Difference between IBM 029, 059, 129 keypunches?
Eric Smith
keypunches?
Thanks,
Eric
Chuck Sterling
The 029 punched the holes; the 059 was the card verifier, with the
operator retyping all the info someone else had punched to see if there
were errors. The 059 used optics to verify the holes. No vacuum tubes in
these, IIRC.
Earlier models were the 026 and 056, both of which used a bunch of 25L6
pentode tubes to operate solenoids and such. We used to measure the
voltage across the escape solenoid when it was picked to test the tubes.
The 056 used sense wires to see if the holes were in the right places.
The 129 was after my short stretch with IBM, I guess. Anyhow, I never
heard of it...
Chuck Sterling
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
>
> The 029 punched the holes; the 059 was the card verifier, with the
> operator retyping all the info someone else had punched to see if there
> were errors. The 059 used optics to verify the holes. No vacuum tubes in
> these, IIRC.
>
> The 129 was after my short stretch with IBM, I guess. Anyhow, I never
> heard of it...
Sure you did - if you were a lawyer. I bruised my knee on a 129 circa
1971. It was an electronic (read transistor) version of the 029 punch.
No programming drums and star wheels, IIRC.
As has happened so many times in the past, and no doubt in the future,
someone else (i.e. non-IBM) invented it first, and litigated for a fair
share of the profits.
The only 129 I met was reserved for the exclusive use of a top data
entry facilitator, (aka key puncher), so I can't remember too much else
about this fabulous pre-glass-display machine.
Jim Stephens
Wiggeshoff) wrote:
it had a 7 segment display of the column number which went up and down
for the operator to replace the nice drum. It had the same size and
package, and could be grouped in with 029's w/o anyway to notice it
from color, form, etc.
We too seemed to put them in the back room, where there were three for
the use of the keypunch group. People with their own drums could get
in and use it, since the granting of a private drum for an 029 meant a
pretty skillful operator, and one who could use the 129's features.
The one guy I knew well, who did xray crystalography and had around 40
2000 card boxes on a special hand truck still prefered the 029, as he
prefered consistancy to having to shift mode or operation.
Plus, since he had his own special drum due to entering data decks for
his xray stuff that did not match the usual stuff would have had to
have set the 129's tabs each time, sort of defeating the drums utility
in saving cards.
It did buffer the keystrokes, allowing one to backspace, etc w/o
having blown a card, and if you had a doubt about a keystroke, you
could backspace to a particular column and restart.
Jim
Howard S Shubs
Chuck Sterling <cste...@zianet.com> wrote:
> The 129 was after my short stretch with IBM, I guess. Anyhow, I never
> heard of it...
Electronic version of the 029. It "remembered" all the columns, then wrote
them out at once, IIRC. It was also programmed electronically instead of
using a drum, and had a little LED to tell the operator which position was
current.
--
Howard S Shubs
"Run in circles, scream and shout!" "I hope you have good backups!"
Golf vs Bug: VW has been cutting corners
CBFalconer
>
> > Can anyone explain the differences between IBM 029, 059, and 129
> > keypunches?
>
> along with the S/360 computer. A keypunch made holes in cards which
> the computer could read as input.
>
> The 059 was a Verifier. This machine was used to verify that the
> original card punching was done correctly. The verify operator
> rekeyed the data, and the machined checked for a match, with mismatches
> flagged.
>
> As mentioned, there was an earlier generation of machines, 026 and 056.
> These came out in the late 1940s as part of IBM's restructuring of its tab
> machine line. They had all a rounded "streamlined" look to them. The
> 1960s 129 had a "Star Trek" straight lined look to them.
>
> Of course, there were earlier key punch machines going back to the
> invention of punch card processing in 1890. I think the machines
> in the 1930s were electric.
>
> The 129 was an advanced keypunch that came out in the 1970s. It
> had several features:
>
> 1) It stored the contents of the card in a buffer instead of punching
> it a character at a time when keyed. This allowed for backspacing
> and corrections, and a faster keying speed.
>
> 2) It allowed the machine to double as verifier, giving more flexibility
> to operations rather than have dedicated machines to one operation.
>
> 3) It had a few more punching features, also kept statistics on keystrokes.
>
> Having used both, the 129 was so much better, it was hard to go back.
> Being able to backspace and correct within the buffer was a big time
> saver.
In other words, it had an input line editor.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@XXXXworldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
(Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified)
mailto:u...@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest)
Nick Spalding
> As mentioned, there was an earlier generation of machines, 026 and 056.
> These came out in the late 1940s as part of IBM's restructuring of its tab
> machine line.
Was there not also in that family the 024 which was an 026 without
printing?
--
Nick Spalding
Eric Smith
> The 129 was an advanced keypunch that came out in the 1970s. It
> had several features:
> 2) It allowed the machine to double as verifier, giving more flexibility
> to operations rather than have dedicated machines to one operation.
Did the 129 also function as an interpreter (like the 029 Model C)?
Did it have a larger character set? Or was it still limited to 63
characters?
I was surprised to find in the 029 manual a warning not to duplicate
non-standard punches, as it may damage the print unit. I don't have
the manual here at the moment, but they have two differently worded
warnings about that regarding duplication on the 026 and 029.
I suspect that this problem occurred more frequently in practice when
trying to use an 026 to duplicate cards punched on an 029, since the
latter has a larger character set.
I haven't seen an 026 so I don't know how the printing mechanism worked.
I can easily imagine that an "invalid" punch could cause it to try to
use two type bars (like those of a typical non-Selectric typewriter),
resulting in damage.
The 029 prints with a 5x7 dot matrix. It uses a "code plate" as a
mechanical ROM storing the bit patterns. The code plate is arranged
as a five by seven matrix, with each element representing one dot
position. The elements are then each subdivided into an 8x8 matrix,
with each location specifying the "pixel" value for one character.
The only way I can imagine an invalid punch causing a problem with
this is if the invalid punch were to cause the mechanism to try to
translate the code plate too far in some direction. (Or the mechanism
that reads the code plate; I'm not sure which part moves.)
Now I just need to find a box of blank cards. And maybe someday I'll find
a card reader to attach to my computer, so that I can submit a batch
job. :-)
Are ribbons suitable for the 029 printer still available somewhere?
Does anyone know where to order one, and what part number to use?
Thanks,
Eric
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Eric Smith <eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> wrote:
ES> I was surprised to find in the 029 manual a warning not to duplicate
ES> non-standard punches, as it may damage the print unit. I don't have
ES> the manual here at the moment, but they have two differently worded
ES> warnings about that regarding duplication on the 026 and 029.
I recall that warning from the 029s at CCAT - the non standard
punch that caused it to be well known was the IBM-1130 cold start card which
they *really* didn't want to duplicate.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see:
| http://www.sohara.org/
Nick Spalding
The 026 print mechanism was the same.
> Now I just need to find a box of blank cards. And maybe someday I'll find
> a card reader to attach to my computer, so that I can submit a batch
> job. :-)
>
> Are ribbons suitable for the 029 printer still available somewhere?
> Does anyone know where to order one, and what part number to use?
--
Nick Spalding
Charlie Gibbs
(Nick Spalding) writes:
Yes. Interestingly, non-printing 026s were available but didn't
have a different model number.
I once saw a machine with a model number something like 047. It
looked like a 026 but had a built-in paper tape reader. In addition
to being a keypunch, it could transcribe tape to cards.
--
cgi...@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.
I don't read top-posted messages. If you want me to see your reply,
appropriately trim the quoted text and put your reply below it.
Charlie Gibbs
(Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) writes:
>Chuck Sterling (cste...@zianet.com) writes:
>
>> The 029 punched the holes; the 059 was the card verifier, with
>> the operator retyping all the info someone else had punched to
>> see if there were errors. The 059 used optics to verify the holes.
>> No vacuum tubes in these, IIRC.
>...
>>
>> The 129 was after my short stretch with IBM, I guess. Anyhow, I
>> never heard of it...
>
> Sure you did - if you were a lawyer. I bruised my knee on a 129
> circa 1971. It was an electronic (read transistor) version of
> the 029 punch. No programming drums and star wheels, IIRC.
>
> As has happened so many times in the past, and no doubt in the future,
> someone else (i.e. non-IBM) invented it first, and litigated for a
> fair share of the profits.
I hadn't heard that one. I was working in a Univac shop. We had
Univac 1710 VIPs (Verifying Interpreting Punches), which were nice
enough that they got into a lot of IBM shops as well. We also had
a single 029, and one day an IBM tech who came out to work on it
told me that Univac beat IBM to the punch (sorry) with the 1710,
so IBM rushed the 129 to market before it was completely ready.
I never used a 129 much, so the fact that I was more comfortable
on a Univac punch might just be due to familiarity. But Univac
did sell a lot of punches.
Charlie Gibbs
m...@brouhaha.com (Eric Smith) writes:
>Are ribbons suitable for the 029 printer still available somewhere?
>Does anyone know where to order one, and what part number to use?
Dunno, but I think I grabbed a box of them when the last punch
went out. It's probably buried in my stuff somewhere.
Lars Poulsen
>... I was working in a Univac shop. We had
>Univac 1710 VIPs (Verifying Interpreting Punches), which were nice
>enough that they got into a lot of IBM shops as well.
>
But where the 029 felt crisp and precise, the 1710 VIP felt fuzzy and
sloppy.
Just look at the printing on the edge: The 029 had sharp dot-matrix needles
and with a fresh ribbon it was very readable. The 1710 had a little
drum-wheel
which must have rubbed against an ink roller that used to dry up, so the
imprint
was faint and wobbly.
Lars Poulsen
> The 029 had sharp dot-matrix needles and with a fresh ribbon it was
> very readable.
Reading a few more posts reminded me that while the print was dot-matrix,
it was NOT the newer, simpler 7 needles in a vertical row; it was a little
plate with patterns of dot combinations that bounced around, driven
quite mechanically by the hole combinations. And the FE sternly warned
us against interpreting binary cards, because invalid hole combinations
would drive the plate hard against the retaining frame and might break it.
I think I last saw a keypunch in ... 1983 ?
Arargh!
I used to have some of those broken plates, broken in that very
manner.
>
>I think I last saw a keypunch in ... 1983 ?
--
Arargh (at arargh dot com) http://www.arargh.com
Chuck Sterling
>
> Chuck Sterling (cste...@zianet.com) writes:
> >
> > The 029 punched the holes; the 059 was the card verifier, with the
> > operator retyping all the info someone else had punched to see if there
> > were errors. The 059 used optics to verify the holes. No vacuum tubes in
> > these, IIRC.
> ...
> >
> > The 129 was after my short stretch with IBM, I guess. Anyhow, I never
> > heard of it...
>
> Sure you did - if you were a lawyer. I bruised my knee on a 129 circa
> 1971. It was an electronic (read transistor) version of the 029 punch.
> No programming drums and star wheels, IIRC.
Ah. I was working for NCR by then. I was with IBM part-time while going
to school, doing PMs and some minor repairs about '65-'67, long gone by
the 70's.
Jeff Jonas
>>Univac 1710 VIPs (Verifying Interpreting Punches), which were nice
>>enough that they got into a lot of IBM shops as well.
> But where the 029 felt crisp and precise,
> the 1710 VIP felt fuzzy and sloppy.
>Just look at the printing on the edge: The 029 had sharp dot-matrix needles
>and with a fresh ribbon it was very readable.
And many things were hung by those thin narrow ribbons for they loved
to shread and jam and make a mess to install!
The "fresh ribbon" was rare,
they faded after just a few days of vigorous use.
Those ribbons were a bitch to install, threading them thru the narrow slot
in the massively armored punch head assembly.
> The 1710 had a little drum-wheel which must have rubbed against an
> ink roller that used to dry up, so the imprint was faint and wobbly.
I used a similar punch by "Decision Data".
Changing the ink roller was fast, clean and trivial!
The Decision data keypunches were the best I ever encountered!
(I wish I had photos, model numbers, etc).
2 hoppers, 2 stackers, about 5-7 modes.
It had a PANEL of lights to light up ERROR MESSAGES
(verify fail, where it jammed, etc).
IBM keypunches merely locked the kybd for ANY error with NO INDICATOR
(kinda like ed's sole error message "?").
The front panels snapped off for unjamming the card,
a far cry from using the card saw for most IBM 029 jams.
In keypunch mode it buffered an entire card so you could backspace
(but it only displayed the column number,
no alpha display to see what you typed).
In verify mode, it gave 2 notches on the card edge for verified okay,
one notch on the card edge if it was corrected during verify pass.
It duplicated decks on its own.
It interpreted decks (printed what was on them).
I forgot the other modes.
It electronically read in several "drum cards",
there was a selector switch to choose what one was in effect.
Definitely a work horse!
--
Jeffrey Jonas
jeffj@panix(dot)com
The original Dr. JCL and Mr .hide
Michael J. Albanese
> I was surprised to find in the 029 manual a warning not to duplicate
> non-standard punches, as it may damage the print unit.
That certainly brings back some fond memories.
Didn't every school back then have at least one mechanically-curious
student who just *had* to punch all the holes out of a card and then try
to duplicate it? You know, just to hear that nice metallic "machine-gun"
sound emanating from the tortured keypunch?
Funny, I don't remember anyone ever making it the whole way through to
column 80 -- the keypunch either jammed, or more often, the instructor
would run into the room with that horrified look on his face :-)
Mike
--
(remove 'revoke-my-' from address for email)
Foobar T. Clown
>
> Didn't every school back then have at least one mechanically-curious
> student who just *had* to punch all the holes out of a card and then
> whole way through to column 80 [...]
Nonesense! An 029 in good repair could make three or even four copies
of a lace card before it started skipping holes. Incidentally, the
SMART way to make a lace card is not to manually punch out every hole,
but just punch out all of the holes in column 1. Then, you feed the
next card, and apply firm finger pressure to keep the first card from
moving under the read head when you hit the DUP key.
-- Foo!
Eric Smith
> The 029 prints with a 5x7 dot matrix. It uses a "code plate" as a
> mechanical ROM storing the bit patterns. The code plate is arranged
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
> The 026 print mechanism was the same.
Really? On the cards I've seen which purported to have been punched on an
026, the print doesn't look like dot matrix.
I just looked at _Reference Manual IBM 24 Card Punch IBM Printing Card
Punch_, form A24-0520-2, dated December 1964. Sure enough, figure 3 on
page 7 shows an example punched card which clearly has dot-matrix print.
But figure 16 on page 20 just as clearly shows a card with print that is
obviously not dot matrix.
Is it possible that some 026s, presumably late models, used a dot matrix
print mechanism, while earlier models did not?
Dav Vandenbroucke
everyone else. In the small college where I was an undergrad, all we
had were 029s. When I went to grad school, most of the keypunches
were 029s, but there were a few 129s. As a grad student, I was
allowed to use them when the professional staff didn't need them.
The most amusing thing about both models was watching someone try to
figure out how to turn them on. You had to reach underneath the
desktop to a switch at about the location of your right knee. You
couldn't even see it unless you got on your hands and knees.
Dav Vandenbroucke
dav_and_france...@compuserve.com
Jeff Jonas
>> student who just *had* to punch all the holes out of a card and then
>> try to duplicate it? [...] I don't remember anyone ever making it the
>> whole way through to column 80 [...]
*grin* For "security", I'd lace-punch cards so they're unreadable
but the 1442 punch handled that with grace and speed.
> ... Incidentally, the
>SMART way to make a lace card is not to manually punch out every hole,
>but just punch out all of the holes in column 1. Then, you feed the
>next card, and apply firm finger pressure to keep the first card from
>moving under the read head when you hit the DUP key.
Oy, no wonder I preferred the 029 punch: I used to insert/delete
by holding one card while the other spaced, etc.
Hmmm, I remember that annoying "backspace" button
and ponder all the ways to lace a card
1) multipunch each column totally
2) put the card thru multiple times, using regular characters as much
as possible for multiple holes in one pass
3) punch, backspace on column, punch again, ...
3) punch, backspace entire card, punch again, ...
The most holes in a valid character:
12-11-0-7-8-9 for the "zigamorph" (0xff ECDIC)
glen herrmannsfeldt
ES> I was surprised to find in the 029 manual a warning not to duplicate
ES> non-standard punches, as it may damage the print unit. I don't have
ES> the manual here at the moment, but they have two differently worded
ES> warnings about that regarding duplication on the 026 and 029.
You could turn printing off if you wanted to do that.
Also, you shouldn't duplicate with more than about three holes per
column, or it could damage the punch unit. All the printable characters
were three or less, but 8 bit EBCIDC data could be up to six.
-- glen
Jim Thomas
Jeff> Hmmm, I remember that annoying "backspace" button
Jeff> and ponder all the ways to lace a card
Jeff> 1) multipunch each column totally
Jeff> 2) put the card thru multiple times, using regular characters as much
Jeff> as possible for multiple holes in one pass
Jeff> 3) punch, backspace on column, punch again, ...
Jeff> 3) punch, backspace entire card, punch again, ...
Therefore, did the 129 do lower case? For 026/029 the minimum would be:
, 0-3-8
A 12-1
K 11-2
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
9 9
Any better way to hit all the holes once each?
Nothead
Eric Sosman
>
> I wrote:
> > The 029 prints with a 5x7 dot matrix. It uses a "code plate" as a
> > mechanical ROM storing the bit patterns. The code plate is arranged
> [...]
>
> Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
> > The 026 print mechanism was the same.
>
> Really? On the cards I've seen which purported to have been punched on an
> 026, the print doesn't look like dot matrix.
There was a gadget called an "interpreter" to print characters
on non-printed punched cards. Under plugboard control it could
print selectively, rearrange things, print elsewhere than just on
the top edge, and so on; tab shops used these beasts a lot.
Anyhow, the machine I was familiar with some thirty-five years
ago (something has scrambled the memory cells where I used to keep the
model number) formed character images with metal letterforms; the
resulting glyphs were smooth and obviously not formed by a matrix of
dots.
They were also somewhat fatter than the dot-matrix characters produced
by
a printing keypunch; you could fit only sixty or so glyphs across the
width of an eighty-column card. Re-examine your sample cards and see
whether the glyphs line up with the punch columns; if they don't, you
may
be looking at "interpreted" cards.
> I just looked at _Reference Manual IBM 24 Card Punch IBM Printing Card
> Punch_, form A24-0520-2, dated December 1964. Sure enough, figure 3 on
> page 7 shows an example punched card which clearly has dot-matrix print.
> But figure 16 on page 20 just as clearly shows a card with print that is
> obviously not dot matrix.
>
> Is it possible that some 026s, presumably late models, used a dot matrix
> print mechanism, while earlier models did not?
All the keypunches I personally used -- 026, 029, and assorted
knock-offs from non-IBM sources -- formed dot-matrix characters. I've
always supposed that they did so because there simply wasn't much room
for a larger mechanism; the mechanical components devoted to printing
occupied perhaps a cubic inch (~16 cc) or so, not counting the ribbon.
Also, the dot-matrix printer could produce (not too legibly) a wider
repertoire of glyphs than the much larger interpreter could handle.
Joe Morris
>Therefore, did the 129 do lower case?
AFAIK no standard IBM keypunch (02x, 12x) ever had the ability to
punch lowercase card codes. There might have been an RPQ, but it's
been far too many years since I had to go through the ordering process
for a keypunch...
Joe Morris
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
> All the keypunches I personally used -- 026, 029, and assorted
>knock-offs from non-IBM sources -- formed dot-matrix characters.
Although this is true of IBM keypunches, the Univac 1610/1710/18xx
punches contained a small drum printer mechanism which printed
fully-formed characters on the card. Unlike earlier machines such
as the IBM 557 interpreter, the Univac's printer was small enough
to fit 80 characters across the card, so they lined up with the
card columns.
Foobar T. Clown
>
> [...] Most computer rooms had an old interpreter sitting around for
> that purpose [...]
I visited the computing center at the University of Rhode Island in
1978, and they had a menu of fees and services. I remember the the
price for having an output deck interpreted was considerably higher
than the price of having it punched in the first place. I asked
someone why, and they said, 'cause they have to run it through a
keypunch.
YMMV (*)
-- Foo!
(*) Your humble author's Memory May be Very faulty.
Kevin Michael Vail
Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
> In article <3C194D05...@zianet.com>,
> Chuck Sterling <cste...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> > The 129 was after my short stretch with IBM, I guess. Anyhow, I never
> > heard of it...
>
> Electronic version of the 029. It "remembered" all the columns, then wrote
> them out at once, IIRC. It was also programmed electronically instead of
> using a drum, and had a little LED to tell the operator which position was
> current.
And it could be punching out one card while you were keying in the next
one...in fact I think it could buffer up two cards in memory. It was
really nice to work on for repetitive stuff.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | a billion stars go spinning through the night,
ke...@vaildc.net | blazing high above your head.
. . . . . . . . . | But _in_ you is the presence that
. . . . . . . . . | will be, when all the stars are dead. (Rainer Maria Rilke)
Jim Thomas
lwin> Would anyone know why the interpreter was "off" like that and only
lwin> did 60 columns?
lwin> That used to drive me crazy looking at an "interpreted" deck.
lwin> (Most computer rooms had an old interpreter sitting around for
lwin> that purpose).
lwin> Of course, in business practice, interpreted output may have
lwin> been intended for filing and customer purposes, not to line
lwin> up printing with the card. (They also had an edge number
lwin> feature to print a big number on the card's side edge. And
lwin> printing could go all over the card face by plugboard control).
IIRC the 557 could only print two lines at the top. There was a switch
that selected which (a big thing, about 1.5 inches wide, that one flipped
up or down). It took two passes to print both lines. The plugboard was (I
think) wired for both switch positions.
For visual use, it was much nicer to separate the fields so possibly that
led to the larger print size since it did not have to be 80 any more?
Jim
Charles Richmond
>
> lwin wrote:
> >
> > [...] Most computer rooms had an old interpreter sitting around for
> > that purpose [...]
>
> I visited the computing center at the University of Rhode Island in
> 1978, and they had a menu of fees and services. I remember the the
> price for having an output deck interpreted was considerably higher
> than the price of having it punched in the first place. I asked
> someone why, and they said, 'cause they have to run it through a
> keypunch.
>
and write in the letters with a No. 2 pencil... Makes about as
much sense as using a *keypunch* to interpret the deck.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Joe Morris
>"Foobar T. Clown" wrote:
>> I visited the computing center at the University of Rhode Island in
>> 1978, and they had a menu of fees and services. I remember the the
>> price for having an output deck interpreted was considerably higher
>> than the price of having it punched in the first place. I asked
>> someone why, and they said, 'cause they have to run it through a
>> keypunch.
>Or maybe they had a guy with a "light board" interpret the holes
>and write in the letters with a No. 2 pencil... Makes about as
>much sense as using a *keypunch* to interpret the deck.
Several keypunches -- the IBM 129 and the Univac VIP come to mind --
had the ability to serve double duty as both a keypunch and an 80-80
interpreter. Not as fast as a 557 or similar dedicated machine,
but it had the advantage of putting the characters in the proper columns
rather than with 60 columns printed above 80 rows...
Joe Morris
jmfb...@aol.com
And thank the chad gods for that. People produced enough trouble
just with uppercase. I speak from experience since I had to
key in other peoples' hen scratchings.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jchausler
Eric Smith wrote:
> Can anyone explain the differences between IBM 029, 059, and 129
> keypunches?
As a person brought up on 026's and 029's in the late 60's, the 70's and
even the early 80's, I had thought I had seen my last keypunch until a
couple years ago at a customer site in St. Louis. In the back of the
room was a 129. I had never seen one before. This unit was used to
copy worn out diagnostic decks required to maintain a pair of
Modcomp II's installed in the mid 70's. I was there replacing this
system
with a network of PC's. Naturally, I sat down and punched a few
cards just for "old time sake" :-) Turns out that the 129 was on loan
from some museum (they said something like the "Science Museum of
New York" but I've never verified if such an organization exists.) as
when their original keypunch (unknown model number) had worn out
a few years previous they had been unable to find a replacement to
purchase. I'm assuming that the 129 is now back with the museum as
the system has been replaced (one of those Modcomp front panels is
now in my collection :-) This 129 was the only keypunch I ever used
which had a line editing function. You would type in the whole card
image, which would appear on a led display on the keyboard unit, and
thus you could back up and make changes. Only when you "released"
the card was it actually punched. Seemed strange, one didn't get that
loud "klunk" one would get when pressing the key actually punched
the card. Long live 026's and
029's.......................................
Chris
AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE
$$
Eric Smith
> I was surprised to find in the 029 manual a warning not to duplicate
g...@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) writes:
> You could turn printing off if you wanted to do that.
The manual specifically warned that the damage would occur even if
printing was turned off. Apparently the code plate would still be
translated too far.
> Also, you shouldn't duplicate with more than about three holes per
> column, or it could damage the punch unit.
No warning about that in the manual.
Harry Dodsworth
the University Health Sciences Library. The specification was a type
written list and I was told they wanted the same thing - including
upper and lower case and accents! We had a TN train for printing.
I prepared an array of 26 lower case letters, and translated upper
case to lower except when a * on the input card told the program that
the following letter was capitalized.
As far as I know I prepared the lower case card by multipunching it.
Fortunately it only had to be done once!
Looking at the card deck (which I still have :-) the print was solid
so I think it was punched on a Burroughs card punch which we had then.
My cardpunching began in 1965 for the IBM 1620 using the old style
026 punches with round keys.
--
Harry Dodsworth Ottawa Ontario Canada af...@freenet.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair Gale
<eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> wrote:
>Can anyone explain the differences between IBM 029, 059, and 129
>keypunches?
>
>Thanks,
>Eric
I was installing linux on my IBM Thinkpad laptop, and thanks to the
numlock "feature" I noticed that the right hand side of my keyboard
can be used for numeric data entry:
7 8 9 0
7 8 9 / <---- when numlock is on.
U I O P
4 5 6 *
J K L ;
1 2 3 -
M < > /
0 , . +
This woke up a dormant brain cell (one of the few I have left),
associated with 029 keypunches. Is the numeric pad layout the same
on an 029 as a Thinkpad? I don't remember 029 keyboards having a
numeric top row though.
--
alistair "deja vu, eh?"