DOS/360: Forty years

89 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 1:18:08 PM4/25/05
to
z/Journal (http://www.zjournal.com) is celebrating 40 years of DOS/360
(DOS/VS, DOS/VSE, DOS/ESA, z/VSE) in its current issue. Can we expect
a birthday party from IBM?

For many of us, "DOS" will always conjure up memories of 32K 360/30's,
7.25MB 2311's, 1401 emulation, and lots of punched-cards. The first
thing that comes to mind is *not* that imposter "DOS" that runs on toy
PCs today.

Lets tip a cold one to DOS' 40th.

Nick Spalding

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 1:36:48 PM4/25/05
to
Peter...@Yahoo.com wrote, in
<1114449488.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

DOS was a johnny-come-lately, real men ran their /30s on BOS.
--
Nick Spalding

jsa...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 1:40:08 PM4/25/05
to
Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com wrote:
> that runs on toy
> PCs today.

Now you just wash your mouth!

PC-DOS may be an impostor compared to DOS/360, but today's PCs are not
toys.

Was a 360/195 a toy?

It had a 32K cache, 4 megabytes of 750ns RAM (slowed to 780ns because
of the 60ns cycle time), pipelines, and an accelerated arithmetic unit
that sped up multiplication and division by working on more than one
bit at a time...

in other words, a 16.67 MHz Pentium with a clock multiplier of 13. And
not even the same width of address bus as a 386SX, which was capable of
handling the entire 16M of address space the 360 architecture allowed.

If today's PCs are toys, it isn't the fault of the *hardware*.

John Savard

Eric Sosman

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 1:42:08 PM4/25/05
to

How long is the "Program[*] Temporary Fix" tape these days?

[*] Cynics pronounced this word as "Permanent."

--
Eric....@sun.com

Peter...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 2:10:44 PM4/25/05
to
If it doesn't fill a room, it's a toy;-)

Alan Balmer

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 2:57:56 PM4/25/05
to

I remember a user's conference button that said:

OS goes Whee! Bump.Whee! Bump.
DOS goes Hummmm.....

Or something like that. Anybody still have one of those buttons?

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerc...@att.net

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 3:38:58 PM4/25/05
to

Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com wrote:
> For many of us, "DOS" will always conjure up memories of 32K
360/30's,
> 7.25MB 2311's, 1401 emulation, and lots of punched-cards. The first
> thing that comes to mind is *not* that imposter "DOS" that runs on
toy
> PCs today.

I remember that if you happened to work in a DOS shop, you
had trouble getting a job in OS shops. They saw you as being
too weak and needing extensive training. (Learning OS JCL
was no big deal).

I remain impressed that our DOS ran in all of 16K (of our 192k
machine), but was enough to run a hospital information system.

My hat goes off to those IBMers who slaved away at developing
it at the last minute, when they discovered OS just wouldn't
work on small machines.

Joe Morris

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 3:51:18 PM4/25/05
to
Peter...@Yahoo.com writes:

Don't forget TOS, the bastard cousin of DOS. Either could be generated
from the same set of distribution libraries; once just for the hell of it
I built a TOS system, IPL'ed it, then watched in horror as it ran the
tape all over the place like a parent frantically searching for a lost
child.

I do need to admit that the tape was absolutely unoptimized (I recall
sweating over the old IBSYS system tape layouts to cut down on time
lost during re- or pre-positioning), and we were an OS shop, not DOS.
Our original plan (for installation of a /40 in mid-1967) was to
be running DOS because of memory constraints, but eventually concluded
that we could successfully run our typical FORTRAN G (IEYFORT) jobs
in an MFT partition of only 86K.

H'mmm...I think that somewere I've got the fiche with the announcement
of OS/360 version 1; I'm not sure if it also has the original announcement
for DOS as well.

Joe Morris

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 3:51:44 PM4/25/05
to

jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:

> If today's PCs are toys, it isn't the fault of the *hardware*.

Certainly the CPUs are very much faster than the old S/360.
However, IMHO, the PC hardware remains inferior to S/360.

The big difference is how S/360 handled multi-programming,
IMHO much better than a PC. The I/O was kept properly separated.

Further, S/360 was able to handle far more I/O devices and
activity than a PC can. I doubt even today's sophisticated
desktop PCs could handle multiple users banging away on them,
along with multiple high speed printers, readers and punches.
But our DOS S/360-40 handled it smoothly. (Admittedly our 2415
tape drivers were incredibly slow).

Unfortunately, as PCs have grown in size and horsepower, their
operating systems have grown along with them. It frustates me
to no end that my home PC--an old Pentium 120 is faster than my
work PC (Pentium 4 1.5 GHz) because of the bloated junk loaded
on the work unit. I try to use older MS programs (ie Word 6.0
instead of Word 2000) because they run so much faster and don't
have unnecessary bloat.

Our S/360-40 had enough core to handle good, well written
COBOL programs--we didn't have to resort to memory tricks
to save space. The resultant programs were maintainable
but ran well. (Our substantial Autocoder emulation apparently
didn't take advtg of the available core and ran rather slowly).

We had enough CPU cycles and core for spooling and a small
online system as well.

Roland Hutchinson

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 4:32:28 PM4/25/05
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Unfortunately, as PCs have grown in size and horsepower, their
> operating systems have grown along with them.  It frustates me
> to no end that my home PC--an old Pentium 120 is faster than my
> work PC (Pentium 4 1.5 GHz) because of the bloated junk loaded
> on the work unit.  I try to use older MS programs (ie Word 6.0
> instead of Word 2000) because they run so much faster and don't
> have unnecessary bloat.

The very fact that someone can seriously regard Word 6 as relatively
bloat-free itself speaks volumes about our current expectations and
tolerance level for bloat.

--
Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

Patrick Scheible

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 4:41:45 PM4/25/05
to
Peter...@Yahoo.com writes:

> If it doesn't fill a room, it's a toy;-)

Which room? The closet under the stairs (TM J.K. Rowling) or the
Superdome?

-- Patrick

Morten Reistad

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 5:00:02 PM4/25/05
to
In article <1114458704.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
>> If today's PCs are toys, it isn't the fault of the *hardware*.
>
>Certainly the CPUs are very much faster than the old S/360.
>However, IMHO, the PC hardware remains inferior to S/360.
>
>The big difference is how S/360 handled multi-programming,
>IMHO much better than a PC. The I/O was kept properly separated.
>
>Further, S/360 was able to handle far more I/O devices and
>activity than a PC can. I doubt even today's sophisticated
>desktop PCs could handle multiple users banging away on them,
>along with multiple high speed printers, readers and punches.
>But our DOS S/360-40 handled it smoothly. (Admittedly our 2415
>tape drivers were incredibly slow).

I think some of you need to see a modern server PC with a decent OS.

Modern servers have 3-6 PCI busses, 2-8 processors, possibly with
hyperthreading, and handle 256 or more interrupts or DMA channels.
The long, painful road to Linux 2.6 was all about supporting this.

Memory bandwidth is somewhere around 800 megawords per second, where
the word is 32 to 128 bits in size. They usually have 2-15 network
interfaces, and can handle multiple gigabits worth of network
bandwidth. Raw, aggregate, old-time MIPS rating is somewhere around
5-25 BIPS integer and 2-14 BIPS floating point. Disks are usually
handled in separate RAID/mirror clusters. Disks tend to be the slow
components. Nothing new there.

Caches are large, and popular programs (like KLH10) run all in cache.

They cost more than a stock PC, around $3000. I am truly impressed
at their load-taking capabilities. You can let loose a thousand
database connections, or a few tens of thousands web users on one of
these.

They don't have serial ports. Nor floppy drives.

>Unfortunately, as PCs have grown in size and horsepower, their
>operating systems have grown along with them. It frustates me
>to no end that my home PC--an old Pentium 120 is faster than my
>work PC (Pentium 4 1.5 GHz) because of the bloated junk loaded
>on the work unit. I try to use older MS programs (ie Word 6.0
>instead of Word 2000) because they run so much faster and don't
>have unnecessary bloat.

That the desktop is unacceptably bloated is not the fault of
the PC designer. They have made a stellar job of migrating
the old 8088 design into something really good.

>Our S/360-40 had enough core to handle good, well written
>COBOL programs--we didn't have to resort to memory tricks
>to save space. The resultant programs were maintainable
>but ran well. (Our substantial Autocoder emulation apparently
>didn't take advtg of the available core and ran rather slowly).
>
>We had enough CPU cycles and core for spooling and a small
>online system as well.

I have a different recollection of CPU availability. CPU cycles
were scarce and rationed until sometime in 1996, when the idle
process suddenly became the main CPU user.

-- mrr


Eric Smith

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 5:14:49 PM4/25/05
to
Peter...@Yahoo.com writes:
> z/Journal (http://www.zjournal.com) is celebrating 40 years of DOS/360
> (DOS/VS, DOS/VSE, DOS/ESA, z/VSE) in its current issue. Can we expect
> a birthday party from IBM?

Does anyone still have a copy of DOS/360 (or BOS or TOS) that will run
on a 360/30? The Computer History Museum has a 360/30. It is not
currently operational, and there are currently no official (or even
unofficial) plans to restore it, but I'm hoping that someday we can do
it.

I'm not sure how much core this particular 360/30 has, but since it
can't be more than 64KB, I'm guessing that there weren't too many
choices for operating systems for it. Was there anything other than
BOS, TOS, or DOS?

The museum has some 2311 disk drives and some 24xx tape drives with it,
but it appears that the control units for those are not present.
I hope that we can find suitable control units, but if not, at least
the channel interface is very well documented, so as a last resort
we could either try to use more modern channel devices, or engineer
new peripherals with channel interfaces. It would be amusing to use
a tiny little SD card as a DASD on the 360.

Eric

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 5:24:41 PM4/25/05
to

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Further, S/360 was able to handle far more I/O devices and activity
> than a PC can. I doubt even today's sophisticated desktop PCs could
> handle multiple users banging away on them, along with multiple high
> speed printers, readers and punches. But our DOS S/360-40 handled
> it smoothly. (Admittedly our 2415 tape drivers were incredibly
> slow).

to some extent it was transfered bytes per mip ... and/or arm accesses
per mip.

in the late 70s ... i started making some observation that disk
relative system performance had declined by something like a factor of
ten times (by the early 80s, cpus, memories, etc had increased by a
factor of 50 times while disk arm performance had only increased by a
factor of five times or less ... therefor the disk arm performance had
a relative system performance decline of a factor of ten times).

we had a 360/67 that support 70-80 cp67/cms users ... and much later
there was a processor with nearly fifty times the processing power
supporting 300 vm370/cms users. It turns out the disk arm performance
had possibly improved by a factor of four times.

One of the things you really started seeing was trying to leverage
various kinds of caching (explosion in the availability of memory
sizes) to compensate for the lack of disk performance improvements.
Other approaches that tended to trade-off electronic memory vis-a-vis
disk arm performance was to transfer in significantly larger blocks
(which could make sense for some application environments).

In any case, my assertions upset some number of people in the disk
division ... and their performance modeling group got assigned to
refute it. After a couple months, they came back and effectively said
that I somewhat understated the decline in disk relative system
thruput. They then turned the study into SHARE presentation ... where
they described disk strategies to help overall system thruput.

some random past postings mentioning the decline in disk relative
system performance:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#31 Big I/O or Kicking the Mainframe out the Door
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#43 Bloat, elegance, simplicity and other irrelevant concepts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#55 How Do the Old Mainframes Compare to Today's Micros?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#10 Virtual Memory (A return to the past?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#46 The god old days(???)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#4 IBM S/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#38 Why SMP at all anymore?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#66 Pentium 4 Prefetch engine?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#62 any 70's era supercomputers that ran as slow as today's supercomputers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#68 Q: Merced a flop or not?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#40 MVS History (all parts)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#61 MVS History (all parts)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#23 Smallest Storage Capacity Hard Disk?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#11 Microcode? (& index searching)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#20 index searching
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#8 What are some impressive page rates?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#9 What are some impressive page rates?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#5 index searching
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#16 AS/400 and MVS - clarification please
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004n.html#15 360 longevity, was RISCs too close to hardware?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#39 100% CPU is not always bad
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#55 What is the "name" of a system?

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/

Lawrence Wilkinson

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 6:00:09 PM4/25/05
to
Eric Smith wrote:

> I'm not sure how much core this particular 360/30 has, but since it
> can't be more than 64KB, I'm guessing that there weren't too many
> choices for operating systems for it. Was there anything other than
> BOS, TOS, or DOS?

It probably has 64k, it certainly has 2 modules, see the first photo at
http://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/photos (it could be 48k). Not that that
helps much!

Incidentally BPS was released in March '65 (does it count as an OS?) but
DOS didn't emerge until June '66 (according to Pugh/Johnson/Palmer).
--
Lawrence Wilkinson lawr...@ljw.me.uk
The IBM 360/30 page http://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360

Alan Balmer

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 6:55:27 PM4/25/05
to
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:00:02 GMT, Morten Reistad
<firs...@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:

>In article <1114458704.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>> If today's PCs are toys, it isn't the fault of the *hardware*.
>>
>>Certainly the CPUs are very much faster than the old S/360.
>>However, IMHO, the PC hardware remains inferior to S/360.
>>
>>The big difference is how S/360 handled multi-programming,
>>IMHO much better than a PC. The I/O was kept properly separated.
>>
>>Further, S/360 was able to handle far more I/O devices and
>>activity than a PC can. I doubt even today's sophisticated
>>desktop PCs could handle multiple users banging away on them,
>>along with multiple high speed printers, readers and punches.
>>But our DOS S/360-40 handled it smoothly. (Admittedly our 2415
>>tape drivers were incredibly slow).
>
>I think some of you need to see a modern server PC with a decent OS.
>
>Modern servers have 3-6 PCI busses, 2-8 processors, possibly with
>hyperthreading, and handle 256 or more interrupts or DMA channels.
>The long, painful road to Linux 2.6 was all about supporting this.

For most people, I don't think you are describing a Personal Computer.

Peter Flass

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 7:41:59 PM4/25/05
to
Eric Smith wrote:

>
> I'm not sure how much core this particular 360/30 has, but since it
> can't be more than 64KB, I'm guessing that there weren't too many
> choices for operating systems for it. Was there anything other than
> BOS, TOS, or DOS?
>

BPS, I believe, although that's not really an OS, more like an IOCS,
unless that was model 20 only. Otherwise not (AFAIK) from IBM. Search
the Yahoo Hercules-390 group. Some people have mentioned the "Telpar
OS", and "VM/PE", for example.

dr...@timesten.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 8:24:24 PM4/25/05
to

Wait a few months.

Intel said at their recent IDF that by the end of the decade, typical
desktop computers will process 8 instruction streams simultaneously.
Their first dual-core LAPTOP chipset will ship next year.

Edgar Wolphe

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 11:17:28 PM4/25/05
to
Furiously scratching in the sand, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>
>
>Further, S/360 was able to handle far more I/O devices and
>activity than a PC can. I doubt even today's sophisticated
>desktop PCs could handle multiple users banging away on them,
>along with multiple high speed printers, readers and punches.
>But our DOS S/360-40 handled it smoothly. (Admittedly our 2415
>tape drivers were incredibly slow).

You might not have been introduced to Microsoft's Terminal Server...
or better yet, Citrix. A decent dual-processor server with a couple
gig RAM can easily handle over 100 simultaneous connections, each
runnning it's own environment on the server, and at the same time
handle mutiple local and/or network attached printers.

EW
If you add up all known religions
and cancel the contradictions, you are left with only one invariant
universal message: God needs *your* money.
----Uncle Al

rpl

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 11:54:19 PM4/25/05
to
Edgar Wolphe wrote:
> Furiously scratching in the sand, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Further, S/360 was able to handle far more I/O devices and
>>activity than a PC can. I doubt even today's sophisticated
>>desktop PCs could handle multiple users banging away on them,
>>along with multiple high speed printers, readers and punches.
>>But our DOS S/360-40 handled it smoothly. (Admittedly our 2415
>>tape drivers were incredibly slow).
>
>
> You might not have been introduced to Microsoft's Terminal Server...
> or better yet, Citrix. A decent dual-processor server with a couple
> gig RAM can easily handle over 100 simultaneous connections, each
> runnning it's own environment on the server, and at the same time
> handle mutiple local and/or network attached printers.

I've heard some good things about Citrix, but (no offense) there's still
no equality comparison between a microcomputer and a mainframe, even an
old mainframe...

(circa 1980)
IBM 360/148 with IIRC 512K (maybe 256) of core memory, running a couple
hundred terminals (under VIDEO subsystem), CICS (another 30 terminals),
RJE-SPF, another 25 terminals for developers, a big printer, 3 or 4
little printers, a couple card readers, a card puncher, 10-12 disk
drives and half a dozen tape drives.

rpl

Morten Reistad

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:00:02 AM4/26/05
to
In article <3atq611oma5fjbc8v...@4ax.com>,

If you compare with a 360/195 I gather using a PC server is a fair
comparison. I would doubt very much that a 360/195 ever was installed
as a personal machine; such as a lot of 1130's were. Some 360/40's may
have been run as standalone, personal machines; but I doubt they
many.

-- mrr

rpl

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 5:10:26 AM4/26/05
to
gotta do something about bitrot...

370/148 256K
370/168 512K

rihgt?

rpl

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 4:54:10 AM4/26/05
to
>jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
>> If today's PCs are toys, it isn't the fault of the *hardware*.
>
>Certainly the CPUs are very much faster than the old S/360.
>However, IMHO, the PC hardware remains inferior to S/360.
>
>The big difference is how S/360 handled multi-programming,
>IMHO much better than a PC. The I/O was kept properly separated.

Which shows how much work is left to be done before PCs grow up.

<snip>

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 4:52:49 AM4/26/05
to
In article <1114452644.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

Peter...@Yahoo.com wrote:
>If it doesn't fill a room, it's a toy;-)
>

If it fills a room, it's a man's toy.

Steve O'Hara-Smith

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 7:05:23 AM4/26/05
to
On Tue, 26 Apr 05 08:52:49 GMT
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:

> In article <1114452644.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter...@Yahoo.com wrote:
> >If it doesn't fill a room, it's a toy;-)
> >
>
> If it fills a room, it's a man's toy.

If it fills a womb it's a woman's toy.

Steve O'Hara-Smith

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 7:06:55 AM4/26/05
to
On 25 Apr 2005 10:40:08 -0700
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:

> PC-DOS may be an impostor compared to DOS/360, but today's PCs are not
> toys.

Well yes - but running PC-DOS on a modern PC is kinda silly.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 5:42:00 AM4/26/05
to
In article <20050426120523....@eircom.net>,

ROTFLMAO. Before and after.

That was a good one.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 5:43:36 AM4/26/05
to
In article <20050426120655....@eircom.net>,

Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

And also prevents playing. Which prevents learning. Which prevents
producing useful stuff. I am looking forward to when most PCs
do become toys.

Roland Hutchinson

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 11:52:37 AM4/26/05
to
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

And running Windows isn't???

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 11:52:19 AM4/26/05
to

rpl <plinnan...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes:
> 370/148 256K
> 370/168 512K

lots of 370/148 were 512k and sometimes even a mbyte (memory
technology getting used was cheaper) and 370/168 wasn't unusual to
have 4mbytes.

i worked on microcode for virgil/tully (aka 138/148) associated with
the vm performance assist. another feature of 148 was that it had
significantly faster floating point than 145 ... and was targeted as
competitive machine in world trade markets against clone 370s.

recent posts mentioning 148 microcode assists
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005d.html#59 Misuse of word "microcode"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#59 Where should the type information be: in tags and descriptors

as part of the effort, i got to spend quite a bit of time running
around the world doing 138/148 business forcast analysis with various
organizations. There was some big difference between how the sales and
marketing business was done in the US and how sales and marketing
business was done in the rest of the world.

In the US, yearly business forcasts rolled up from the branch offices
to the regions and then to DP hdqtrs ... and that information was
provided to the manufactoring plants for resource and capacity
planning for the upcoming year. If sales business people were wrong,
the manufactoring plants were responsible for the difference.

In world trade, the country sales forcasts were basis for placing
orders with the manufactoring plants (each country bought machines
from manufactoring). The machines were then built and shipped to the
countries ordering them. If forcasts were too high ... the unsold
machines were on the books of the country that ordered them ... not on
the books of the manufactoring plant.

One of the things that became very apparent was the people doing sales
forcasts in world trade countries were quite a bit more dllligent than
the people doing sales forcasts in the US; aka in world trade their
jobs could ride on how accurate the forcasts were (since world trade
countries bought and carried the inventory corresponding to the sales
forcasts)).

In the US, since the forcasts were not held accountable against the
marketing/sales organization (i.e. manufactoring plants carried the
inventory not the sales organizaiton) ... there was much less
erquirement for accuracy in the forcasts. US sales forcasts tended to
be much more aligned with corporate strategic statements than possibly
with what they felt customers might actually be expected to buy. The
result was manufactoring tended to discount the accuracy of US sales
forcasts and tended to duplicate the forcasting effort for US sales
i.e. to try and come up with accurate numbers ... rather than numbers
that possibly tended to support the current corporate strategic
thinking.

Allodoxaphobia

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 1:11:49 PM4/26/05
to

rwong? -- unless _my_ bitrot is as severe as yours. :-)
T'wern't any Sys/370 148's. The 145 had a DAT box from Day 1,
and that model number endured.

Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK

spam-e...@the-shredder.invalid

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 1:41:41 PM4/26/05
to
On 26 Apr 2005 17:11:49 GMT, Allodoxaphobia <bit-b...@config.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:10:26 -0400, rpl wrote:
>> gotta do something about bitrot...
>>
>> 370/148 256K
>> 370/168 512K
>>
>> rihgt?
>
> rwong? -- unless _my_ bitrot is as severe as yours. :-)
>T'wern't any Sys/370 148's. The 145 had a DAT box from Day 1,
>and that model number endured.


Looks like you've got some bitro then. 370/135 and 370/145 had no
"DAT box" and were not field upgradeable (by IBM) . They were
replaced with 370/138 and 370/148. The 370/155 and 370/165 were
upgradeable with DAT box by IBM, but for new purchase 370/158 and
370/168 were available.

See http://www.thegalleryofoldiron.com/ for 135, 138, 145 and 148.

--
anton

Jay Maynard

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 2:48:51 PM4/26/05
to
On 2005-04-26, spam-e...@the-shredder.invalid <spam-e...@the-shredder.invalid> wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2005 17:11:49 GMT, Allodoxaphobia <bit-b...@config.com>
> wrote:
>> rwong? -- unless _my_ bitrot is as severe as yours. :-)
>>T'wern't any Sys/370 148's. The 145 had a DAT box from Day 1,
>>and that model number endured.
> Looks like you've got some bitro then. 370/135 and 370/145 had no
> "DAT box" and were not field upgradeable (by IBM) . They were
> replaced with 370/138 and 370/148. The 370/155 and 370/165 were
> upgradeable with DAT box by IBM, but for new purchase 370/158 and
> 370/168 were available.

You're both right. The 370/135 and /145 had DAT built in, with no need for
an additional box to provide the functionality. There were indeed /138 and
/148 follow-on systems, but the difference was mainly speed. The /155 and
/165 needed a DAT box to do virtual addressing, and, IIRC, they were
standard on the /155-II and /165-II. The /158 and /168, as you say, did come
with it built in.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:00:04 PM4/26/05
to
Allodoxaphobia <bit-b...@config.com> writes:
> rwong? -- unless _my_ bitrot is as severe as yours. :-) T'wern't
> any Sys/370 148's. The 145 had a DAT box from Day 1, and that model
> number endured.

(customer) 145s had DAT from day 1 ... but it wasn't enabled until
virtual memory was announce (at which time, the 145s got new microcode
loads to enable virtual memory). the 145s did have front panel with
lots of lights and "rollers" with crypted designation about the
meanings of the lights. all 145s shipped to customers had the physical
rollers ... and included a "xlat" designation for one of the lights.
this resulted in some speculation in the press prior to 370 virtual
memory announcement.

165s had to have (fairly large) hardware retrofit in the field.

138, 148, 158, and 168s were all new technology and models to the
previous 135, 145, 155, and 165.

virgil/tully (138/148) besides being faster & typically more memory
than their predecessor ... had operating system microcode performance
assists (vs1 and vm) ... and the 148 had significantly faster floating
point than the 145 (much faster than the nominal overall speedup of
the 148 over the 145).

besides ecps project mentioned in previous postings
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005g.html#16 DOS/360: Forty years


http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005d.html#59 Misuse of word "microcode"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#59 Where should the type information be: in tags and descriptors

the science center:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

had an earlier joint project with endicott. this was to create
software virtual machine (cp67 running 360/67) that emulated the 370
architecture (including virtual memory), as oppsed to emulating 360/67
architecture. 370 architecture had some number of new instructions not
found in 360 ... and the virtual memory tables had a number of
differences from those defined in 360/67. this was running in regular
use at least a year before the first engineering 370/145 with virtual
memory was operational.

various past postings on cp67h & cp67i activities:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#50 crossreferenced program code listings
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#0 HONE was .. Hercules and System/390 - do we need it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#70 hone acronym (cross post)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#31 determining memory size
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#74 DASD Architecture of the future
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004h.html#27 Vintage computers are better than modern crap !
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#50 IBM 3614 and 3624 ATM's
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005c.html#59 intel's Vanderpool and virtualization in general
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005d.html#58 Virtual Machine Hardware
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005d.html#66 Virtual Machine Hardware

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:10:35 PM4/26/05
to
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> as part of the effort, i got to spend quite a bit of time running
> around the world doing 138/148 business forcast analysis with
> various organizations. There was some big difference between how the
> sales and marketing business was done in the US and how sales and
> marketing business was done in the rest of the world.

it turns out that i was doing virgil/tully (138/148) at about the
same time I was doing vamps
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#bounce

and the resource manager:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock

there were some interesting strategic marketing meetings at various
locations that were looking at vamps vis-a-vis 148 (before vamps got
killed). to some extent they were targeted at the same market segment
and therefor were viewed was somewhat competitive. the strategic
marketing meetings were to look at which should be chosen (if
necessary) ... and so the meetings pitted the 148 in competition with
vamps. the problem in these meetings was that i had to fairly
represent both factions ... since i was doing a lot of work on both
products ... and would represent both products at such meetings (in
theory i was suppose to argue the pros & cons of both products with
myself).

Charlie Gibbs

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 2:38:10 PM4/26/05
to
In article <qhd5sif...@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, er...@brouhaha.com
(Eric Smith) writes:

> I'm not sure how much core this particular 360/30 has, but since it
> can't be more than 64KB,

Unless it has a third-party add-on. A PPOE rented time on a /30
with 128K, although the switches and indicators for the extra
memory had a bit of a home-brewed look.

Companies like Greyhound bought up 360/30s that came off lease,
refurbished them, and leased them out to companies who didn't
want to make the jump to the 370 line. IIRC they were hanging
as much as 512K on them.

--
/~\ cgi...@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!

Charlie Gibbs

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:34:21 PM4/26/05
to
In article <xr-dnWH1XZo...@rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com
(jmfbahciv) writes:

> In article <20050426120655....@eircom.net>,
> Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Apr 2005 10:40:08 -0700
>> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>> PC-DOS may be an impostor compared to DOS/360, but today's PCs
>>> are not toys.
>>
>> Well yes - but running PC-DOS on a modern PC is kinda silly.

The same could be said about Windows.

> And also prevents playing.

You really need a front panel. You can play so much better with
a front panel.

> Which prevents learning.

I'm willing to believe you when you say that there are people
who want to learn. But a depressing majority doesn't want to
"waste" their time learning - they just want to know which button
to press to do the thing they want Right Now.

> Which prevents producing useful stuff.

A lot of today's software is a sad example of this.

> I am looking forward to when most PCs do become toys.

In one sense, at least. On the other hand, I'm looking forward
to when they _stop_ being toys and become useful tools. This
will require a change in the mindset of users, which will in
turn drive software developers to provide those tools. (They
are capable of doing so now, but they need incentive.)

Henk Stegeman

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:24:56 PM4/26/05
to
Hi Eric,

Please see: http://www.piercefuller.com/library/ibmdos.html?id=ibmdos

Regards Henk Stegeman

Eric Smith <er...@brouhaha.com> wrote in message news:<qhd5sif...@ruckus.brouhaha.com>...

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:30:21 PM4/26/05
to
rpl <plinnan...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes:
> 370/148 256K
> 370/168 512K

for a little more topic drift ... look at the
definition for "remap" in this copy of ibm jargon:
http://www.212.net/business/jargonr.htm

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:35:37 PM4/26/05
to

Eric Smith wrote:
> I'm not sure how much core this particular 360/30 has, but since it
> can't be more than 64KB, I'm guessing that there weren't too many
> choices for operating systems for it. Was there anything other than
> BOS, TOS, or DOS?

Why couldn't it be more than 64k? Was that all the /30 could
hold? I would presume at least 128. Our 40 could hold up to 256k
(we had 192). We had to put another box on it, but nothing else.

As to operating systems, that's it. You probably would be best
with DOS for fastest performance. IIRC, supposedly OS/PCP
greatly scaled down would work, but not really in practice.

> The museum has some 2311 disk drives and some 24xx tape drives with
it,
> but it appears that the control units for those are not present.
> I hope that we can find suitable control units, but if not, at least
> the channel interface is very well documented, so as a last resort
> we could either try to use more modern channel devices, or engineer
> new peripherals with channel interfaces. It would be amusing to use
> a tiny little SD card as a DASD on the 360.

As a former S/360 user, at first I would love the idea of key-
punching a COBOL program, zipping it through the reader, and
watching the tapes and 1403 printer fly by. But then, I must
admit, reality sets in. (Just as it does when I use a typewriter).
An 029 doesn't have a cursor backspace. It doesn't show a screen
of cards and easily correct them all, but one card at a time with
hard to read writing. The special chars were in weird places.

If I leave out a comma, I still have to wait for a whole compile
to be run and printed just to learn that. Today I wait seconds
and look at the results on my screen. I think my patience would
run out quickly doing as was done in the past.

Running compiles and tests went through a lot of paper and
cards. Keeping the 1403 going will be costly.

Jay Maynard

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:51:29 PM4/26/05
to
Eric Smith <er...@brouhaha.com> wrote in message news:<qhd5sif...@ruckus.brouhaha.com>...
> Does anyone still have a copy of DOS/360 (or BOS or TOS) that will run
> on a 360/30? The Computer History Museum has a 360/30. It is not
> currently operational, and there are currently no official (or even
> unofficial) plans to restore it, but I'm hoping that someday we can do
> it.

I'd love to see a 360 run.
As Henk noted, DOS/360 (and TOS/360, too) exist today, and there's a small
but dedicated group of folks using it with Hercules.

>> I'm not sure how much core this particular 360/30 has, but since it
>> can't be more than 64KB, I'm guessing that there weren't too many
>> choices for operating systems for it. Was there anything other than
>> BOS, TOS, or DOS?

I suppose you could run a very small OS/360 PCP configuration on it, and a
hydraulic ram could stuff a one- or two-partition MFT into it, but I would
expect it to run very, very, very slowly.

>> The museum has some 2311 disk drives and some 24xx tape drives with it,
>> but it appears that the control units for those are not present.
>> I hope that we can find suitable control units, but if not, at least
>> the channel interface is very well documented, so as a last resort
>> we could either try to use more modern channel devices, or engineer
>> new peripherals with channel interfaces. It would be amusing to use
>> a tiny little SD card as a DASD on the 360.

The problem is that you'd have to modify DOS/360 to recognize and deal with
the more modern devices. I doubt DOS/360 could even use 3330s, let alone
anything modern. You'd have to develop a replacement for the controller -
but I can't tell from the online stuff if the 2311 *had* a seprate
controller, or if it was built into the box. (It was on the 2314.) If you
don't have a 2803 or 2804 tape controller, you'll have to develop one of
those too, and that might get Really Interesting.

Kevin G. Rhoads

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 3:26:08 PM4/26/05
to
> Well yes - but running PC-DOS on a modern PC is kinda silly.

Not if you want to work with floppies. NT-ish OSes can't deal with
many floppy formats, so-called formatting under those OSes is a horror,
and if there are any bad sectors, forget it. At least under PC-DOS, MS-DOS,
FreeDOS, DR-DOS or some such, you have a fighting chance of reading data
off old floppies.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 4:14:46 PM4/26/05
to

and a small sample of 148s on the internal network:
REKVM1 * RESPOND/2 148/VM EMEA Reykjavik,Iceland 354-1-27700x25
TUCVMJ * TUCVMI/5 148/VM GPD Tucson, Arizona 8-562-7100
BOEVM13 * BOEVM4/9 148/VM EMEA Boeblingen,Ger. 49-7031-16-8903

spam-e...@the-shredder.invalid

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 4:21:19 PM4/26/05
to
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:51:29 GMT, Jay Maynard
<jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

[snip]


>The problem is that you'd have to modify DOS/360 to recognize and deal with
>the more modern devices. I doubt DOS/360 could even use 3330s, let alone
>anything modern. You'd have to develop a replacement for the controller -
>but I can't tell from the online stuff if the 2311 *had* a seprate
>controller, or if it was built into the box. (It was on the 2314.) If you
>don't have a 2803 or 2804 tape controller, you'll have to develop one of
>those too, and that might get Really Interesting.

The 2311 required 2841 control unit which had to be connected on /360
selector channel.

--
anton

arargh5...@now.at.arargh.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 4:33:55 PM4/26/05
to
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:51:29 GMT, Jay Maynard
<jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

<snip>


>>> The museum has some 2311 disk drives and some 24xx tape drives with it,
>>> but it appears that the control units for those are not present.
>>> I hope that we can find suitable control units, but if not, at least
>>> the channel interface is very well documented, so as a last resort
>>> we could either try to use more modern channel devices, or engineer
>>> new peripherals with channel interfaces. It would be amusing to use
>>> a tiny little SD card as a DASD on the 360.
>
>The problem is that you'd have to modify DOS/360 to recognize and deal with
>the more modern devices. I doubt DOS/360 could even use 3330s, let alone
>anything modern. You'd have to develop a replacement for the controller -
>but I can't tell from the online stuff if the 2311 *had* a seprate
>controller, or if it was built into the box. (It was on the 2314.) If you
>don't have a 2803 or 2804 tape controller, you'll have to develop one of
>those too, and that might get Really Interesting.

And where are you going to find CKD drives? Maybe old MFM or ESDI
drives could be used that way. :-)

--
Arargh504 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.

Eric Smith

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 5:08:14 PM4/26/05
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> Unless it has a third-party add-on. A PPOE rented time on a /30
> with 128K, although the switches and indicators for the extra
> memory had a bit of a home-brewed look.
>
> Companies like Greyhound bought up 360/30s that came off lease,
> refurbished them, and leased them out to companies who didn't
> want to make the jump to the 370 line. IIRC they were hanging
> as much as 512K on them.

I've heard of that before. Must have been an amazing hack, since the
hardware and microcode of the 360/30 are completely designed around use
of 16-bit addresses.

Eric

Eric Smith

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 5:14:08 PM4/26/05
to
I wrote:
> The museum has some 2311 disk drives and some 24xx tape drives with it,
> but it appears that the control units for those are not present.
> I hope that we can find suitable control units, but if not, at least
> the channel interface is very well documented, so as a last resort
> we could either try to use more modern channel devices, or engineer
> new peripherals with channel interfaces. It would be amusing to use
> a tiny little SD card as a DASD on the 360.

Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
> The problem is that you'd have to modify DOS/360 to recognize and deal with
> the more modern devices. I doubt DOS/360 could even use 3330s, let alone
> anything modern.

I thought the newer DASD controls used a superset of the channel commands
of the older ones?

> but I can't tell from the online stuff if the 2311 *had* a seprate
> controller, or if it was built into the box. (It was on the 2314.)

AFAICT, it needed a 2841 storage control unit, which was also used for
the 2303 drum, 2302 disk, or 2321 data cell.

> If you don't have a 2803 or 2804 tape controller,

Speaking of which, what is the difference between the 2803 and 2804?

Eric

Eric Smith

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 5:16:54 PM4/26/05
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes about the 360/30 memory size limit:

> Why couldn't it be more than 64k? Was that all the /30 could
> hold?

Yes, that's the maximum. The 2030 address paths only have 16 bits.

> I would presume at least 128. Our 40 could hold up to 256k
> (we had 192). We had to put another box on it, but nothing else.

I'm not sure what the hardware limitation of the 2040 was, but 256K
wouldn't be surprising.

Eric

Allodoxaphobia

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 5:27:17 PM4/26/05
to

Remember the Itel debacle? _That_ definitely did _not_ help my
retirement nest egg.

Peter Flass

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 7:55:10 PM4/26/05
to
Henk Stegeman wrote:
>
> Please see: http://www.piercefuller.com/library/ibmdos.html?id=ibmdos
>

Wow! That's one I missed. Thanks.

Lawrence Greenwald

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 8:40:48 PM4/26/05
to
In article <slrnd6t6to....@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

I don't know if it would work on a /30, but you might consider an
alternative - Software Pursuits had a modified DOS/VSE called MVT/VSE -
it's DOS/VS but behaves more like OS/MVT (not sure about this).

Don't know if it still exists, or if it would run on the older /30.

--LG

Lawrence Greenwald

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 8:44:18 PM4/26/05
to
In article <slrnd6stil.1g...@shell.config.com>,
Allodoxaphobia <bit-b...@config.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:10:26 -0400, rpl wrote:
> > gotta do something about bitrot...
> >
> > 370/148 256K
> > 370/168 512K
> >
> > rihgt?
>
> rwong? -- unless _my_ bitrot is as severe as yours. :-)
> T'wern't any Sys/370 148's. The 145 had a DAT box from Day 1,
> and that model number endured.
>
> Jonesy

Oh yes, there were 370/148s. Looked like the 158.

No flashing lights and a 3270 replaced the 3210/3215 console.

--LG

Rich Alderson

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 9:25:33 PM4/26/05
to
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> writes:

> The very fact that someone can seriously regard Word 6 as relatively
> bloat-free itself speaks volumes about our current expectations and
> tolerance level for bloat.

Indeed. I remember an April issue of BYTE in the late 80s (early 90s?) that
showed a mock-up of the screen for a far-future version of Word (say year 2000
or the like); imagine my dismay a few months later when the BYTE review of a
new version of Word showed a screen shot that was more crowded than their worst
nightmare had been. :-(

--
Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
ne...@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
"You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
--Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |

Mike Ross

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 10:43:33 PM4/26/05
to

Beg to differ; the 148 did have fairly minimal blinkenlights:

http://www.thegalleryofoldiron.com/370_148_OPEN.JPG

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 11:57:59 PM4/26/05
to
Lawrence Greenwald <lgre...@cts.com> writes:
> Oh yes, there were 370/148s. Looked like the 158.
>
> No flashing lights and a 3270 replaced the 3210/3215 console.

here is 145 (although not very good closeup of front panel)
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_2423PH3145.html

and 148
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_2423PH3148.html

from the "mainframe photo album"
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_album.html

some 370 machine characteristics
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_FS370B.html

370 announce & shiip dates
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_FS370.html

note in the above ... there possibly is some problem with 145 & 145-3
dates. first it claims that 145 was "withdrawn" only a couple months
after it started shipping. also the 145-3 date shows it was announced
on the same date as the 148.

this has somewhat more consistant dates for 145 (although the site it
was taken from no longer seems to have the information available)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#209

it does say virtual memory was announced for 370 8/72 and shipped
8/73. also that the 135-3 & 145-3 were announce on 8/72 also and
shipped 8/73. They do appear to have some gotchas ... with some of the
boxes and/or software associated with virtual memory available prior
to 8/73 (that virtual memory supposedly was available) .... "virtual
storage" (the name at the time for virtual memory) would be prereq for
any software that used virtual storage. Also 158 had virtual memory
... and so couldn't ship before virtual memory was officially
available.

this reference has a lot of dates ... but also some inconsistancies
with 145 & 148:
http://www2.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=IBMHIST&ft=NOTE&args=4341

some 370 machine characteristics are here:
http://www.beagle-ears.com/lars/engineer/comphist/model360.htm

some ibm dates from 1964-1974 (with a lot of other dates)
http://febcm.club.fr/english/information_technology/information_technology_3.htm

Steve O'Hara-Smith

unread,
Apr 27, 2005, 4:51:46 AM4/27/05
to
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:26:08 +0000
"Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > Well yes - but running PC-DOS on a modern PC is kinda silly.
>
> Not if you want to work with floppies. NT-ish OSes can't deal with
> many floppy formats, so-called formatting under those OSes is a horror,

I've never had trouble reading floppies with FreeBSD - except
when I discovered that the floppy drive had died in the years since it
was used :)

Steve O'Hara-Smith

unread,
Apr 27, 2005, 4:49:53 AM4/27/05
to
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:52:37 GMT
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> > On 25 Apr 2005 10:40:08 -0700
> > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> >
> >> PC-DOS may be an impostor compared to DOS/360, but today's PCs are not
> >> toys.
> >

> > Well yes - but running PC-DOS on a modern PC is kinda silly.
>

> And running Windows isn't???

Running Windows is always silly - but sometimes unavoidable.
Running modern Windows on an old PC is *really* silly :)

--
Must restore sig.

Kevin G. Rhoads

unread,
Apr 27, 2005, 6:33:04 AM4/27/05
to
>I've never had trouble reading floppies with FreeBSD

I've heard that it is possible to squeeze a useable Linux or FreeBSD install onto
a single HD floppy which can be booted, but I don't know how to do it. Nowadays
when you can boot from a CD on so many systems, I suppose it is less a concern,
but for decades, being able to boot some form of x86 DOS from a floppy has been
incredibly useful to me -- not to mention that I can get working installs of
QPRO for DOS, MS Fortran 5.1 and WordPerfect 5.1 each on a single HD floppy --
four floppies and I can boot, wordprocess, number crunch and compile all without
needing to "install" anything on a HD -- there were several years when I was consulting
where I found that incredibly useful.

Just as work expands to fill the time available to it, computer programs seem to
expand to fill the resources (RAM, processor bandwidth &c) available to them. Whether
we talk of DOS/360 or PC-DOS, those days of lean, mean programming are (unfortunately,
to my mind) pretty much long gone. Yeah, a few embedded systems things are still resource
parsimonious, but that's the exception not the rule. It can be nice at times to have
fancy, resource rich (and resource hogging) systems -- but I don't want to never have the
choice ... and, dang, if it don't feel like that's the way we's agoin'

And having just turned 54, it is nearly 40 years I've been programming. At least I
still get to do some embedded systems stuff as well as bloatware coding. These
days much of the time you can't even justify coding one-of number crunches in Fortran much
of the time, incstead use IDL or a spreadsheet or Octave or somesuch.

Too many newbies who never experienced the feeling of unlimited freedom that coding into
64k (of 60 bit words) on a CDC-6400 or 512k on a 360/65 or even the relative spaciousness
of 16k (12 bit words) on a PDP-8 (it has been too long, I've forgotten the RIM loader, I
nearly lost my green card (and, yes, I have one of the old *green* ones))

(and it was uphill both ways to and from school, in the snow, and we had no zeroes and
had to use "O"s and we cut our paper tapes and unit records with pocket knives, ...)

Rob Warnock

unread,
Apr 27, 2005, 7:08:50 AM4/27/05
to
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Unfortunately, as PCs have grown in size and horsepower, their
| operating systems have grown along with them. It frustates me
| to no end that my home PC--an old Pentium 120 is faster than my
| work PC (Pentium 4 1.5 GHz) because of the bloated junk loaded
| on the work unit. I try to use older MS programs (ie Word 6.0
| instead of Word 2000) because they run so much faster and don't
| have unnecessary bloat.
+---------------

I have a 33 MHz '486 with only 32 MB of RAM at home that is
perfectly happy running a relatively-recent FreeBSD. And it
almost *never* crashes, either!!

slow% w
3:57AM up 861 days, 22:06, 1 user, load averages: 0.15, 0.03, 0.01
USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT
rpw3 p0 fast 3:57AM - w
slow%

Yes, that "861 days" is no lie!! That's exactly how long it's
been since I installed the small UPS in my home office... ;-} ;-}

My main web/mail/DNS server (also running FreeBSD) is an el-cheapo
Athlon XP 1600+ (1.4 GHz) desktop that's been up for "only" 250 days
[since the last major system software upgrade]...


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607

Steve O'Hara-Smith

unread,
Apr 27, 2005, 7:26:50 AM4/27/05
to
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:33:04 +0000

"Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> >I've never had trouble reading floppies with FreeBSD
>
> I've heard that it is possible to squeeze a useable Linux or FreeBSD install onto
> a single HD floppy which can be booted, but I don't know how to do it.

For minimal values of useable - yes. OTOH it's on the hard disc of
almost all my boxes.

> Nowadays
> when you can boot from a CD on so many systems, I suppose it is less a concern,

Yes a useable CD booting live system is easy.

> but for decades, being able to boot some form of x86 DOS from a floppy has been
> incredibly useful to me -- not to mention that I can get working installs of
> QPRO for DOS, MS Fortran 5.1 and WordPerfect 5.1 each on a single HD floppy --
> four floppies and I can boot, wordprocess, number crunch and compile all

Heh - you're reminding me of the floppy based C development system I
used to carry around - one to boot and hold sources and objects, one to
install editing tools into a RAMdisc and the third to hold the compiler.

> And having just turned 54, it is nearly 40 years I've been programming.

I'm just a youngster with those age digits reversed and a mere
three decades of programming under my belt.

> (and it was uphill both ways to and from school, in the snow, and we had no zeroes and
> had to use "O"s and we cut our paper tapes and unit records with pocket knives, ...)

You had pocket knives! you were lucky we had to use pointy sticks
sharpened on the pavement.