Then SVS morphs into MVS with multiple
virtual address spaces.
First half of 70s, during FS, lots of 370 efforts were being shutdown.
When FS imploded, there was mad rush to get stuff back into 370 product
pipeline. POK kicked off 3033, 3081, and 370/XA in parallel. Lot of
370/XA was to address problems that had MVS had in 370. Major problem
was os/360 heritage API was tightly tied to pointer passing. When
everything was in single (real or virtual) address space it was no
problem ... but when everything had their own virtual address space
.... there was real problem with applications in one address space
calling a subsystem in different address space. 370/XA was access
registers ... with subsystems to access locations in different
address spaces.
The low/mid-range Endicott equivalent (to POK 370/XA) was
"e-architecture" for DOS/VS and VS1 ... where the single address space
tables were moved into the microcode with new instructions to manage the
mapping between virtual and real.
I recently did long-winded postings in ibm-main thread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#23
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#27
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#29
trivia: CP67 build started out by taking all kernel assembled TXT decks
and putting them behind BPS loader and IPL'ing the (real or virtual)
reader. The BPS loader would load everything into memory and transfer
control to routine that would write the memory to disk. Then CP67 system
was IPL'ed from desk, reloading the memory image from disk and starting
CP67 system execution.
I did a lot of work on CP67 as undergraduate in the 60s and ran into
enormous problem that BPS loader had limit of 255 external entries. I
started running into this limit and had to do all sorts of hacks to work
around the limit. After joining the science center, I found a copy of
the BPS source in a card cabinet when rumaging through card cabinent in
storage room in the attic of 545 tech square. I was able to tweak the
BPS source so handle a bunch of things ... that hacked BPS version was
then also used for VM370. 545 tech posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #366041 is a reply to message #366033] |
Wed, 04 April 2018 22:00 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> After that (1974) there was of course CP/M. Various 8088 and Z80 based
> computers later had it as operating system. Along with word processors
> like StarWriter. No need for MS-DOS. :-D
>
> They also had some dialect of BASIC. Usually made by Microsoft though.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#31 Old word processors
before ms/dos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS
there was seattle computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Computer_Products
before seattle computer, there was cp/m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M
before cp/m, kildall worked on cp67/cms at npg (gone 404, but lives on
at the wayback machine)
http://web.archive.org/web/20071011100440/http://www.khet.ne t/gmc/docs/museum/en_cpmName.html
npg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Postgraduate_School
cp67/cms (aka precursor to vm/370)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/CMS
before cp67/cms ... there was virtual machine, interactive computing
cp/40
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/cp40seas1982.txt
at the IBM science center, past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
and before virtual machines at science center, some had worked
on CTSS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Time-Sharing_System
reference getting 360/67 in 1967 (but wouldn't have gotten CP/67 until
at least sometime the following year). References Kildall writing 8008
code 72-73 and in 1974 wrote CP/M, 1976 Kildall left NPG. Decembere
1980, NPG replaces 14yr old 360/67 with 3033AP, 1Apr1981 VM/CMS 2314
disks replaced
https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/36809/NPSMile stones_2009-05-22.pdf
Early Digital Research CP/M Source Code
http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/early-digital-research- cpm-source-code/
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
