First video terminal?

11 weergaven
Naar het eerste ongelezen bericht

Eric Fischer

ongelezen,
24 okt. 2000 01:27:5124-10-2000
aan
Can anyone say what the first video terminal was? By this I mean
the first CRT device to act more or less like a printing terminal
rather than a point- or vector-plotting device. I see the February,
1969 announcement of the Digital VT03 (at $7900 for an 80x12 display)
but this probably wasn't the first (if only because it should have
been preceded by VT01 and VT02).

eric

Edward Green

ongelezen,
24 okt. 2000 03:00:0024-10-2000
aan
Eric Fischer <e...@pobox.com> wrote:

Not to mention the VT52...

On the theory that any fool with a web connection can become an
instant expert via search engines, and had better at least emulate
this activity if he wants to avoid the dreaded search engine police, I
can now knowingly say...

Have you seen these lovingly crafted web sites devoted to video
terminal memorabilia?

<http://vt100.net/> (Paul Williams)

<http://www.cs.utk.edu/~shuford/terminal_index.html> (Richard Shuford)

By following some links therein I managed to learn that the first
time sharing systems at MIT, in the period 1960-63 at least, used
something called the Flexowriter, which was sort of a hot-wired IBM
Selectric... maybe the typewriter derives from the terminal, not the
other way around. So presumably during that period video terminals
were still a gleam in their engineer's eye.

By further reading in the second site, which not only contains more
information about terminals than you probably want to know, but
more, far more, than you could ever believe _existed_, I managed
to glean that the first DEC video terminal (I presume this means
the first production model) was the VT05, which was essentially a
"glass teletype", while the first terminal incorporating key
features which the average schmoe of today would require in a "video
terminal" was indeed the VT52, released "circa 1974", which would
seem to be five years off, by your reference. Further unverified
reading suggests the VT52 was only officially "retired" by DEC in
May of 1993. That product had legs, whatever its real intro date!

You can find pictures of a VT50, VT50 and VT100 side by side at

<http://www.kuno.de/steinburg/drucker.htm>;

and by piecing together the mosaic, you can deduce that the thing
on top of the VT50 is a "DECWriter IV".

David R Brooks

ongelezen,
24 okt. 2000 03:00:0024-10-2000
aan
e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:

...
:Have you seen these lovingly crafted web sites devoted to video


:terminal memorabilia?
:
:<http://vt100.net/> (Paul Williams)
:
:<http://www.cs.utk.edu/~shuford/terminal_index.html> (Richard Shuford)
:
:By following some links therein I managed to learn that the first
:time sharing systems at MIT, in the period 1960-63 at least, used
:something called the Flexowriter, which was sort of a hot-wired IBM
:Selectric... maybe the typewriter derives from the terminal, not the
:other way around. So presumably during that period video terminals
:were still a gleam in their engineer's eye.

Flexowriter was not a hot-wired Selectric. Made by Friden (later
Singer-Friden). Unlike the Selectric (or for that matter, the
Teletype), Flexowriter did not use a dancing ball/drum for the type.
It derived from a classical manual typewriter, with a "basket" of
type-levers. Beneath all this, was a "power roll", rather like a
second platen, spun by the motor. Attached to each type-lever was a
pivoting cam, with a serrated face. When tripped by a solenoid, the
cam's serrations caught on the power-roll, which dragged it around, so
firing the type-lever.
It could be hooked up to two paper-tape stations (ie 2 readers & 2
punches), and could do some interesting things. One was to load one
reader with an endless tape containing a letter, with the address,
etc. replaced by special flags. The second reader was loaded with a
tape of names & addresses. Yes indeed, an all-mechanical MailMerge!

Edward Green

ongelezen,
24 okt. 2000 03:00:0024-10-2000
aan
David R Brooks <da...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Flexowriter was not a hot-wired Selectric. Made by Friden (later
>Singer-Friden).

Sorry. I've been accused of sloppy reading before, and this time, my
accusers would be right. I knew there was some early
cross-connection between the typewriter and a terminal series, and
late night posting sucked "Flexowriter" into this stew.

I did enjoy the enjoy the period culture of how the coolest of the
cool computer people had early terminals which weighed as much as a
washing machine and cost as much as a Chevy hauled into their homes.

As for "fully-mechanical mail merge", I was onboard a US sub in the
mid-eighties which had been launched in '64, whose torpedo fire control
computer was still fully mechanical, a distant cousin I suppose of
WWII era fully mechanical battleship fire control computers. At the
time I remember thinking the choice represented some kind of technical
conservatism, but except for the fact that they had never been
replaced, its sounds like at the time of launch they may have been
state of the art.

Edward Green

ongelezen,
24 okt. 2000 03:00:0024-10-2000
aan
I wrote:

>I did enjoy the enjoy the period culture of how the coolest of the...

Heh... outsmarted the spell checker that time! Forget about repeated
words; it didn't think to check for "phrase stutter", now _did_ it? :)

Henry Churchyard

ongelezen,
24 okt. 2000 03:00:0024-10-2000
aan
In article <8t3elm$3u0$1...@news.panix.com>, Edward Green <e...@panix.com> wrote:
> Eric Fischer <e...@pobox.com> wrote:

> I managed to glean that the first DEC video terminal (I presume this


> means the first production model) was the VT05, which was
> essentially a "glass teletype", while the first terminal
> incorporating key features which the average schmoe of today would
> require in a "video terminal" was indeed the VT52, released "circa
> 1974", which would seem to be five years off, by your reference.

Have no idea what the model number was, or whether they had cursor
control or not, but I do clearly remember that while the University of
California at Irvine mostly used standing teletypes (with punched tape
readers and writers) in 1972, there were also at least 6 or 8 green
screen terminals located in the computer room itself (hooked up to a
DEC PDP-10; I think you probably couldn't access the Xerox Sigma-7 --
the other main timesharing computer at the University -- from these
video terminals). There was also exactly one very expensive
pixel-addressable light-pen sensitive screen, with a large vertical
rectangular CRT, which they were very protective of, since the pixels
could supposedly be burned out if you illuminated them brightly for a
sustained period of time (for ten years afterwards, I had some paper
tapes that contained the commands for drawing simple line drawings on
the light-pen screen, but those all got crinkled up due to carless
storage, then thrown away as useless, years ago...).

--
Henry Churchyard chu...@usa.net http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/

Eric Fischer

ongelezen,
24 okt. 2000 23:25:5824-10-2000
aan
I wrote,

> I see the February, 1969 announcement of the Digital VT03 ... but


> this probably wasn't the first (if only because it should have been
> preceded by VT01 and VT02).

Eric Smith points out (in mail) that DEC's published history (Digital
at Work) and the time line at

http://www.dec.com/timeline/1970-3.htm

both say that the VT05 was the first video terminal manufactured by
the company and asks for more details. So here is the complete text:

KEYBOARD DISPLAY ADDED TO PDP-10 LINE

A keyboard display terminal, providing quicker response in an
interactive computing environment than is possible with tele-
typewriter devices, has been added to the PDP-10 product
line.

The VT03 display console operates similarly to a conventional
teleprinter and incorporates "carriage return" and "line feed"
characters for position control. It is virtual noiseless and
accepts data at the rate of 1200 baud as compared to a tele-
printer rate of 110 baud.

The full-duplex console features a local memory for display
refreshing thus eliminating the demand on processor time usually
required for this function. The VT03 display up to 960 char-
acters arranged in 12 rows of 80 characters each.

Among others, the display unit features an alphanumeric key-
board, editing capability from the keyboard or computer, au-
dible end-of-line and incoming message tones and plug-in
boards for easy maintenance.

The unit is priced at $7900. An interface option, priced at
$300, is available which allows the user to generate hard copy
remotely via standard Teletype devices.

First deliveries of the new unit are scheduled for this summer.

The VT03 keyboard display joins a comprehensive line of
PDP-10 options which include, among other items, mass storage
devices, card handling and line printing equipment, display
and plotter systems and data communications equipment. More
than 1.5 million console hours have been logged on PDP-10
systems in some 50 worldwide installations in such environments
as commercial time-sharing, manufacturing, banking, un-
versities and research.

"News from DEC," DECUSCOPE, vol. 8, no. 2, 1969, p. 20.

Seeing a feature set like this going for $7900 makes it easier to
understand why TV typewriters were considered so exciting a few
years later.

eric

jmfb...@aol.com

ongelezen,
25 okt. 2000 03:00:0025-10-2000
aan
In article <8t4ema$2...@moe.cc.utexas.edu>,

"Henry Churchyard" <chu...@usa.net> wrote:
>In article <8t3elm$3u0$1...@news.panix.com>, Edward Green <e...@panix.com>
wrote:
>> Eric Fischer <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I managed to glean that the first DEC video terminal (I presume this
>> means the first production model) was the VT05, which was
>> essentially a "glass teletype", while the first terminal
>> incorporating key features which the average schmoe of today would
>> require in a "video terminal" was indeed the VT52, released "circa
>> 1974", which would seem to be five years off, by your reference.
>
>Have no idea what the model number was, or whether they had cursor
>control or not, but I do clearly remember that while the University of
>California at Irvine mostly used standing teletypes (with punched tape
>readers and writers) in 1972, there were also at least 6 or 8 green
>screen terminals located in the computer room itself (hooked up to a
>DEC PDP-10;

The ones that had a green screen that were hooked up to our
PDP-10 were called VT06s but DEC didn't make them. They were
very expensive but were, IMO, the best terminals that ever
existed.


> ...I think you probably couldn't access the Xerox Sigma-7 --


>the other main timesharing computer at the University -- from these
>video terminals).

They wouldn't be if they were hardwired into the -10. Back in
those days changing hosts involved sneaker power.


> There was also exactly one very expensive
>pixel-addressable light-pen sensitive screen, with a large vertical
>rectangular CRT, which they were very protective of, since the pixels
>could supposedly be burned out if you illuminated them brightly for a
>sustained period of time (for ten years afterwards, I had some paper
>tapes that contained the commands for drawing simple line drawings on
>the light-pen screen, but those all got crinkled up due to carless
>storage, then thrown away as useless, years ago...).

And paper tapes seemed to acquire crinkles just by laying
around.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

jmfb...@aol.com

ongelezen,
25 okt. 2000 03:00:0025-10-2000
aan
In article <8t5js6$ga$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,

Eric Fischer <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I wrote,
>
>> I see the February, 1969 announcement of the Digital VT03 ... but
>> this probably wasn't the first (if only because it should have been
>> preceded by VT01 and VT02).
>
>Eric Smith points out (in mail) that DEC's published history (Digital
>at Work) and the time line at
>
> http://www.dec.com/timeline/1970-3.htm
>
>both say that the VT05 was the first video terminal manufactured by
>the company and asks for more details.

It was. Note the word manufactured. That means that a DEC-owned
plant made them and didn't just hang a logo on another
manufacturer's product.

> ... So here is the complete text:

<snip description>

>"News from DEC," DECUSCOPE, vol. 8, no. 2, 1969, p. 20.
>
>Seeing a feature set like this going for $7900 makes it easier to
>understand why TV typewriters were considered so exciting a few
>years later.

I have no idea what that VT03 was.

jchausler

ongelezen,
25 okt. 2000 03:00:0025-10-2000
aan

Eric Fischer wrote:

The first raster video terminal I saw was in 1970 at CMU. It was IIRC
called "Infoton" or something like that. It displayed white characters
on
a black background. I came across them again in 73 or so at my first
"real" job. I last saw one, still in use, in 94. IIRC they used a shift

register memory.

Chris
AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE
$$

Carl R. Friend

ongelezen,
25 okt. 2000 03:00:0025-10-2000
aan
jchausler wrote:
>
> The first raster video terminal I saw was in 1970 at CMU. It was IIRC
> called "Infoton" or something like that. It displayed white
> characters on a black background. I came across them again in 73
> or so at my first "real" job. I last saw one, still in use, in 94.
> IIRC they used a shift register memory.

When I acquired my Nova 840 I had an opportunity to grab the original
Infoton console; I still kick myself for not doing so - it's landfill
now.... (The machine was purchased new in 1973, or close thereabouts.)

I don't recall a shift-register memory on it, though, but am
aware of some terminals that used delay-line (acoustic) memory for
refresh purposes.

My how time flies....

--
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | West Boylston |
| Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Massachusetts, USA |
| mailto:crfr...@ma.ultranet.com +---------------------+
| http://www.ultranet.com/~crfriend/museum | ICBM: 42:22N 71:47W |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+

Shez

ongelezen,
25 okt. 2000 21:16:2925-10-2000
aan
Edward Green <e...@panix.com> writes:
> the VT52 was only officially "retired" by DEC in
>May of 1993. That product had legs, whatever its real intro date!

That is incorrect, in fact it had small rubber feet.

-Shez.
--
______________________________________________________

Hacker's Law:
The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir
a nation to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions.
______________________________________________________
Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/
Use PGP: my key is at http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/p/Shez.asc

Ric Werme

ongelezen,
25 okt. 2000 21:03:2725-10-2000
aan
David R Brooks <da...@iinet.net.au> writes:

>e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:

>:By following some links therein I managed to learn that the first
>:time sharing systems at MIT, in the period 1960-63 at least, used
>:something called the Flexowriter, which was sort of a hot-wired IBM
>:Selectric... maybe the typewriter derives from the terminal, not the
>:other way around. So presumably during that period video terminals
>:were still a gleam in their engineer's eye.

Probably not - most television sets of that era were still made with
vacuum tubes, anything transistorized used discreet transistors.
(The typical AM handheld radio was advertised as a "six transistor radio".)

A 80x24 video terminal needs 2 KB of RAM, well, maybe it could have used
SIXBIT, but still, 12 Kb of memory for a terminal! Much better of sticking
with good old Teletypes Flexowriters.

My father had a Packard-Bell 250 at work with a Flexowriter. I think they
came together, but I'm not sure. Also 1962 timeframe.

> Flexowriter was not a hot-wired Selectric.

Worth saying twice! IBM did have some terminals that had Selectric
guts, e.g. the 2741 and 1051? used as the console for various 360s.
--
Ric Werme | we...@nospam.mediaone.net
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/werme | ^^^^^^^ delete
Vote www.harrybrowne.com for President!

Charles Richmond

ongelezen,
26 okt. 2000 03:52:5626-10-2000
aan
Ric Werme wrote:
>
> David R Brooks <da...@iinet.net.au> writes:
>
> >e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>
> >:By following some links therein I managed to learn that the first
> >:time sharing systems at MIT, in the period 1960-63 at least, used
> >:something called the Flexowriter, which was sort of a hot-wired IBM
> >:Selectric... maybe the typewriter derives from the terminal, not the
> >:other way around. So presumably during that period video terminals
> >:were still a gleam in their engineer's eye.
>
> Probably not - most television sets of that era were still made with
> vacuum tubes, anything transistorized used discreet transistors.
> (The typical AM handheld radio was advertised as a "six transistor radio".)
>
Well, I remember seeing some transistor radios (are they any other kind ;-)
advertised as "eight transistor radio" or "ten transistor radio". The trick
was...sure, they had eight (or ten) transistors, but only six transistors
were actually wired into the circuit. The others were just soldered in as
dead weight. Sounded good to the unwashed masses to have more transistors,
though...

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Charlie Gibbs

ongelezen,
26 okt. 2000 03:00:0026-10-2000
aan
In article <zpLJ5.82$ml4....@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>
we...@nospam.mediaone.net (Ric Werme) writes:

>Probably not - most television sets of that era were still made with
>vacuum tubes, anything transistorized used discreet transistors.

Except for the very cheap and sleazy ones, which used indiscreet
transistors. :-)

>(The typical AM handheld radio was advertised as a "six transistor
>radio".)

I heard of some really cheap TRF sets that went as low as two
transistors (at that level they'd make a big point of any additional
diodes, e.g. in the detector), but you couldn't make a decent
superhet with fewer than six transistors. But you could do a
lot with a fraction of the electronics people take for granted
these days. I remember staying up late at night listening to KSL
in Salt Lake City, Utah come booming in to my little 6-transistor
radio near Vancouver, B.C. My best was a brief break in the static
long enough to identify WOWO in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Not bad for a
little AM radio. (Short wave was a whole 'nother thing.)

--
cgi...@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.


Philip Nasadowski

ongelezen,
26 okt. 2000 13:32:2126-10-2000
aan
In article <1140.334T...@sky.bus.com>, "Charlie Gibbs"
<cgi...@sky.bus.com> wrote:

> But you could do a
> lot with a fraction of the electronics people take for granted
> these days.

I've goty a nice collection of tube audio gear, mostly antique radios.
From Long Island, NY, I can easily get Albany/Schenectedy NY, and I've
gotten as far as Chicago, at night. All with a console Magnavox. Though
it does have like 24 tubes in it (most are in the audio amp(s) actually).
Still, it's quite a simple set, you don't really even need the schematic
to fix it.

The Bakers

ongelezen,
26 okt. 2000 19:45:1326-10-2000
aan
"Ric Werme" <we...@nospam.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:zpLJ5.82$ml4....@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...

>
> IBM did have some terminals that had Selectric
> guts, e.g. the 2741 and 1051? used as the console for various 360s.

I believe you are referring to the 1050.

And of course, the IBM 1130 built-in console typewriter used a Selectric
mechanism, which the IBM servicemen universally seemed to really enjoy
repairing (NOT!). IIRC it was not the most reliable unit, and I often
learned a few new cusswords from the fellow while he was trying to fix it.
Not to mention some interesting observations on the parentage of the guy who
designed it :-) Don't really remember what it was that made it so nasty
to service....maybe its location in the system or tight clearances around
some parts ?

Tom Van Vleck

ongelezen,
27 okt. 2000 21:05:3227-10-2000
aan
Edward Green wrote:
> By following some links therein I managed to learn that the first
> time sharing systems at MIT, in the period 1960-63 at least, used
> something called the Flexowriter, which was sort of a hot-wired IBM
> Selectric... maybe the typewriter derives from the terminal, not the
> other way around.

Not exactly. The Selectric came long after the Flexowriter.
Flexowriters had regular electric typewriters with multiple
typebars. They had many more moving parts than a Selectric
and were much heavier and less reliable.

Carl R. Friend

ongelezen,
28 okt. 2000 10:15:5928-10-2000
aan
Ric Werme wrote:
>
> My father had a Packard-Bell 250 at work with a Flexowriter. I think
> they came together, but I'm not sure. Also 1962 timeframe.

Yes, it came with the CPU. The 250s used a modified Flexowriter
as the console. There were a couple of added switches to control the
CPU that weren't on "standard issue" Flexos.



> > Flexowriter was not a hot-wired Selectric.
>
> Worth saying twice!

Too true.

Eric Fischer

ongelezen,
30 okt. 2000 13:39:3830-10-2000
aan
David R Brooks <da...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Flexowriter was not a hot-wired Selectric. Made by Friden (later
> Singer-Friden).

As I understand it, the Flexowriter story goes something like this:

The powered typewriter was invented around 1914 by John Smathers,
who originally intended to run a series of typewriters off a single
motor rather than having a separate electric motor in each. But
his invention was developed by the Northeast Electric Co., which
saw it as a good source of business for its electric motors. In
1925, Northeast and Remington made an electric Remington typewriter
as a joint venture, but the deal fell apart because of Remington's
inability to commit to any specific size of order from Northeast.

Northeast then continued the development on its own, resulting in
the Electromatic typewriter, and then around 1931 spun Electromatic
off into a separate company. Electromatic then followed up with
a second typewriter model, this one designed for stencil cutting,
which introduced the "electric" keyboard layout, and an "automatic
typewriter" that read an enormously wide paper tape (one hole per
key, I think) to produce form letters. IBM then (in 1933) bought
Electromatic and made it into its own typewriter division, but the
automatic typewriter instead evidently went to Commercial Controls,
Inc., which refined it into the Flexowriter. Commercial Controls
was then bought out by Friden in the early 1960s, making them the
owners of the Flexowriter.

Eric

Lars Poulsen

ongelezen,
31 okt. 2000 01:54:2131-10-2000
aan David R Brooks
David R Brooks wrote:
> Flexowriter was not a hot-wired Selectric. Made by Friden (later
> Singer-Friden). Unlike the Selectric (or for that matter, the
> Teletype), Flexowriter did not use a dancing ball/drum for the type.
> It derived from a classical manual typewriter, with a "basket" of
> type-levers.

That depends on which model year you are talking about. Certainly,
the FlexoWriters that my undergraduate programming class used in
1969 were golf-ball type.
--
/ Lars Poulsen - http://www.cmc.com/lars - la...@cmc.com
125 South Ontare Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 - +1-805-569-5277

George Gonzalez

ongelezen,
1 nov. 2000 01:18:0401-11-2000
aan
Another funny thing about the FlexoWriter-- it used some unusual screws.

I took one apart some decades ago and save all the screws from it-- musta
been
200 screws.

Later on I tried using some of them, and they never seemed to fit anything.
Not your typical
4-40, 6-32, threads at all.


Alexandre Pechtchanski

ongelezen,
1 nov. 2000 10:45:0601-11-2000
aan

Weren't they just metric, as should be expected in European product?

--
[ When replying, remove *'s from address ]
Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY

John Bowen

ongelezen,
29 dec. 2000 19:18:3029-12-2000
aan
In 1959 I was an engineer on the IBM AN-FSQ 7 computer which cost about $25
million and performed Air Defense activities for the Air Force in the Nevada
desert. The large CRTs we used to display tracks of aircraft, radar data and
had a capability of displaying any of 64 characters from a matrix inside the
tube. The data was intended to be placed next to vectors indicating flight
information. However, as a maintenance engineer I wrote the software to
actually make the tube a very interactive device from which we would run our
diagnostics. It also had decent keyboard. I wrote one line at a time and
moved everything up a line each time I wrote. There was room for about 64
lines as I recall. I just simulated a line printer and card reader for
keyboard. My idea allowed us to run our diagnostics in half the time (4
hours instead of 8 hours) because we weren't printing on a the military
version of the IBM 407 printer. My boss invented the Selectric Typewriter at
the same time I was working on the display consoles. I just needed a good
terminal and didn't realize other computers didn't have them. The SAGE was
the only machine I had ever seen due to secrecy. We switched our giant
classified mainframes to the Selectric after that which was a mistake
because they were so unreliable. The 7030 Stretch for NSA and AEC (prior to
DOE) is an example of that foolishness. I didn't see my back room
engineering idea used again in IBM but we did a similar thing in 1966 while
I was at RAND helping on the development of the RAND tablet. Yes, the guys
in my department developed ARPANET. We never knew. John Bowen


"Eric Fischer" <e...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:8t36kn$2kbh$1...@news.enteract.com...

jchausler

ongelezen,
30 dec. 2000 15:52:3430-12-2000
aan

John Bowen wrote:

> I was at RAND helping on the development of the RAND tablet. Yes, the guys
> in my department developed ARPANET. We never knew. John Bowen

Tell me more about the RAND tablet. I believe I used one back in the late 60's,

probably 67 or 68, attached to a Philco display controller for a multi head
stroke writing graphics system.

John Ferrell

ongelezen,
31 dec. 2000 14:42:4531-12-2000
aan
I never felt the Selectric I/O writers were unreliable. The problem was that as
soon as the programmers got a console printer they seemed determined to keep it
active 100% of the time!

I acquired a "defective" I/O writer from a 360/155 in 1979 and interfaced it to
a Radio Shack TRS80-II. The hardware was just magnet drivers from the printer
port. The software driver tailored the timings to the needs of each character in
the mechanism. Of course it was slow but I ran it over night to get listings.
The I/O writers would have been a lot easier to maintain if a little tweaking
had been designed into the drivers.

John Bowen wrote:

--
John Ferrell in Julian NC, de W8CCW
Dixie Competition Products
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606 Fax: (336)685-9771
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"


Brian {Hamilton Kelly}

ongelezen,
31 dec. 2000 16:47:1731-12-2000
aan
In article <3A4F8C2E...@sprintmail.com>
johnf...@sprintmail.com "John Ferrell" writes:

> I never felt the Selectric I/O writers were unreliable. The problem was that as
> soon as the programmers got a console printer they seemed determined to keep it
> active 100% of the time!
>

I first saw a Selectric "terminal" at the Business Efficiency Exhibition
at Olympia (West London, for the benefit of those that have never been to
the Ideal Home Show) in 1964. IBM had one on their stand, which ran
24h/d for the week of the exhib at a rate of 31 ch/s (ordinarily,
Selectrics ran at 15.5 ch/s). It suffered no ill effects at all.

IBM took that display back to their offices (at Chiswick) and continued
to take it to other exhibitions. I visited an IBMer there in 1967 (Bob
Latham, IIRC) and he showed me it still running, and assured me that it
was kept permanently on even when not on display, except whilst being
transported between venues.

I believed him, as well.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, BT Labs

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

ongelezen,
1 jan. 2001 14:06:0101-01-2001
aan
b...@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
> I first saw a Selectric "terminal" at the Business Efficiency Exhibition
> at Olympia (West London, for the benefit of those that have never been to
> the Ideal Home Show) in 1964. IBM had one on their stand, which ran
> 24h/d for the week of the exhib at a rate of 31 ch/s (ordinarily,
> Selectrics ran at 15.5 ch/s). It suffered no ill effects at all.

about a year ago ... I finally got rid of the tabletop and paperfeed
for my 2741. Standard 2741 terminal was something like a frame with a
flat surface with the typerwriter body buried in the middle of the top
with only a couple inches of "table" on each side (not enuf to hold
paper or anything else).

At CSC (4th floor, 545 tech sq, cambridge) had special 1/2"(?)
laminated board with a cut-out the size of the typerwriter ... that
laid on the top of the 2741 frame & wrapped around the typerwriter
body with a couple inches on one side and 18"-24" on the other side
and back ... providing enuf room to support paper feed tray in the
back and papers to one side of the keyboard (the board could be
flipped so the space was either to the left or the right of the
keyboard).

The paper-feed tray was like a wide in/out basket but large enuf to
hold standard printer fan-fold paper ... bottom tray had room for
about 6" stack of paper and return paper then would feed on to the top
tray. I started out using standard green-bar fan-fold paper
... nominally reversed so it printed on the white-side.

I haven't had a real 2741 at home in nearly 25 years ... but some how
the the table top and paper tray made it into the garage and sat
around gathering dust ... managing not to get thrown away even with
3-4 moves over the period (although i still have an "apl" golfball
printing element).

random 2741 refs:

http://www.multicians.org/mga.html#2741
http://www.multicians.org/terminals.html
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#6
http://www.classiccmp.org/mail-archive/classiccmp/1998-05/0875.html
http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/17/170.html
http://www.totse.com/en/hack/understanding_the_internet/excerpt2.html
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/2260/gli_00.html
http://www.enteract.com/~enf/afc/wp
http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8705.mm.www/0110.html
http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/mtx20.htm

some photos

http://www.nerdc.ufl.edu/info-services/history/nhp75A.jpg
http://www.keysan.com/ksu0675.htm
http://www.ibmtypewriters.com/reconselectric.htm

following gives description of the CCN computing facility at UCLA in
'71 (360/91kk, i/o configuriaton, 10 dail 2741 interfaces, etc)

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc90.txt

note in the following "history of the internet in new brunswick", 110
baud was teletype speed and 134.? baud was the 2741 speed. the
reference to "local" office connecting to "VM mainframe in Toronto"
was a "HONE" clone.

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/laurie/internet.html

random hone refs:

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#62
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#75
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#30
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#14
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#27


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

John Bowen

ongelezen,
1 jan. 2001 16:20:0901-01-2001
aan
I surprised myself when I went to my favorite search engine, Google, and
entered "rand tablet". I actually found some pictures and including one that
seems like one of our original prototypes. The original was attached to the
first IBM 360 that ever went to a customer. The customer being the RAND
corporation and the time frame was May 1964. It was serial 10023 as I recall
and we mechanically replaced it about two years later. I think I changed
about 100 SLT cards that were defective in those two years. It also had the
first 2311 disk drives, 2841 control unit, 2701, and probably the first
1442N1 and 1443N1 peripherals. The CRT used with the table came from
Burroughs as I recall.

Daniel Ellsberg kept his books in the vault next to the machine room. He
sent copies of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and may have
started the early retirement of Nixon. The 60s were an interesting time to
be at the RAND Corporation.

I spotted the commercial version of the RAND tablet in 1977 at Union Oil
Geophysical in Los Angeles doing seismic map plotting. The pen had changed
to a glass piece with a couple of buttons and a cross hair. I just don't
recall who was manufacturing it.

Bill Ellis was the RAND engineer who developed the tablet. The original had
a pen with microswitch in it to detect pressure on the tip. Gabe Groner
worked on algorithms to read printed words and Chinese.

John Bowen


"jchausler" <jcha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A4E49C9...@earthlink.net...

John Bowen

ongelezen,
1 jan. 2001 16:34:1601-01-2001
aan
John, the Selectric was not too unreliable when used as a typewriter. But
when you placed the early versions on a computer and really pounded on it
none could last a week without breaking the tilt and rotate tapes or having
mechanical problems. You would have a $20 million dollar 7030 Stretch or a
ANFSQ-32 (SAGE II) sitting idle waiting for the Customer Engineer to make a
repair that often lasted several hours. In the mid 1960s the version of the
selectric used on big mainframes was a pretty poor choice. I was a glorified
Customer Engineer (Senior Specialist) until 1971 and we all hated the
machines compared to electronic equipment. I visited an FAA air traffic
control site in 1986 and was surprised to see Selectrics still in use by
them. They had a room full of broken ones. I purchased a small insurance
company in 1983 and one of the first things I did was replace every
Selectric with a PC and a matrix printer. That change and a little software
quadrupled the productivity of most of the clerical people.

John Bowen


"John Ferrell" <johnf...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A4F8C2E...@sprintmail.com...

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

ongelezen,
1 jan. 2001 21:23:5501-01-2001
aan

"John Bowen" <jhbowe...@charter.net> writes:
> John, the Selectric was not too unreliable when used as a typewriter. But
> when you placed the early versions on a computer and really pounded on it
> none could last a week without breaking the tilt and rotate tapes or having
> mechanical problems. You would have a $20 million dollar 7030 Stretch or a
> ANFSQ-32 (SAGE II) sitting idle waiting for the Customer Engineer to make a
> repair that often lasted several hours. In the mid 1960s the version of the
> selectric used on big mainframes was a pretty poor choice. I was a glorified
> Customer Engineer (Senior Specialist) until 1971 and we all hated the
> machines compared to electronic equipment. I visited an FAA air traffic
> control site in 1986 and was surprised to see Selectrics still in use by
> them. They had a room full of broken ones. I purchased a small insurance
> company in 1983 and one of the first things I did was replace every
> Selectric with a PC and a matrix printer. That change and a little software
> quadrupled the productivity of most of the clerical people.

while the standard 360 console, 1052-7, may have been somewhat more
rugged than early selectrics ... it still had the golfball
tilt/rotate. I know that CSC kept a spare 1052-7 for the 360/67
... rather than repairing ... swap the hardware and repair the broken
one offline.

It wasn't all because of the tilt/rotate ... there were some people
that would slam their fist into the keyboard for one reason or another
(especially if you had dedicated machine time over the weekend and had
been up for 40+ hrs straight and there was a problem where the
solution was difficult coming).

once cp/67 was up and running enuf for production, it was less of a
problem since CP supported logging on as the operator from the machine
console or any available 2741 (some security was added to limit the
definition of "any").

The 1052-7 had another "nasty" feature that periodically caught
people. There was a small finger that sensed whether there was
incoming paper to the carriage. Frequently there were two boxes behind
the 1052-7, one to feed the 1052-7 carriage and the other was for
output after it had been printed. The input/feed was underneath the
output/printed and frequently couldn't be seen.

More than once, the "finger" would sense that it had reached the end
of paper and signal intervention required to the CPU. However there
were no lights indicating the problem ... and OS/360 when it got an
intervention required from the 1052-7 would ring the bell and stop all
operations. There were numerous times where it took between 30minutes
to 3hrs for somebody to realize that the reason that the system had
apparently died was because the 1052-7 had run out of paper (since the
input feed wasn't easily visable).

In the early '80s, I wanted one of those Field Engineering briefcases
which were actually fancy toolboxs. The first couple times I requested
one, it was rejected because I wasn't in IBM field engineering.
Finally, I found a generic part number for the briefcase where it
could be ordered w/o having to ask IBM. It still came with a number of
specialized tools that I had seen used for repairing 2741s,
selectrics, 1052s, etc.

Nick Spalding

ongelezen,
2 jan. 2001 07:00:4502-01-2001
aan
John Bowen wrote, in <t51t0cn...@corp.supernews.com>:

> I surprised myself when I went to my favorite search engine, Google, and
> entered "rand tablet". I actually found some pictures and including one that
> seems like one of our original prototypes. The original was attached to the
> first IBM 360 that ever went to a customer. The customer being the RAND
> corporation and the time frame was May 1964. It was serial 10023 as I recall
> and we mechanically replaced it about two years later. I think I changed
> about 100 SLT cards that were defective in those two years. It also had the
> first 2311 disk drives, 2841 control unit, 2701, and probably the first
> 1442N1 and 1443N1 peripherals. The CRT used with the table came from
> Burroughs as I recall.

I wonder how what was obviously by way of being a flagship system got
lumbered with the thoroughly nasty 1442.
--
Nick Spalding

Nico de Jong

ongelezen,
2 jan. 2001 07:14:0102-01-2001
aan
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:ugg35to606tkupm2u...@4ax.com...

> John Bowen wrote, in <t51t0cn...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> > first 2311 disk drives, 2841 control unit, 2701, and probably the first
> > 1442N1 and 1443N1 peripherals. The CRT used with the table came from
> > Burroughs as I recall.
>
> I wonder how what was obviously by way of being a flagship system got
> lumbered with the thoroughly nasty 1442.
> --
> Nick Spalding

Hm., maybe I'm getting senile, but what was the 2701? Wasnt the 1442 a
card-read punch?
Should anyone have a more-or-less complete listing of the model numbers used
by IBM?

Nico

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

ongelezen,
2 jan. 2001 12:00:0702-01-2001
aan
"Nico de Jong" <ni...@farumdata.dk> writes:
> Hm., maybe I'm getting senile, but what was the 2701? Wasnt the 1442 a
> card-read punch?
> Should anyone have a more-or-less complete listing of the model numbers used
> by IBM?

2701, 2702, & 2703 were "telecommunication control units".

2702 supported 16 (maybe up to 32?) low-speed lines

2703 was similar to 2702 but supported up to 128 lines.

2701 supported only a few lines ... but had an RPQ that allowed
supporting T1 (1.5mbite/2mbit) lines. It was the only IBM controller
that supproted T1 lines until the 90s.

Federal System Division got a Zirpel T1 RPQ card for the S/1 in the
mid-80s that saw limited deployment ... and you could get a 3rd party
card that directly attached a S/1 to a channel. The internal network
had a number of these. However, in the mid to late 80s it was becoming
difficult to acquire S/1 boxes to house Zirpel cards (although
possibly not as hard as it was to acquire 2701 boxes).

The only other choice was HYPERChannel starting in the early '80s, you
could get an A220 adapter for channel attach and 710/715/720 adapters
for driving T1/T2 links. My wife and I ran a backbone attached to the
internal network with this technology. It was also possible to connect
an HYPERChannel LAN to a S/1 via a A400 adapter and get T1
connectivity that way (with or w/o the S/1 having a channel attach
card).

There were plans in the late '80s for the 8232 (i.e. PC/AT with
channel attach card and LAN cards ... providing mainframe gateway to
T/R and enet LANS) that saw development of a PC/AT T1 card, but I
don't know of any that were actually sold to customers. This was about
the same time as the annual Super Computer conference held in Austin
where T3 HYPERChannel adatpers were being demonstrated.

The 3705/3725 communication controller mainstay (during the 70s & 80s)
didn't support full-speed T1 ... although there La Gaude may have had
one or two test boxes in the late '80s. The 3705/3725 market saw a
number of customers using "fat pipe" support to gang 2, 3, and 4
56kbit links into a single simulated trunk; but saw now evidence of
customers with more than 4 56kbit links in fat pipe configurations.
One of the issues that was possibly overlooked was that T1 tariffs
were typically about the same as 5-6 56kbit links. At the time when
there were no 3705/3725 mainframe customers with more than 4 56kbit
lines in a fat-pipe configuration there were 200 easiliy identified
customers using mainframe HYPERChannel T1 support.

While NSFNET1 in the late '80s called for full-speed T1 trunks, it was
actually done with multiple PC/RTs each with LAN card and a 440kbit
card (although RT had a AT bus and the PC/AT T1 card targeted for
the 8232 could have fit on the RT bus) ... with multiple 440kbit
circuits multiplexed by an IDNX box through T1 trunks provided by MCI.

random refs:

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#77
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#15
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#16
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#17
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#23
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#9
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#27
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#30
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#36
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#63
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#66
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#70
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#38
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#66
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#36
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#37
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#65
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#6
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#31

Jim Saum

ongelezen,
2 jan. 2001 15:03:5402-01-2001
aan
In article <uhf3hc...@earthlink.net>, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<ly...@garlic.com> wrote:

>"Nico de Jong" <ni...@farumdata.dk> writes:

>> Hm., maybe I'm getting senile, but what was the 2701? ...


>
>2701, 2702, & 2703 were "telecommunication control units".

The 2701 also had an optional Parallel Data Adapter feature (RPQ?),
which acted like the digital I/O lines on a PC data acquisition card.
Some other ways for doing parallel I/O from a 360 to custom hardware
were the 360 Direct Control feature (Read/Write Direct instructions
and external interrupt lines), the IBM System/7 minicomputer with the
channel-attach RPQ, non-IBM channel-attach interfaces from several
vendors (Interdata, DEC, Austex?), or building your own channel
interface to the IBM spec.

- Jim Saum

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

ongelezen,
2 jan. 2001 18:38:4602-01-2001
aan

js...@world.std.com (Jim Saum) writes:
> channel-attach RPQ, non-IBM channel-attach interfaces from several
> vendors (Interdata, DEC, Austex?), or building your own channel
> interface to the IBM spec.
>

there is some documentation that the board that I worked on as an
undergraduate was the first such non-IBM connection to an IBM channel.
It went into an Interdata/3 that we programmed to be a replacement for
the 2702 and would actually support both dynamic speed and terminal
recognition. It later evolved into Interdata/4 with multiple
Interdata/3s handling the line-scanner functions. Perkin/Elmer bought
out Interdata and the rights to what I worked on as undergraduate.

I ran across later versions of the Perkin/Elmer box still in
production use as late as 1996 (& some conjecture that the wire-wrap
channel attach board had possibly not changed since the original
implementation).

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

Lars Poulsen

ongelezen,
3 jan. 2001 11:53:0903-01-2001
aan
Nico de Jong wrote:
> Should anyone have a more-or-less complete listing of the model numbers used
> by IBM?

I'm working on it ... capturing items as they are mentioned here.

http://www.cmc.com/lars/engineer/comphist/ibm_nos.htm

I would be delighted if someone could mark this up with year of
introduction and retirement for each item.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

ongelezen,
3 jan. 2001 13:11:2703-01-2001
aan
Lars Poulsen <la...@cmc.com> writes:

> I'm working on it ... capturing items as they are mentioned here.
>
> http://www.cmc.com/lars/engineer/comphist/ibm_nos.htm
>
> I would be delighted if someone could mark this up with year of
> introduction and retirement for each item.
> --
> / Lars Poulsen - http://www.cmc.com/lars - la...@cmc.com
> 125 South Ontare Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 - +1-805-569-5277

another location

http://www.isham-research.freeserve.co.uk/chrono.txt

Terry Kennedy

ongelezen,
4 jan. 2001 00:15:3904-01-2001
aan
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
> I wonder how what was obviously by way of being a flagship system got
> lumbered with the thoroughly nasty 1442.

The 1442 was the punch, wasn't it? We liked it - we originally had a
2650 (or was it 2560) MFCM (the Mother-F*ing Card Mangler) which had
2 input hoppers, 5 output hoppers, and a non-deterministic path between
them.

We swapped out the MFCM for a 2501 and a 1442 and were very happy.
However, I'd say we had a 98/2 read/punch ratio - most users had moved
to magetape datasets by then.

Terry Kennedy http://www.tmk.com
te...@tmk.com Jersey City, NJ USA

Terry Kennedy

ongelezen,
4 jan. 2001 00:25:4404-01-2001
aan
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> while the standard 360 console, 1052-7, may have been somewhat more
> rugged than early selectrics ... it still had the golfball
> tilt/rotate. I know that CSC kept a spare 1052-7 for the 360/67
> ... rather than repairing ... swap the hardware and repair the broken
> one offline.

When I was in school, we had Trendata 1000 terminals, which were a 3rd-
party interface to a Selectric mechanism. From the way you describe the
less-than-useful Formica table, the T1000 was apparently an exact clone.

We also had about the same number of 029 keypunches. The T1000's were
more reliable than the 029's - I can't remember when I found an unusable
T1000, while the 029's were always in need of major or minor repairs.

> More than once, the "finger" would sense that it had reached the end
> of paper and signal intervention required to the CPU. However there
> were no lights indicating the problem ... and OS/360 when it got an
> intervention required from the 1052-7 would ring the bell and stop all
> operations. There were numerous times where it took between 30minutes
> to 3hrs for somebody to realize that the reason that the system had
> apparently died was because the 1052-7 had run out of paper (since the
> input feed wasn't easily visable).

The reason our 3125 CPU was upgraded immediately after eligibility for
trade was the console. Under DOS/VS rel 32 (I think it was 32, may have
been 30) POWER, opening the cover on the 1052 would wedge the system in
a state requiring a re-IPL. And of course, clearing the phantom paper
jams required opening the cover 8-(

Nick Spalding

ongelezen,
4 jan. 2001 13:57:4604-01-2001
aan
Terry Kennedy wrote, in <G6MHA...@spcuna.spc.edu>:

> Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
> > I wonder how what was obviously by way of being a flagship system got
> > lumbered with the thoroughly nasty 1442.
>
> The 1442 was the punch, wasn't it? We liked it

I guess you didn't have to fix it! It was a reader/punch both in the
same card path. The reader was tolerable, the punch was a bitch.
--
Nick Spalding

John Coelho

ongelezen,
4 jan. 2001 15:31:5404-01-2001
aan

Lars Poulsen <la...@cmc.com> wrote in message
news:3A5358F5...@cmc.com...

> Nico de Jong wrote:
> > Should anyone have a more-or-less complete listing of the model numbers
used
> > by IBM?
>
> I'm working on it ... capturing items as they are mentioned here.
>

On this topic - I'd like a "memory check" on a couple of things. I seem to
recall that a "001" keypunch was available until about 1971 which was a
manual, desktop, punch. One card at a time, probably twelve buttons. Does
anyone else remember this?

Also, I remember seeing a demo of a robot in 1972 that was called
(appropriately) the "1972". Am I dreaming?

And finally, there was a modified 3275 video terminal called - I think - the
5275. It was mounted on a wheeled cart and used to program NC machine tools.
It had some local capability and probably output to a punched tape. Does
anyone have any info on that?

Thanks.

(For folks compiling lists, treat the above as unconfirmed....)

John Coelho


Paul Repacholi

ongelezen,
4 jan. 2001 17:03:5704-01-2001
aan
"John Coelho" <j...@nfrpartners.com> writes:

> On this topic - I'd like a "memory check" on a couple of things. I seem to
> recall that a "001" keypunch was available until about 1971 which was a
> manual, desktop, punch. One card at a time, probably twelve buttons. Does
> anyone else remember this?

Don't know if it's an 001, but they exist. Used one.

We have one in the collection, _somewhere_ I'm sure...

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.

John Varela

ongelezen,
4 jan. 2001 22:25:5004-01-2001
aan
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:31:54, "John Coelho" <j...@nfrpartners.com> wrote:

> On this topic - I'd like a "memory check" on a couple of things. I seem to
> recall that a "001" keypunch was available until about 1971 which was a
> manual, desktop, punch. One card at a time, probably twelve buttons. Does
> anyone else remember this?

I remember playing with one. Can't recall anyone ever using it in anger.

--
John Varela
McLean, VA USA

Lars Poulsen

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 01:16:1205-01-2001
aan
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
> > > I wonder how what was obviously by way of being a flagship system
> > > got lumbered with the thoroughly nasty 1442.

Terry Kennedy wrote, in <G6MHA...@spcuna.spc.edu>:
> > The 1442 was the punch, wasn't it? We liked it

Nick Spalding wrote:
> I guess you didn't have to fix it!
> It was a reader/punch both in the same card path. The reader was
> tolerable, the punch was a bitch.

Nick, you're right; one would have expected such a system to have
a better card subsystem. A 1402 would have been ideal, but it may
not have been easily adaptable to the S/360 channel; when it did
become available, it was called the 2540.

I am getting a sense that there was a progression of 14xx peri-
pherals that paralleled the progression of CPUs:
1401 -> 1410 -> 1440 -> 1460
I don't know the compatibility issues along the path.

The 1442, I am told was not available for the 1401, but only for the
1440 and possibly the 1460. Personally, I met the 1442 on the 1130
with which I shared a room for a year. And on that system, it was
eventually replaced by a 2501.

I don't recall any particular problems with the 1442, except
- lace cards tended to get stuck
- the dual-function nature of the beast could destroy a good deck
loaded with the wrong program. The design allowed read-before-punch
operation to verify that columns due to be punched were previously
blank, but standard software was not written to take advantage
of that.

Nick Spalding

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 07:24:2305-01-2001
aan
John Coelho wrote, in <3a54d...@news.cybertours.com>:

> On this topic - I'd like a "memory check" on a couple of things. I seem to
> recall that a "001" keypunch was available until about 1971 which was a
> manual, desktop, punch. One card at a time, probably twelve buttons. Does
> anyone else remember this?

Indeed so, though I think it may have been 011 not 001. I have punched
many cards on one of those.
--
Nick Spalding

Nick Spalding

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 07:24:2605-01-2001
aan
Lars Poulsen wrote, in <3A5566AC...@cmc.com>:

> Nick Spalding wrote:
> > I guess you didn't have to fix it!
> > It was a reader/punch both in the same card path. The reader was
> > tolerable, the punch was a bitch.
>
> Nick, you're right; one would have expected such a system to have
> a better card subsystem. A 1402 would have been ideal, but it may
> not have been easily adaptable to the S/360 channel; when it did
> become available, it was called the 2540.

Wasn't the 2540 available as soon as the 360 was?



> I am getting a sense that there was a progression of 14xx peri-
> pherals that paralleled the progression of CPUs:
> 1401 -> 1410 -> 1440 -> 1460
> I don't know the compatibility issues along the path.
>
> The 1442, I am told was not available for the 1401, but only for the
> 1440 and possibly the 1460. Personally, I met the 1442 on the 1130
> with which I shared a room for a year. And on that system, it was
> eventually replaced by a 2501.

The difference between the 1401 and 1440 was in the handling of reader,
punch and printer. 1401 used single character instructions and
hardware defined i/o areas, 1440 used 8 character instructions (same
format as 1401 tape instructions) containing addresses for the i/o
areas. The 1460 was certainly available with the 1401 style
instructions and 1402 reader/punch; since it was physically a speeded up
1440 (6musec clock against 10.5) it may have had the 1440 instructions
as well and possibly could attach a 1442.

The 1410 (and its descendant the 7010) was a much bigger beast which had
the addressable i/o and definitely the 1402.
--
Nick Spalding

Howard S Shubs

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 08:21:2605-01-2001
aan
In article <3A5566AC...@cmc.com>, Lars Poulsen <la...@cmc.com> wrote:

>The 1442, I am told was not available for the 1401, but only for the
>1440 and possibly the 1460. Personally, I met the 1442 on the 1130
>with which I shared a room for a year. And on that system, it was
>eventually replaced by a 2501.

Details about these two card readers are available at
http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ehshubs/1130/functional/Cards.html
--
Howard S Shubs
"Run in circles, scream and shout!" "I hope you have good backups!"

Joe Morris

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 09:15:1605-01-2001
aan
"John Coelho" <j...@nfrpartners.com> writes:

>On this topic - I'd like a "memory check" on a couple of things. I seem to
>recall that a "001" keypunch was available until about 1971 which was a
>manual, desktop, punch. One card at a time, probably twelve buttons. Does
>anyone else remember this?

Yup. The "machine" looked like a slightly overgrown credit card
imprinter. You placed a card in the bed, then moved the carriage
to the first column you wanted to punch and pressed the appropriate
keys. None of this wimpy automatic coding in later machines; Real
programmers instinctively know the punch combinations such as 12-8-3
for a period.

And 1972 sounds about right for when I got a notice from IBM that
maintenance services for the 001 were to be withdrawn.

>Also, I remember seeing a demo of a robot in 1972 that was called
>(appropriately) the "1972". Am I dreaming?

Never heard of that unit, but the "9" in the second digit place
strongly suggests that it was an RPQ (custom) product. Having
said that, I should also note that there were "standard RPQ"
devices that were "custom" only in their history.

>And finally, there was a modified 3275 video terminal called - I think - the
>5275. It was mounted on a wheeled cart and used to program NC machine tools.
>It had some local capability and probably output to a punched tape. Does
>anyone have any info on that?

Can't help you there; when the first digit goes above '3' you've
usually gone beyond the DPD product line and into areas where I'm
not familiar with the nomenclature.

Joe Morris

Joe Morris

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 09:22:0705-01-2001
aan
Lars Poulsen <la...@cmc.com> writes:

>Nick, you're right; one would have expected such a system to have
>a better card subsystem. A 1402 would have been ideal, but it may
>not have been easily adaptable to the S/360 channel; when it did
>become available, it was called the 2540.

At the risk of being called a nitpicker (who, *me*?) the 2540 didn't
know anything about an S/360 channel either. That task was given
to the 2821 Control Unit, which also was the interface between the
venerable 1403-N1 printer and the S/360 channels. The 1402 and 2540
had many similar design elements; I've never seen any explanation
for why the 2821 couldn't have been designed to handle the 1402
directly.

Joe Morris

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 09:23:1205-01-2001
aan
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:

> Wasn't the 2540 available as soon as the 360 was?

the university had a 1401 with 2540 & 1403n1 that was used as unit
record front end for 709 (card->tape & tape->printer/punch). it got a
360/30 and for awhile it would move the 2540/1403n1 back & forth
between the 360/30 controller and the 1401.

the university then started running the 360/30 in 1401 emulator mode
... booting from "MPIO" card deck. My first programming job (summer
'66) was to duplicate the 1401 "MPIO" function in 360 assembler. I got
to design my own memory manager, task manager, device drivers,
interrupt processes, etc.

I don't know how long they had the 2540/1403n1 prior to getting the
360/30 ... my first exposure was about the time the 360/30 came in and
the 1401 was still there and they would periodically move the unit
record back and forth between the 1401 & 360/30.

I would get a dedicated machine time on the 360/30 ... typically
weekends when I could get the machine for 48hrs straight. One of the
first things I learned was to not start until i had cleaned the tape
drives and took the 2540 apart and cleaned everything. If I was
diligent about cleaning every 8hrs or so (of use), things ran a lot
smoother.

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

John Coelho

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 10:05:0105-01-2001
aan

Joe Morris <jcmo...@jmorris-pc.MITRE.ORG> wrote in message
news:934ktk$ebf$1...@top.mitre.org...
> "John Coelho" <j...@nfrpartners.com> writes:

<snipped here and there>


> keys. None of this wimpy automatic coding in later machines; Real
> programmers instinctively know the punch combinations such as 12-8-3
> for a period.
>

Agreed - but why do I remember 12-2-9 as significant? "REP" cards in object
decks?

>
> >Also, I remember seeing a demo of a robot in 1972 that was called
> >(appropriately) the "1972". Am I dreaming?
>
> Never heard of that unit, but the "9" in the second digit place
> strongly suggests that it was an RPQ (custom) product. Having
> said that, I should also note that there were "standard RPQ"
> devices that were "custom" only in their history.
>

I think you're right. I'm pretty sure it was being pushed by an instrument
or manufacturing group. The demo I saw was at an employee function and I
never heard of it afterwards.

> >And finally, there was a modified 3275 video terminal called - I think -
the
> >5275. It was mounted on a wheeled cart and used to program NC machine
tools.
> >It had some local capability and probably output to a punched tape. Does
> >anyone have any info on that?
>
> Can't help you there; when the first digit goes above '3' you've
> usually gone beyond the DPD product line and into areas where I'm
> not familiar with the nomenclature.

I know. It sounds awfully "GSD"ish, doesn't it. I'm probably wrong re the
number but it was some variation of 3275. I think.

> Joe Morris

Thanks Joe, and everyone else for your responses.

John Coelho


Terry Kennedy

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 10:02:2405-01-2001
aan
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
> I guess you didn't have to fix it! It was a reader/punch both in the
> same card path. The reader was tolerable, the punch was a bitch.

Was it available without the reader option? IIRC, we used it for punch
only, with a 2501 for reading.

Jim Saum

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 12:00:0605-01-2001
aan
In article <3a55e...@news.cybertours.com>, "John Coelho"
<j...@nfrpartners.com> wrote:

>Agreed - but why do I remember 12-2-9 as significant? "REP" cards in object
>decks?

The object decks produced by assemblers and compilers in all the
standard 360 OSes had (and still have) X'02' (hex 02) in column 1,
followed by a 3-character EBCDIC type descriptor (TXT, ESD, RLD, SYM,
END) in columns 2-4. The EBCDIC card code for X'02' is 12-2-9.

- Jim Saum

Jim Saum

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 12:48:5805-01-2001
aan

>The difference between the 1401 and 1440 was in the handling of reader,
>punch and printer. 1401 used single character instructions and
>hardware defined i/o areas, 1440 used 8 character instructions (same
>format as 1401 tape instructions) containing addresses for the i/o
>areas. The 1460 was certainly available with the 1401 style
>instructions and 1402 reader/punch; since it was physically a speeded up
>1440 (6musec clock against 10.5) it may have had the 1440 instructions
>as well and possibly could attach a 1442.

1401 cycle time was 11.5 (not 10.5) usec. The 1460 was a 1963 upgrade
of the 1401 with a faster cycle time and some of the 1401's optional
features made standard. The instruction sets were the same for the
1401 and 1460, and the same manuals document the two systems.

I never used a 1460, but the 1401/1460 manuals say the card and print
operations were programmed the same way for 1401s and 1460s, i.e.,
with one-character opcodes (plus optional modifiers and the ability to
issue more than one such op at a time by OR-ing the opcodes). The 1460
had the ability to drive more than one 1403 printer, but used a
special Printer Pre-Select instruction to select a printer before the
usual Write instruction.

>The 1410 (and its descendant the 7010) was a much bigger beast which had
>the addressable i/o and definitely the 1402.

The 1410 and 7010 had 5-character addresses (like the 1620) instead of
the 3-character addresses of the 1401, 1460, and 1440.

- Jim Saum

Nick Spalding

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 14:11:0105-01-2001
aan
Jim Saum wrote, in <jsaum-05010...@192.168.4.5>:

> In article <bpeb5tc8ad93ef4tn...@4ax.com>, spal...@iol.ie wrote:
>
> >The difference between the 1401 and 1440 was in the handling of reader,
> >punch and printer. 1401 used single character instructions and
> >hardware defined i/o areas, 1440 used 8 character instructions (same
> >format as 1401 tape instructions) containing addresses for the i/o
> >areas. The 1460 was certainly available with the 1401 style
> >instructions and 1402 reader/punch; since it was physically a speeded up
> >1440 (6musec clock against 10.5) it may have had the 1440 instructions
> >as well and possibly could attach a 1442.
>
> 1401 cycle time was 11.5 (not 10.5) usec. The 1460 was a 1963 upgrade
> of the 1401 with a faster cycle time and some of the 1401's optional
> features made standard. The instruction sets were the same for the
> 1401 and 1460, and the same manuals document the two systems.

The 1440 had a 10.5 musec clock and the 1460 was as you say logically a
1401 but physically it was a 1440. The parts were largely
interchangeable. I got hold of a 1460 clock which I used to plug into
the 1440 to run diagnostics - it picked off dodgy cards which were
beginning to lose their edge. The only part of the 1440 system which
didn't work properly with the faster clock was the 1443 printer which
depended on the system clock working in synchronism with the bar
movement.

> I never used a 1460, but the 1401/1460 manuals say the card and print
> operations were programmed the same way for 1401s and 1460s, i.e.,
> with one-character opcodes (plus optional modifiers and the ability to
> issue more than one such op at a time by OR-ing the opcodes). The 1460
> had the ability to drive more than one 1403 printer, but used a
> special Printer Pre-Select instruction to select a printer before the
> usual Write instruction.
>
> >The 1410 (and its descendant the 7010) was a much bigger beast which had
> >the addressable i/o and definitely the 1402.

> The 1410 and 7010 had 5-character addresses (like the 1620) instead of
> the 3-character addresses of the 1401, 1460, and 1440.

Beautiful machines, particularly the 7010 which was barely in production
when 360 was announced so it died the death.
--
Nick Spalding

Nick Spalding

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 14:10:5905-01-2001
aan
Joe Morris wrote, in <934laf$edc$1...@top.mitre.org>:

Very true. The only difference I can recall was that the 2540 read
cards a bit faster - wasn't it 1000cpm against 800 for the 1402? The
punch stayed the same at 250. That punch unit was identical to one
which was shipped with the venerable 650 where I think it only ran at
150 or 200. In an emergency I stripped one out of an old 650 system and
it worked grand at 250 in a 2540 attached to a 360/40. It was still
working well 2 years later when I left IBM.
--
Nick Spalding

Nick Spalding

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 14:10:5805-01-2001
aan
Terry Kennedy wrote, in <G6p34...@spcuna.spc.edu>:

> Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
> > I guess you didn't have to fix it! It was a reader/punch both in the
> > same card path. The reader was tolerable, the punch was a bitch.
>
> Was it available without the reader option? IIRC, we used it for punch
> only, with a 2501 for reading.

Could well have been; I never saw it in such a configuration.
--
Nick Spalding

David C. Barber

ongelezen,
5 jan. 2001 15:52:3505-01-2001