Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Teletypewriter Model 33
138 views
Skip to first unread message
Quasar Chunawala
Sep 9, 2013, 1:01:02 AM9/9/13
to
Hi everyone,
Today, the mainframe staff in any enterprise work on PC running special
software(the terminal emulator) to connect to the *mainframe server* over
the company intranet. But, back in the 1960's, when mainframes were young,
what were some of input devices? Has anyone typed TSO or compiled programs
on a tele-typewriter model 33? What was it like to work on a key-punch
machine? How was the experience? I suppose, 3278 terminals were introduced
much later by IBM.
Quasar.
http://in.linkedin.com/pub/quasar-chunawala/20/164/133/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Today, the mainframe staff in any enterprise work on PC running special
software(the terminal emulator) to connect to the *mainframe server* over
the company intranet. But, back in the 1960's, when mainframes were young,
what were some of input devices? Has anyone typed TSO or compiled programs
on a tele-typewriter model 33? What was it like to work on a key-punch
machine? How was the experience? I suppose, 3278 terminals were introduced
much later by IBM.
Quasar.
http://in.linkedin.com/pub/quasar-chunawala/20/164/133/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
John McKown
Sep 9, 2013, 9:57:09 AM9/9/13
to
I used keypunches in college. I then graduated to a hardcopy terminal, but
not a KSR-33 or ASR-33. The school had some really nice DECWriters for the
non-IBM DEC System 20. And 2741s for the IBM. I adored the 2741s, which
were basically an IBM Selectric typewriter with a serial interface. In
college, we didn't use TSO. We used Wylber. It as actually a very nice
system. Especially compared to punching cards (which often required
punching out some other student who was keying in their program as they
were developing it) and looking a paper output.
I actually did use an ASR-33 (KSR-33 with paper tape attachment) at TCU
(Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, TX) connected to some other
computer in my senior high school year. Now that was a literal pain to key
with. Talk about "hitting" the keys. That monster had very stiff keys and a
long stroke to activate them.
--
As of next week, passwords will be entered in Morse code.
Maranatha! <><
John McKown
not a KSR-33 or ASR-33. The school had some really nice DECWriters for the
non-IBM DEC System 20. And 2741s for the IBM. I adored the 2741s, which
were basically an IBM Selectric typewriter with a serial interface. In
college, we didn't use TSO. We used Wylber. It as actually a very nice
system. Especially compared to punching cards (which often required
punching out some other student who was keying in their program as they
were developing it) and looking a paper output.
I actually did use an ASR-33 (KSR-33 with paper tape attachment) at TCU
(Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, TX) connected to some other
computer in my senior high school year. Now that was a literal pain to key
with. Talk about "hitting" the keys. That monster had very stiff keys and a
long stroke to activate them.
As of next week, passwords will be entered in Morse code.
Maranatha! <><
John McKown
Barry Merrill
Sep 9, 2013, 10:39:53 AM9/9/13
to
You have not lived until you have used a Texas Instruments Silent 700 at 300 baud to watch a
SAS PROC PLOT, when you can see each and every
dot being laid down, and definitely not left to
right nor top to bottom, and not speedily.
That was my TSO access from home in 1976.
SAS PROC PLOT, when you can see each and every
dot being laid down, and definitely not left to
right nor top to bottom, and not speedily.
That was my TSO access from home in 1976.
Paul Gilmartin
Sep 9, 2013, 10:50:26 AM9/9/13
to
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:39:37 -0500, Barry Merrill wrote:
>You have not lived until you have used a Texas Instruments Silent 700 at 300 baud to watch a
>
Ah! Thermal paper? But that provided me the epiphany that computers
>You have not lived until you have used a Texas Instruments Silent 700 at 300 baud to watch a
>
could deal with mixed-case text. I have not turned back.
But I've used a TTY 33 ASR at 110 baud.
>SAS PROC PLOT, when you can see each and every
>dot being laid down, and definitely not left to
>right nor top to bottom, and not speedily.
>That was my TSO access from home in 1976.
>
any N-P problem to reduce the cost from O(N) to perhaps O(sqrt(N)).
-- gil
Bernd Oppolzer
Sep 9, 2013, 10:50:43 AM9/9/13
to
When I was studying computer science at Stuttgart university from 1977 on,
there were several ways to work with the Telefunken TR 440 mainframe:
- closed shop by IBM 029 keypunch; you gave the cards to the operators
(that is,
batch runs); you had to wait one hour to get your listings back. Most of
the
time, there were simple syntax errors, so you spent an hour and had to
start all over again
- time sharing dialogue using General Electric (?) teletypes with paper tape
and hardcopy paper (editing was possible, but you had to retype the lines)
- time sharing using small display terminals, text only (20 * 48 chars)
- or large terminals, including vector graphics feature and mouse (!)
But: for some 150 students, there were only 6 teletypes, 15 small
display terminals, and 2 (!) large ones, which furthermore didn't
work all the time. So it was really hard to get your work done;
and: the machine was closed down every day at 7 pm. The night
shift was reserved for higher priority tasks.
But anyway: great fun at that time.
Some years later (1984), I worked at the same university with an IBM 3083
on my master thesis (VM/HPO, IIRC), but the machine was so occupied running
several hundred students' CMS machines during the day shift, that I
regularly
started work at 10 pm until 5 am - because that was the time when response
time etc. was acceptable.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 09.09.2013 15:56, schrieb John McKown:
> I used keypunches in college. I then graduated to a hardcopy terminal, but
> not a KSR-33 or ASR-33. The school had some really nice DECWriters for the
> non-IBM DEC System 20. And 2741s for the IBM. I adored the 2741s, which
> were basically an IBM Selectric typewriter with a serial interface. In
> college, we didn't use TSO. We used Wylber. It as actually a very nice
> system. Especially compared to punching cards (which often required
> punching out some other student who was keying in their program as they
> were developing it) and looking a paper output.
>
> I actually did use an ASR-33 (KSR-33 with paper tape attachment) at TCU
> (Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, TX) connected to some other
> computer in my senior high school year. Now that was a literal pain to key
> with. Talk about "hitting" the keys. That monster had very stiff keys and a
> long stroke to activate them.
>
>
there were several ways to work with the Telefunken TR 440 mainframe:
- closed shop by IBM 029 keypunch; you gave the cards to the operators
(that is,
batch runs); you had to wait one hour to get your listings back. Most of
the
time, there were simple syntax errors, so you spent an hour and had to
start all over again
- time sharing dialogue using General Electric (?) teletypes with paper tape
and hardcopy paper (editing was possible, but you had to retype the lines)
- time sharing using small display terminals, text only (20 * 48 chars)
- or large terminals, including vector graphics feature and mouse (!)
But: for some 150 students, there were only 6 teletypes, 15 small
display terminals, and 2 (!) large ones, which furthermore didn't
work all the time. So it was really hard to get your work done;
and: the machine was closed down every day at 7 pm. The night
shift was reserved for higher priority tasks.
But anyway: great fun at that time.
Some years later (1984), I worked at the same university with an IBM 3083
on my master thesis (VM/HPO, IIRC), but the machine was so occupied running
several hundred students' CMS machines during the day shift, that I
regularly
started work at 10 pm until 5 am - because that was the time when response
time etc. was acceptable.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 09.09.2013 15:56, schrieb John McKown:
> I used keypunches in college. I then graduated to a hardcopy terminal, but
> not a KSR-33 or ASR-33. The school had some really nice DECWriters for the
> non-IBM DEC System 20. And 2741s for the IBM. I adored the 2741s, which
> were basically an IBM Selectric typewriter with a serial interface. In
> college, we didn't use TSO. We used Wylber. It as actually a very nice
> system. Especially compared to punching cards (which often required
> punching out some other student who was keying in their program as they
> were developing it) and looking a paper output.
>
> I actually did use an ASR-33 (KSR-33 with paper tape attachment) at TCU
> (Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, TX) connected to some other
> computer in my senior high school year. Now that was a literal pain to key
> with. Talk about "hitting" the keys. That monster had very stiff keys and a
> long stroke to activate them.
>
>
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 9, 2013, 10:52:16 AM9/9/13
to
john.arch...@GMAIL.COM (John McKown) writes:
> I used keypunches in college. I then graduated to a hardcopy terminal, but
> not a KSR-33 or ASR-33. The school had some really nice DECWriters for the
> non-IBM DEC System 20. And 2741s for the IBM. I adored the 2741s, which
> were basically an IBM Selectric typewriter with a serial interface. In
> college, we didn't use TSO. We used Wylber. It as actually a very nice
> system. Especially compared to punching cards (which often required
> punching out some other student who was keying in their program as they
> were developing it) and looking a paper output.
>
> I actually did use an ASR-33 (KSR-33 with paper tape attachment) at TCU
> (Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, TX) connected to some other
> computer in my senior high school year. Now that was a literal pain to key
> with. Talk about "hitting" the keys. That monster had very stiff keys and a
> long stroke to activate them.
lots of univ. were convinced to order 360/67 for running tss/360 ... but
> I used keypunches in college. I then graduated to a hardcopy terminal, but
> not a KSR-33 or ASR-33. The school had some really nice DECWriters for the
> non-IBM DEC System 20. And 2741s for the IBM. I adored the 2741s, which
> were basically an IBM Selectric typewriter with a serial interface. In
> college, we didn't use TSO. We used Wylber. It as actually a very nice
> system. Especially compared to punching cards (which often required
> punching out some other student who was keying in their program as they
> were developing it) and looking a paper output.
>
> I actually did use an ASR-33 (KSR-33 with paper tape attachment) at TCU
> (Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, TX) connected to some other
> computer in my senior high school year. Now that was a literal pain to key
> with. Talk about "hitting" the keys. That monster had very stiff keys and a
> long stroke to activate them.
with tss/360 having horrible performance and not quite coming to
production level ... many were just used as 360/65 for running os/360.
However, a couple places wrote their own virtual memory operating
systems, stanford did Orvyl ... as well as Wylber (later ported to
os/360) and univ. of michigan did MTS ... which was later ported to 370
and saw some use at a number of univ.
science center had assumed they would get virtual memory effort ... but
lost out to the new tss/360 group. however, the science center did get
360/40 and did their own hardware modifications and producing (virtual
machine) cp40/cms ... which morphed into cp67/cms when 360/67 became
available. past posts mentioning science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
IBM recently shared this on Facebook ... which gets into tracing cloud
computing back to the virtualization work at the science center
blog.softlayer.com/2013/virtual-magic-the-cloud/
... I reshared and also posted to (linkedin) "Old Geeks" that got some
more comments
http://lnkd.in/MbiakK
Mike then reshared on facebook and generated a lot more comments
... some of mine archived here
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#18
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#19
the science center installed cp67/cms at the univ last week jan1968
... and I got to play with it on weekends. cp67/cms had support for 2741
and 1052 terminals ... including dynamic terminal type
identification. the univ. had some number of tty/33 terminals and I
added tty/ascii support ... including extending dynamic terminal type
identification to include tty. I had wanted to extend this to have a
single dialup phone number with common pool of number/ports for all
terminals ("hunt group") ... however, there was a deficiency in the ibm
terminal controller ... while it was possible to dynamically associate
the type of line-scanner with any port ... it wasn't possible to change
a ports line-speed (2741 & 1052 operated at same line-speed, but tty/33
was different line-speed).
this somewhat was behind the univ. deciding to start clone controller
effort ... starting with interdata/3 minicomputer ... reverse engineer
the 360 channel interface and build a board for the interdata/3 and
program the interdate/3 to emulate ibm terminal controller ... but
supporting both changing line-scanner on each port as well as dynamic
line speed identification. four of us get written up as responsible for
(some part of) clone controller business. some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm
it morphed into an interdata/4 handling the channel interface with
cluster of interdata/3 for line scanner function ... which interdata
marketed as product. It continued to be marketed after interdata was
bought under the Perkin-Elmer logo. I ran into one about a decade ago in
large financial transaction datacenter handling much of the retail
point-of-sale card swipe dial-up terminals on the east coast.
I also hacked HASP and added 2741 & TTY terminal support ... and
implemented an editor with the CMS editor syntax (completely different
code since the programming environments are so different) ... which I
considered much better than TSO (circa os/360 MVT 18).
for other drift ... the rise of clone controllers is credited as
the major motification behind the (failed) future system effort
... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 9, 2013, 11:13:45 AM9/9/13
to
ba...@MXG.COM (Barry Merrill) writes:
> You have not lived until you have used a Texas Instruments Silent 700
> at 300 baud to watch a SAS PROC PLOT, when you can see each and every
> dot being laid down, and definitely not left to right nor top to
> bottom, and not speedily. That was my TSO access from home in 1976.
re:
> You have not lived until you have used a Texas Instruments Silent 700
> at 300 baud to watch a SAS PROC PLOT, when you can see each and every
> dot being laid down, and definitely not left to right nor top to
> bottom, and not speedily. That was my TSO access from home in 1976.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
other trivia about clone controller ... int early tests data transferred
to 360 memory was all garbage ... turned out we overlooked that ibm
controller line-scanner convention was leading bit went into low-order
bit position in byte ... reversing the order of bits in each byte
... with mainframe translate tables handling the ascii<->ebcdic bit
reversed byte convention (had initially transferred straight ascii
rather than bit reversed ascii).
i got online 2741 at home starting in Mar1970 ... which was replaced
with 300 baud CDI Miniterm the summer of 1977 (very similar to TI silent
700)
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=636
old picture of desktop
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/miniterm2.jpg
and
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/miniterm.jpg
the above also shows compact microfiche veiwer and a company business
tieline. there was a microfiche printer that standard output could be
routed to and get a couple hr delivery.
miniterm was followed by IBM 3101 "glass teletype" (initially 1200 baud)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/3101a.jpg
and
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/3101b.jpg
before getting ibm/pc
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/homepc.jpg
3101 was code-named topaz before announce ... some old posts mentioning
topaz
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#0 Why so little parallelism?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#15 The Genealogy of the IBM PC
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#39 sizeof() was: The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#40 DEC and news groups
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#74 What do YOU call the # sign?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008m.html#37 Baudot code direct to computers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008m.html#51 Baudot code direct to computers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#22 IBM PC competitors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#40 My "Green Screen" IBMLink is still working
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#66 A Complete History Of Mainframe Computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009s.html#0 tty
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010b.html#27 Happy DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#15 I actually miss working at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#27 Singer Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#16 Unbuffered glass TTYs?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#24 spacewar
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Tom Marchant
Sep 9, 2013, 11:28:22 AM9/9/13
to
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:13:35 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>i got online 2741 at home
And in another post he mentioned MTS (Michigan Terminal System), written to run on the System/360 model 67.
>i got online 2741 at home
In MTS the terminal driver was called TSFO. I've been told that its name was an acronym for Twenty Seven Forty One.
How about that for some worthless trivia?
--
Tom Marchant
Mike Schwab
Sep 9, 2013, 11:30:02 AM9/9/13
to
MTS/370 and APL/360 have been ressurected to run on Hercules.
--
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
Barry Merrill
Sep 9, 2013, 11:38:42 AM9/9/13
to
Did you have the same fun and games I had with Southwestern Bell, during the 70s-80, as each time I got a faster modem, I was the first customer with that speed, and their engineers had to come out and measure which of my 6 lines was sufficiently quiet to be used,
often having to change amplifiers up the line.
I think 1200 was no problem, but I remember very well the 2400, 4800, 9600, and especially the 19.2 interations that took them several days to support.
In 1984 I was using the first Compaq LunchBox ($13000)
with a Barr Systems SDLC card to talk SNA.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:14 AM
To: IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Teletypewriter Model 33
often having to change amplifiers up the line.
I think 1200 was no problem, but I remember very well the 2400, 4800, 9600, and especially the 19.2 interations that took them several days to support.
In 1984 I was using the first Compaq LunchBox ($13000)
with a Barr Systems SDLC card to talk SNA.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:14 AM
To: IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Teletypewriter Model 33
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 9, 2013, 11:48:54 AM9/9/13
to
In <5834228785212676.WA...@listserv.ua.edu>, on
09/09/2013
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
09/09/2013
at 09:50 AM, Paul Gilmartin <PaulGB...@AIM.COM> said:
>Ah! Thermal paper? But that provided me the epiphany that computers
>could deal with mixed-case text.
IBM supported mixed-case text well before the TI noisy 700.
>Ah! Thermal paper? But that provided me the epiphany that computers
>could deal with mixed-case text.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
John McKown
Sep 9, 2013, 11:49:49 AM9/9/13
to
I had forgotten that. We had one of those for "on call" use at one place
where I worked. But we had 2400 bps connection and I had a 2400 bps modem.
I helped one poor programmer (was actually sent to her home) who had a 300
bps acoustic mode connected to an Apple II with a 40x24 screen. Watching
the screen scroll right and left was agonizing.
where I worked. But we had 2400 bps connection and I had a 2400 bps modem.
I helped one poor programmer (was actually sent to her home) who had a 300
bps acoustic mode connected to an Apple II with a 40x24 screen. Watching
the screen scroll right and left was agonizing.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 9, 2013, 12:08:14 PM9/9/13
to
m42tom-...@YAHOO.COM (Tom Marchant) writes:
> And in another post he mentioned MTS (Michigan Terminal System),
> written to run on the System/360 model 67.
>
> In MTS the terminal driver was called TSFO. I've been told that its
> name was an acronym for Twenty Seven Forty One.
>
> How about that for some worthless trivia?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
> And in another post he mentioned MTS (Michigan Terminal System),
> written to run on the System/360 model 67.
>
> In MTS the terminal driver was called TSFO. I've been told that its
> name was an acronym for Twenty Seven Forty One.
>
> How about that for some worthless trivia?
even more trivia .... there has some recent discussion about ntp
... person responsible for ntp ... earlier at michigan & MTS
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/gallery/gallery8.html
and involved in DEC-based termainal controller
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/gallery/gallery7.html
some umich mts pages gone 404 but live on at wayback machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20050212073808/www.itd.umich.edu/~doc/Digest/0596/feat01.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050212073808/www.itd.umich.edu/~doc/Digest/0596/feat02.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050212183905/www.itd.umich.edu/~doc/Digest/0596/feat03.html
One of barriers to entry for Amdahl in the 70s was need for IBM system
support ... so Amdahl saw a lot of uptake from the MTS community (which
didn't need IBM system support).
Then there appeared a very large east coast financial "true blue" firm
with huge football fields of IBM mainframes ... was indicating it was
going to be the first "true blue" commercial firm to install Amdahl
machine. I was quite familar with the customer and was asked to go
onsite for six months ... as possible way of convincing customer to
cancel the order. However, the customer had been horribly offended by
the branch manager ... and was going to install the Amdahl machine
regardless ... and my role onsite was pure obfuscation and
misdirection. I refused to go, giving the reason. I was told I had to do
it anyway or I could kiss goodby to any career in the company
... because the branch manager was good sailing buddy of the CEO and
this would ruin his career (and the CEO would hold it against me).
Note this goes along with the description of what happened to corporate
culture with the failure of Future System effort ... which was only a
year or two earlier.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
"Computer Wars: The Post-IBM World" Ferguson & Morris:
... and perhaps most damaging, the old culture under Watson Snr and Jr
of free and vigorous debate was replaced with sycophancy and make no
waves under Opel and Akers. It's claimed that thereafter, IBM lived in
the shadow of defeat
... and:
But because of the heavy investment of face by the top management, F/S
took years to kill, although its wrongheadedness was obvious from the
very outset. "For the first time, during F/S, outspoken criticism
became politically dangerous," recalls a former top executive.
... snip ...
thats beside some of the blame for the rise of clone controllers
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Paul Gilmartin
Sep 9, 2013, 12:14:28 PM9/9/13
to
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:38:27 -0500, Barry Merrill wrote:
>Did you have the same fun and games I had with Southwestern Bell, during the 70s-80, as each time I got a faster modem, I was the first customer with that speed, and their engineers had to come out and measure which of my 6 lines was sufficiently quiet to be used,
>
No, but at 110, through an approved DAA, we'd sometimes get a carrier
>Did you have the same fun and games I had with Southwestern Bell, during the 70s-80, as each time I got a faster modem, I was the first customer with that speed, and their engineers had to come out and measure which of my 6 lines was sufficiently quiet to be used,
>
dropped. Pick up the handset. Hear, "We're very sorry sir, but we're
trying to discover the source of this 'interference' we noticed while
monitoring your line for quality."
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:49:03 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>IBM supported mixed-case text well before the TI noisy 700.
>
Where do your lower case characters go? Why isn't there even
an option to fix it? ("ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*) ASIS ...")?
And why do some ISPF panels respect mixed-case on the command
line while others fold to upper. Etc.
-- gil
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 9, 2013, 12:37:25 PM9/9/13
to
ba...@MXG.COM (Barry Merrill) writes:
> Did you have the same fun and games I had with Southwestern Bell,
> during the 70s-80, as each time I got a faster modem, I was the first
> customer with that speed, and their engineers had to come out and
> measure which of my 6 lines was sufficiently quiet to be used,
> often having to change amplifiers up the line.
> I think 1200 was no problem, but I remember very well the 2400, 4800,
> 9600, and especially the 19.2 interations that took them several days
> to support.
>
> In 1984 I was using the first Compaq LunchBox ($13000)
> with a Barr Systems SDLC card to talk SNA.
> Did you have the same fun and games I had with Southwestern Bell,
> during the 70s-80, as each time I got a faster modem, I was the first
> customer with that speed, and their engineers had to come out and
> measure which of my 6 lines was sufficiently quiet to be used,
> often having to change amplifiers up the line.
> I think 1200 was no problem, but I remember very well the 2400, 4800,
> 9600, and especially the 19.2 interations that took them several days
> to support.
>
> In 1984 I was using the first Compaq LunchBox ($13000)
> with a Barr Systems SDLC card to talk SNA.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
I was corporate tieline ... so there was some extra care when it was
originally setup ... I can only remember once when they had to come out
and test various pairs.
I had gotten 2400 for 3101 ... but fairly early after getting IBM/PC it
was replaced with corporate 2400 "encrypting" modem.
there was lots of concern about industrial espionage ... all the
internal network links (larger than arpanet/internet from just about the
beginning until some late '85 or early '86) required link encryptors.
sometime mid-80s, there was claim that half of all link encryptors in
the world were on the internal network.
in the light of lots of discussion about gov. agencies and encryption
... there were all sorts of problems getting approval for installing
link encryptors ... especially when the links crossed national
boundaries.
in the early 80s, evesdropping on phone line computer traffic ... and
especially hotel PBX rooms, was identified as major vulnerability. The
corporation did their own 2400 baud encrypting modem that was then
mandated for home terminal program and portable "road warrior" PCs.
as various previous notes about internal network and dial-up traffic
... none of it was SNA
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
however about the time of NSFNET backbone ... there was lots of
mis-information about how SNA/VTAM could be used for the NSFNET backbone
... some old NSFNET related email ... including discussion
of the SNA/VTAM misinformation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet
... was well as mis-information about why the internal network needed to be
converted to SNA/VTAM
some of this is also discussed in the referenced cloud computing history
threads
I had a project I called HSDT
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
and was also working with various of the entities that would participate
in NSFNET backbone. I had T1 and faster speed links ... and at the time
the SNA/VTAM group even had justification to executive committee why
customers didn't need/want links faster than 56kbits.
Getting link encryptors for T1 links and faster speed links was really
expensive and could be hard to find. This is recent reference in getting
involved in building our own link encryptors ... objective was to have
it handle at least 20mbits/sec and cost $100 or less. I got into tiff
with the corporate encryption group over whether standard DES had been
significantly weakened. It took three months to convince them that it
was significantly stronger (not weaker) than standard DES ... but as
referenced it was hollow victory and I came to realize there were 3kinds
of crypto 1) those they don't care about, 2) those you can't do, and 3)
those you can only do for them. I was told I could make as many as I
wanted ... but couldn't keep/use any of them ... but could sell all of
them to a gov. agency.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#77
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 9, 2013, 1:22:18 PM9/9/13
to
In
<CA+Myz1WrTaxPoJk_8ODT4DofHG5L6=zr96bOs01n...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 09/09/2013
terminals in common use. I believe that the 2741 was the most popular.
>Has anyone typed TSO or compiled programs
>on a tele-typewriter model 33?
Not I, at least not on an IBM system. I may have done so for a UNIVAC
1230, but, if so, I've gratefully forgotten.
>What was it like to work on a key-punch
>machine? How was the experience?
Better than handing coding sheets to a keypunch operator and
correcting her errors; not as good as using an online text editor.
>I suppose, 3278 terminals were introduced much later by IBM.
Yes, but the 3277 was available much earlier, in 1971.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
<CA+Myz1WrTaxPoJk_8ODT4DofHG5L6=zr96bOs01n...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 09/09/2013
at 10:29 AM, Quasar Chunawala <quasar.c...@GMAIL.COM> said:
>Today, the mainframe staff in any enterprise work on PC running
>special software(the terminal emulator) to connect to the *mainframe
>server* over the company intranet. But, back in the 1960's, when
>mainframes were young, what were some of input devices?
Just for IBM mainframe their were a variety of IBM and Teletype®
>Today, the mainframe staff in any enterprise work on PC running
>special software(the terminal emulator) to connect to the *mainframe
>server* over the company intranet. But, back in the 1960's, when
>mainframes were young, what were some of input devices?
terminals in common use. I believe that the 2741 was the most popular.
>Has anyone typed TSO or compiled programs
>on a tele-typewriter model 33?
1230, but, if so, I've gratefully forgotten.
>What was it like to work on a key-punch
>machine? How was the experience?
correcting her errors; not as good as using an online text editor.
>I suppose, 3278 terminals were introduced much later by IBM.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 9, 2013, 1:36:10 PM9/9/13
to
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#23 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
the cp67 changes i did at the univ for tty support was picked up and
shipped in the standard product by the science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
I had done a hack with 1byte arithmatic values for calculating data
transferred (since tty max line length was much shorter)
science center was 4th flr, 545 tech sq ... and the MIT Urban Systems
lab had a cp67 datacenter in tech sq bldg. across the courtyard. this
is tale of tty max. line length being modified to 1200 (I think for some
kind of plotter device down at harvard school of public health).
http://www.multicians.org/thvv/360-67.html
resulting in cp67 crashing 27 times in one day (storage overlay with
incorrect line lengths being calculated)
note that the above mentions science center on 3rd flr ... that is
incorrect. the science center was on the 4th flr of 545 tech sq (with
project mac & multics on the 5th flr) and the science center cp67
machine room was on the 2nd flr. The IBM Boston Programming center was
on the 3rd flr ... although after the cp67 group split off from the
science center in progress of turning into the vm370 group ... they
moved to the 3rd flr and absorbed the Boston Programming Center. recent
trivia about boston programming center doing conversational programming
system (CPS) for os/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#8
and
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/allen-babcock/cps/CPS_Progress_Report_may66.pdf
it also mentions 44MPS ... however, what the science center did was
hardware modify a 360/40 with virtual memory and did cp40/cms ... before
it morphs into cp67/cms when the 360/40 was replaced with
360/67. Comeau's cp40 talk that he gave at 1982 seas meeting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/cp40seas1982.txt
some of the above also discussed in cloud computing thread
other trivia ... tss/360 group was purported to have 1200 people at a
time when the cp67/cms group had 12 people (factor of 100 times
diference)
Gerhard Postpischil
Sep 9, 2013, 2:39:07 PM9/9/13
to
On 9/9/2013 12:59 AM, Quasar Chunawala wrote:
> Today, the mainframe staff in any enterprise work on PC running special
> software(the terminal emulator) to connect to the *mainframe server* over
> the company intranet. But, back in the 1960's, when mainframes were young,
> what were some of input devices? Has anyone typed TSO or compiled programs
> on a tele-typewriter model 33? What was it like to work on a key-punch
> machine? How was the experience? I suppose, 3278 terminals were introduced
> much later by IBM.
In the early days, everything was done by punch cards. The 026 (BCD) and
> Today, the mainframe staff in any enterprise work on PC running special
> software(the terminal emulator) to connect to the *mainframe server* over
> the company intranet. But, back in the 1960's, when mainframes were young,
> what were some of input devices? Has anyone typed TSO or compiled programs
> on a tele-typewriter model 33? What was it like to work on a key-punch
> machine? How was the experience? I suppose, 3278 terminals were introduced
> much later by IBM.
029 (EBCDIC) punches were fairly easy to use, except when you got card
jams due to humidity or warped cards. IBM introduced the 1050 (similar
to the 1052 operators console) with an acoustic modem, and a manual,
edge-fed card reader. A little later came the 2741, a modified Selectric
typewriter. The 270x controllers also accepted teletypes, but IBM did
not, at that time, provide TTY compatible terminals (they didn't even
call them TTYs, but TWX). As you can imagine, everything was a lot
slower. Almost all work was done in batch, so that you had plenty of
time to desk-check (proofread) your work, whereas much work today is
done by a quick change and see what happens method.
In the second half of the sixties, IBM offered the 2260 CRTs, with a
maximum 12*80 screen. For business use, there was the MTST (a
"secretarial" system that created text documents, with error correction,
on cartridges, and a 2495 reader for the mainframe. I found it notable
that you could rewrite any character on the tape, making it behave more
like DASD than tape). Starting in the late sixties, terminals started to
proliferate (3272, 3275, and 3276), and in the seventies almost every
computer hardware company offered terminals, either TTY 33 and upward
compatible, or 327x compatible (we had IBM 327x controllers, as well as
ITT and AT&T ones). PRC had Sanders CRTs. All our systems staff has TI
700s at home. Did I mention that everything was slower? <g>
The installations I worked at offered Wylbur, as it was much more
productive. On our 360/65, IBM had a recommendation to keep active TSO
users below 10-12; by comparison, Wylbur could handle several dozens
without degradation in response. Also most of the asynchronous terminals
had physical tabs, making program entry much faster than writing new
code on a CRT (some software supports logical tabs on these, but you
can't tell what the output will look like because you could be a column
over where you thought you were). My favorite terminal at the time was
the Wyse-50; it not only offered a 24*80 screen, but it could be set to
more lines (50*80 IIRC). And the Wyse-300 (yellow monochrome) had a
raster mode, in which you could define your own characters (similar to
the 3179 and 3279); I used that for a "real" cent sign and not sign in
ASCII mode. A few companies provided ASCII terminals with color support,
but as far as I know, these never caught on (except for games). These
days we take color for granted.
Looking back on it, it was an interesting time. Everything was slower <g>
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, Vermont
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 9, 2013, 4:59:31 PM9/9/13
to
ger...@VALLEY.NET (Gerhard Postpischil) writes:
> The installations I worked at offered Wylbur, as it was much more
> productive. On our 360/65, IBM had a recommendation to keep active TSO
> users below 10-12; by comparison, Wylbur could handle several dozens
> without degradation in response. Also most of the asynchronous
> terminals had physical tabs, making program entry much faster than
> writing new code on a CRT (some software supports logical tabs on
> these, but you can't tell what the output will look like because you
> could be a column over where you thought you were). My favorite
> terminal at the time was the Wyse-50; it not only offered a 24*80
> screen, but it could be set to more lines (50*80 IIRC). And the
> Wyse-300 (yellow monochrome) had a raster mode, in which you could
> define your own characters (similar to the 3179 and 3279); I used that
> for a "real" cent sign and not sign in ASCII mode. A few companies
> provided ASCII terminals with color support, but as far as I know,
> these never caught on (except for games). These days we take color for
> granted.
> The installations I worked at offered Wylbur, as it was much more
> productive. On our 360/65, IBM had a recommendation to keep active TSO
> users below 10-12; by comparison, Wylbur could handle several dozens
> without degradation in response. Also most of the asynchronous
> terminals had physical tabs, making program entry much faster than
> writing new code on a CRT (some software supports logical tabs on
> these, but you can't tell what the output will look like because you
> could be a column over where you thought you were). My favorite
> terminal at the time was the Wyse-50; it not only offered a 24*80
> screen, but it could be set to more lines (50*80 IIRC). And the
> Wyse-300 (yellow monochrome) had a raster mode, in which you could
> define your own characters (similar to the 3179 and 3279); I used that
> for a "real" cent sign and not sign in ASCII mode. A few companies
> provided ASCII terminals with color support, but as far as I know,
> these never caught on (except for games). These days we take color for
> granted.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#23 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#24 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#23 Teletypewriter Model 33
sometimes I had to alternate with the IBM SE doing some tss/360 on the
weekends. we did simulated interactive fortran edit compile linkedit and
go benchmark ... ran on the univ. 768kbyte 360/67 ... tss/360 with four
simulated users had worse throughput and response than cp67/cms did with
35 simulatetd users. this was even w/o much of the enhancements that I
did ... part of old presentation at fall '68 SHARE meeting.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#18 CP/67 & OS MFT14
I later did a lot more enhancements and on science center 768kbyte
machine (104 pageable pages after fixed storage requirements)
... regularly got 75-80 users with small subsecond interactive
response. this is recent posting about grenoble science center modifying
cp67 for "working set dispatcher" (paper in CACM early 70s) on their
machine that had 1mbyte real storage (155 pageable pages after fixed
storage requirements) and only got that thruput when running 35users
(with similar workload).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#70
mentions Jim Gray asking to step into an academic dispute over giving
somebody Stanford PHD ... working involving "global LRU" replacement
... something that I had done originally as undergraduate in the 60s.
The "local LRU" replacement forces were heavily lobbying to prevent the
PHD from being awarding. My cambridge scientific center numbers were all
"global LRU" showed much better than Genoble's "local LRU" (aka better
than twice as many users with only 2/3rds the pageable real storage).
Unfortunately ibm management prevents me from responding for nearly a
year ... hopefully it wasn't because they were trying to take sides in
the academic dispute ... but possibly thought they were punishing me for
being responsible for online computer conferencing.
some past posts mentioning page replacment, global LRU, and "clock"
replacement
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#clock
some past posts mentioning online computer conferencing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#cmc
part of the problem with 3270s were that they were half-duplex ... so
could be annoying for interactive computing. at least the 2741 keyboard
locked when it didn't want you typing. On 3270s it was possible to be
typing when the system goes to write the screen ... resulting in
terminal lockup requiring the reset key to be hit. However, there was
enough electronics in the 3277 head ... that it was possible to put a
FIFO in the head ... that accumulated characters if the screen was being
written ... avoiding the lockup & reset problem
then along came 3274/3728 where a lot of the terminal electronics were
moved back into the controller (and impossible to deal with the
half-duplex problem) ... it also made hardware processing and response
much slower ... past posts with old 3272/3277 and 3274/3278 comparison
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol
the 1/2 sec. 3274/3278 hardware latency made it possible for user to see
1/4 sec ("total") response ("hardware" + "system") ... however as
referenced ... TSO rarely saw 1sec response ... so they never noticed
the difference.
we complained to the product owner that 3274/3278 was much worse for
interactive computing (compared to 3272/3277) and eventually got back
response that 3278 wasn't designed for interactive computing ... but for
data-entry (basically online keypunching).
later with PC terminal emulation ... a 3278 card was about 1/3rd the
upload/download throughput of 3277 card (there was significantly more
3278 coax protocol chatter .... because it assumed all the electronics
back in the controller). recent discussion
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#17
part of bad TSO throughput wasn't just TSO's fault ... some of it was
the extensive, ingrained use of multi-track search in all the os/360
varieties. For a time, IBM san jose research had a mvs/168 system and
vm/158 system with physically shared 3330 configuration ... but strinct
direction that controllers/strings were dedicated/partitioned between
the two systems. One day, a "MVS" 3330 was mounted on a vm/370 string
... and within five minutes the datacenter started getting irate calls
from CMS users about something had severely degraded response and
throughput. It turns out it was the controller lockup by the mvs/168
doing multi-track searches on the mis-placed packed. It was demanded
that the pack be moved ... but the mvs operators said that they would
do it at the end of the day, offshift (this was about 10am).
so we had this highly tuned VS1 system that ran significantly faster
under vm370 (than stand-alone) ... and brought it up on loaded vm/158
system with pack on an MVS string ... which managed to bring the mvs/168
system to its knees and alleviate the throughput degradation that the
CMS users were seeing. MVS operators then agreed to immediately move the
MVS pack (off the vm string) if we took down the VS1 system.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 9, 2013, 9:15:10 PM9/9/13
to
In <6316392288346624.WA...@listserv.ua.edu>, on
09/09/2013
at 11:14 AM, Paul Gilmartin <PaulGB...@AIM.COM> said:
>Then what went wrong?
You used the wrong tool.
>Try "ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*)
Why would I do that for an interactive command? Try EDIT foo.text.
And what does that have to do with justifying "Ah! Thermal paper?
terminal is a TI "silent" 700 or an IBM 2741.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
09/09/2013
at 11:14 AM, Paul Gilmartin <PaulGB...@AIM.COM> said:
>Then what went wrong?
You used the wrong tool.
>Try "ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*)
Why would I do that for an interactive command? Try EDIT foo.text.
And what does that have to do with justifying "Ah! Thermal paper?
But that provided me the epiphany that computers could deal with
mixed-case text."? The processing of DA(*) is the same whether the
terminal is a TI "silent" 700 or an IBM 2741.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 9, 2013, 9:23:44 PM9/9/13
to
In <522E15D6...@valley.net>, on 09/09/2013
end S/360 console was the 1052-7, which did not require a 1051.
>Starting in the late sixties, terminals started to
>proliferate (3272, 3275, and 3276),
The 3272 controller, 3275 display and 3277 display were in 1971; the
3276 was about a decade later.
>in which you could define your own characters (similar to the 3179
>and 3279)
ITYM 3279 and 3179-G.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
at 02:39 PM, Gerhard Postpischil <ger...@VALLEY.NET> said:
>IBM introduced the 1050 (similar to the 1052 operators console)
The 1050 was a family of terminals attached through a 1051; the low
>IBM introduced the 1050 (similar to the 1052 operators console)
end S/360 console was the 1052-7, which did not require a 1051.
>Starting in the late sixties, terminals started to
>proliferate (3272, 3275, and 3276),
3276 was about a decade later.
>in which you could define your own characters (similar to the 3179
>and 3279)
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Paul Gilmartin
Sep 9, 2013, 10:33:05 PM9/9/13
to
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:03:03 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> on 09/09/2013 at 11:14 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>
>>Then what went wrong?
>
>You used the wrong tool.
>
>>Try "ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*)
>
>Why would I do that for an interactive command? Try EDIT foo.text.
>
<RHETORIC> Why does DSN(*) exist at all? </RHETORIC>
What you suggest is more like batch than interactive.
It was a program which issued prompts to DD SYSTERM and read
responses from DD SYSIN. It could run either in batch, in which
case the programmer needed to anticipate the prompts and EDIT
the file to be used as SYSIN and could ignore the prompts in
SYSTERM, or interactively, in which case SYSTERM and SYSIN
could both be allocated as DSN(*). But data read from DSN(*)
were perniciously folded. I could have required that users detect
interactive use and code specially for that. But since I controlled
the runtime library, I could do better. At the DCB OPEN exit I
stole the access method pointer and pointed it at my code that
did a TGET; no fold. It all worked. But why did I have to go
to that effort? Why isn't there an ASIS option on ALLOCATE?
>And what does that have to do with justifying "Ah! Thermal paper?
>
Merely that it was the first time I saw a computer (it was a PDP-10)
writing messages and column headings in mixed case. "Thermal"
is irrelevant; merely an exclamation of recognition of the device.
>But that provided me the epiphany that computers could deal with
>mixed-case text."? The processing of DA(*) is the same whether the
>terminal is a TI "silent" 700 or an IBM 2741.
>
IOW, identically wrong. When I type "a", I want my program to see
that, not "A". If I need to I can fold; I can't unambiguously unfold.
-- gil
> on 09/09/2013 at 11:14 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>
>>Then what went wrong?
>
>You used the wrong tool.
>
>>Try "ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*)
>
>Why would I do that for an interactive command? Try EDIT foo.text.
>
What you suggest is more like batch than interactive.
It was a program which issued prompts to DD SYSTERM and read
responses from DD SYSIN. It could run either in batch, in which
case the programmer needed to anticipate the prompts and EDIT
the file to be used as SYSIN and could ignore the prompts in
SYSTERM, or interactively, in which case SYSTERM and SYSIN
could both be allocated as DSN(*). But data read from DSN(*)
were perniciously folded. I could have required that users detect
interactive use and code specially for that. But since I controlled
the runtime library, I could do better. At the DCB OPEN exit I
stole the access method pointer and pointed it at my code that
did a TGET; no fold. It all worked. But why did I have to go
to that effort? Why isn't there an ASIS option on ALLOCATE?
>And what does that have to do with justifying "Ah! Thermal paper?
>
writing messages and column headings in mixed case. "Thermal"
is irrelevant; merely an exclamation of recognition of the device.
>But that provided me the epiphany that computers could deal with
>mixed-case text."? The processing of DA(*) is the same whether the
>terminal is a TI "silent" 700 or an IBM 2741.
>
that, not "A". If I need to I can fold; I can't unambiguously unfold.
-- gil
Barry Merrill
Sep 9, 2013, 10:45:34 PM9/9/13
to
I had to solder in a switch on the bottom of my TRS-80
to have mixed case when I was writing my original
Merrill's Guide in 1980.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:33 PM
To: IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Teletypewriter Model 33
to have mixed case when I was writing my original
Merrill's Guide in 1980.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:33 PM
To: IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Teletypewriter Model 33
Gerhard Postpischil
Sep 10, 2013, 12:41:47 AM9/10/13
to
On 9/9/2013 10:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> Merely that it was the first time I saw a computer (it was a PDP-10)
> writing messages and column headings in mixed case. "Thermal"
> is irrelevant; merely an exclamation of recognition of the device.
That may have been your first exposure to mixed case output, but IBM
> Merely that it was the first time I saw a computer (it was a PDP-10)
> writing messages and column headings in mixed case. "Thermal"
> is irrelevant; merely an exclamation of recognition of the device.
offered an SN and TN train for the 1403. I used an IBM type III program
named FORMAT, that provided an escape character (cent sign by default),
to produce mixed case output. It came in very handy for writing memos
and documentation.
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, Vermont
Paul Gilmartin
Sep 10, 2013, 2:00:07 AM9/10/13
to
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:41:56 -0400, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
>On 9/9/2013 10:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>> Merely that it was the first time I saw a computer (it was a PDP-10)
>> writing messages and column headings in mixed case. "Thermal"
>> is irrelevant; merely an exclamation of recognition of the device.
>
>That may have been your first exposure to mixed case output, but IBM
>offered an SN and TN train for the 1403. I used an IBM type III program
>named FORMAT, that provided an escape character (cent sign by default),
>to produce mixed case output. It came in very handy for writing memos
>and documentation.
>
But how much IBM software in 1978 actually exploited it? Using SDSF
>On 9/9/2013 10:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>> Merely that it was the first time I saw a computer (it was a PDP-10)
>> writing messages and column headings in mixed case. "Thermal"
>> is irrelevant; merely an exclamation of recognition of the device.
>
>That may have been your first exposure to mixed case output, but IBM
>offered an SN and TN train for the 1403. I used an IBM type III program
>named FORMAT, that provided an escape character (cent sign by default),
>to produce mixed case output. It came in very handy for writing memos
>and documentation.
>
as an analogue, on the TTY 33 ASR, I had been used to seeing something
like:
DISPLAY FILTER VIEW PRINT OPTIONS SEARCH HELP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDSF DA MVS3 MVS3 PAG 0 CPU/L 3/ 3 LINE 42-76 (77)
PREFIX=* DEST=(ALL) OWNER=* SORT=JOBID/A SYSNAME=
NP JOBNAME STEPNAME PROCSTEP JOBID OWNER C POS DP REAL PAGING SIO
SDSF SDSF SDSF STC05182 STCUSER NS F6 154 0.00 0.00
RMF RMF IEFPROC STC05183 STCUSER NS FE 1725 0.00 0.00
When we got the TI 700, suddenly I saw:
Display Filter View Print Options Search Help
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDSF DA MVS3 MVS3 PAG 0 CPU/L 3/ 3 LINE 42-76 (77)
PREFIX=* DEST=(ALL) OWNER=* SORT=JobID/A SYSNAME=
NP JOBNAME StepName ProcStep JobID Owner C Pos DP Real Paging SIO
SDSF SDSF SDSF STC05182 STCUSER NS F6 154 0.00 0.00
RMF RMF IEFPROC STC05183 STCUSER NS FE 1725 0.00 0.00
As I say, it was an epiphany; I realized that TOPS-10 was trying to use
literate English conventions all along; it was just the TTY that was
folding to monocase. Later, using CDC Kronos, and then IBM MVS,
I wondered, why couldn't they do likewise: let the output device fold if
it chooses to; otherwise let it display mixed case.
-- gil
efinnell15
Sep 10, 2013, 3:30:04 AM9/10/13
to
There was a 'Universal Train'. I don't remember the number. It only had two of most one of some and was pretty slow. One Dept. used it for Don Quixote concordance trying to prove or disprove Cervantes was author. Don't know what outcome was. They ran that darn thing most weekends just for spite.
In a message dated 09/09/13 23:41:48 Central Daylight Time, ger...@VALLEY.NET writes:
named FORMAT, that provided an escape character (cent sign by default),
to produce mixed case output. It came in very handy for writing memos
and documentation.
In a message dated 09/09/13 23:41:48 Central Daylight Time, ger...@VALLEY.NET writes:
named FORMAT, that provided an escape character (cent sign by default),
to produce mixed case output. It came in very handy for writing memos
and documentation.
Gerhard Postpischil
Sep 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM9/10/13
to
On 9/10/2013 3:29 AM, efinnell15 wrote:
> There was a 'Universal Train'. I don't remember the number. It only
> had two of most one of some and was pretty slow. One Dept. used it
> for Don Quixote concordance trying to prove or disprove Cervantes was
> author. Don't know what outcome was. They ran that darn thing most
> weekends just for spite.
For a small fee, IBM would build a train with any characters you want.
> There was a 'Universal Train'. I don't remember the number. It only
> had two of most one of some and was pretty slow. One Dept. used it
> for Don Quixote concordance trying to prove or disprove Cervantes was
> author. Don't know what outcome was. They ran that darn thing most
> weekends just for spite.
The closest I know to a "standard" universal train was the layout set by
the American Library Association, used for card catalogs, etc. It was
referred to as the ALA train, but I coded the UCS member as UN (and
later U11). Yours may or may not have been the same scheme? The curious
may find a copy of the definition on CBT update file 860.
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, Vermont
Gerhard Postpischil
Sep 10, 2013, 10:51:54 AM9/10/13
to
On 9/10/2013 2:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> As I say, it was an epiphany; I realized that TOPS-10 was trying to use
> literate English conventions all along; it was just the TTY that was
> folding to monocase. Later, using CDC Kronos, and then IBM MVS,
> I wondered, why couldn't they do likewise: let the output device fold if
> it chooses to; otherwise let it display mixed case.
I understand your point, but the ASR 33 always was a mono-case device.
> As I say, it was an epiphany; I realized that TOPS-10 was trying to use
> literate English conventions all along; it was just the TTY that was
> folding to monocase. Later, using CDC Kronos, and then IBM MVS,
> I wondered, why couldn't they do likewise: let the output device fold if
> it chooses to; otherwise let it display mixed case.
So the implementers had a choice of folding lower case characters, or
replacing them by a substitute (and I've run across abominations where
an unprintable was left blank). When I ran on the CDC 6600, the issue
never came up (straight ForTran numeric calculations). But IBM left the
translation up the the installation - the UCS definition for the IBM
1403 printers had a FOLD option bit, honored by the hardware. Normally
it was matched to the print train (AN, HN, PN, etc. folded, SN and TN
didn't. I don't recall YN - we never had one).
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, Vermont
Paul Gilmartin
Sep 10, 2013, 11:16:23 AM9/10/13
to
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:03 -0400, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
>
>I understand your point, but the ASR 33 always was a mono-case device.
>
IIRC, it simply ignored the bit that selected upper/lower case. Folding
>
>I understand your point, but the ASR 33 always was a mono-case device.
>
was automatic.
>1403 printers had a FOLD option bit, honored by the hardware. Normally
>
-- gil
efinnell15
Sep 10, 2013, 1:38:43 PM9/10/13
to
I was just a flunky work study student back then, U11 sounds familiar but it may
not have had all the diacriticals.
Somebody complained the print on the four part wasn't sharp enough so weekend
took a typewriter brush and toluene solvent to make it shiny bright. After about 20 seconds, seized up tight. CE was in good humor and didn't flog anyone, but the overtime charges were pretty steep.
In a message dated 09/10/13 09:43:41 Central Daylight Time, ger...@VALLEY.NET writes:
used for card catalogs, etc. It was
referred to as the ALA train, but I coded the UCS member as UN (and
later U11). Yours may or may not have been the same scheme?
not have had all the diacriticals.
Somebody complained the print on the four part wasn't sharp enough so weekend
took a typewriter brush and toluene solvent to make it shiny bright. After about 20 seconds, seized up tight. CE was in good humor and didn't flog anyone, but the overtime charges were pretty steep.
In a message dated 09/10/13 09:43:41 Central Daylight Time, ger...@VALLEY.NET writes:
used for card catalogs, etc. It was
referred to as the ALA train, but I coded the UCS member as UN (and
later U11). Yours may or may not have been the same scheme?
Gerhard Postpischil
Sep 10, 2013, 2:45:49 PM9/10/13
to
On 9/10/2013 11:16 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> Ironically, the FOLD subparameter is not supported for SYSOUT data sets!?
Folding is a property of the printer/control unit, and has nothing to do
> Ironically, the FOLD subparameter is not supported for SYSOUT data sets!?
with JES. The installation defines UCS members to suit, with or without
the fold option. You select whether or not you want folding by choosing
the appropriate UCS train name. The only exception I can see is if you
want the TN train special characters, but with upper case only; in that
case your installation could define an additional UCS image, e.g., TNUC.
While a direct printer allocation might be made with FOLD, in a properly
configured installation it is never necessary, and I don't recall it
ever being used.
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, Vermont
Barry Merrill
Sep 10, 2013, 3:37:36 PM9/10/13
to
I vaguely recall benchmarking the print time of several Print Trains
in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know
I identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case, or so I think I was told.
We went back to the users of those trains and either suggested changes
or scheduled their large prints for those print trains during slack
print times.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of efinnell15
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:39 PM
To: IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Teletypewriter Model 33
in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know
I identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case, or so I think I was told.
We went back to the users of those trains and either suggested changes
or scheduled their large prints for those print trains during slack
print times.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of efinnell15
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:39 PM
To: IBM-...@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Teletypewriter Model 33
Gerhard Postpischil
Sep 10, 2013, 9:06:16 PM9/10/13
to
On 9/10/2013 3:37 PM, Barry Merrill wrote:
> I vaguely recall benchmarking the print time of several Print Trains
> in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know
> I identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
> and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case, or so I think I was told.
> We went back to the users of those trains and either suggested changes
> or scheduled their large prints for those print trains during slack
> print times.
1403 print trains comprised 80 slugs of three characters each. The fast
> I vaguely recall benchmarking the print time of several Print Trains
> in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know
> I identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
> and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case, or so I think I was told.
> We went back to the users of those trains and either suggested changes
> or scheduled their large prints for those print trains during slack
> print times.
print sets had six repetitions of the upper case letters and digits,
with a sprinkling of special characters. I've never worked with AN or
HN, because our service bureau had PL/I customers, and the PN train was
the first to support the not sign and nationals; IIRC it had four
alphameric sets. SN and TN had fewer repeats, so I guess the worst case
would be a ratio of 3 to 1?
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, Vermont
Quasar Chunawala
Sep 10, 2013, 11:23:59 PM9/10/13
to
Gerhard, Shmuel and everyone else on the group,
Thank you for the wonderful insight, you folks provided. It was quite
interesting to read this whole e-mail chain. I shall keep this handy in my
back-pocket. I never heard of the word "print trains" before, so I'll try
looking up some more information on it.
Thanks again!
http://in.linkedin.com/pub/quasar-chunawala/20/164/133/
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Gerhard Postpischil <ger...@valley.net>wrote:
> On 9/10/2013 3:37 PM, Barry Merrill wrote:
>
>> I vaguely recall benchmarking the print time of several Print Trains
>> in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know
>> I identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
>> and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case, or so I think I was told.
>> We went back to the users of those trains and either suggested changes
>> or scheduled their large prints for those print trains during slack
>> print times.
>>
>
> 1403 print trains comprised 80 slugs of three characters each. The fast
> print sets had six repetitions of the upper case letters and digits, with a
> sprinkling of special characters. I've never worked with AN or HN, because
> our service bureau had PL/I customers, and the PN train was the first to
> support the not sign and nationals; IIRC it had four alphameric sets. SN
> and TN had fewer repeats, so I guess the worst case would be a ratio of 3
> to 1?
>
> Gerhard Postpischil
> Bradford, Vermont
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**----------
Thank you for the wonderful insight, you folks provided. It was quite
interesting to read this whole e-mail chain. I shall keep this handy in my
back-pocket. I never heard of the word "print trains" before, so I'll try
looking up some more information on it.
Thanks again!
http://in.linkedin.com/pub/quasar-chunawala/20/164/133/
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Gerhard Postpischil <ger...@valley.net>wrote:
> On 9/10/2013 3:37 PM, Barry Merrill wrote:
>
>> I vaguely recall benchmarking the print time of several Print Trains
>> in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know
>> I identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
>> and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case, or so I think I was told.
>> We went back to the users of those trains and either suggested changes
>> or scheduled their large prints for those print trains during slack
>> print times.
>>
>
> 1403 print trains comprised 80 slugs of three characters each. The fast
> print sets had six repetitions of the upper case letters and digits, with a
> sprinkling of special characters. I've never worked with AN or HN, because
> our service bureau had PL/I customers, and the PN train was the first to
> support the not sign and nationals; IIRC it had four alphameric sets. SN
> and TN had fewer repeats, so I guess the worst case would be a ratio of 3
> to 1?
>
> Gerhard Postpischil
> Bradford, Vermont
>
>
Scott Ford
Sep 11, 2013, 12:45:39 AM9/11/13
to
Gerhard,
We used to print bills on a 1403 with a special OCR print train and high intensity black ribbon.
So they would scan correctly then we collated them and microfilmed them...omg ...I used to have to be to work at 3am for that job...
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
We used to print bills on a 1403 with a special OCR print train and high intensity black ribbon.
So they would scan correctly then we collated them and microfilmed them...omg ...I used to have to be to work at 3am for that job...
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
Ian
Sep 11, 2013, 9:28:43 AM9/11/13
to
I think the 1403 will be best remembered for it's musical capabilities.
http://mail.computerhistory.org/pipermail/1401_software/2009-February/000289.html
Ian
--
Ian
http://www.cicsworld.com
http://mail.computerhistory.org/pipermail/1401_software/2009-February/000289.html
Ian
Ian
http://www.cicsworld.com
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 11, 2013, 10:16:49 AM9/11/13
to
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#23 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#24 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#25 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#23 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#24 Teletypewriter Model 33
translate tables were needed for terminals. 2741 & 1052 weren't actually
"ebcdic" ... their code was tilt/rotate bits for the "golf" ball
... translate tables were needed to translate between ebcdic and
tilt/rotate codes. different typeballs could require different
tilt/rotate codes ... for instance apl typeball ... i've uploaded
couple images of 2741 typeball
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aplball.jpg
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aplball2.jpg
i previously mentioned the clone controller project getting temporarily
messed up because of ibm controller linescanner convention of leading
bit into low-order position resulting in bit-reversed bytes. ... TTY
used ascii (as opposed to 2741&1052 being typeball control codes).
somewhat related is ascii history (ibm 360 mainframe originally was
supposed to be ASCII machine)
EBCDIC and the P-BIT (The Biggest Computer Goof Ever)
http://www.bobbemer.com/P-BIT.HTM
Who Goofed?
The culprit was T. Vincent Learson. The only thing for his defense is
that he had no idea of what he had done. It was when he was an IBM Vice
President, prior to tenure as Chairman of the Board, those lofty
positions where you believe that, if you order it done, it actually will
be done. I've mentioned this fiasco elsewhere.
... snip ...
more ASCII history
How ASCII Came About
http://www.bobbemer.com/ASCII.HTM
HOW ASCII GOT ITS BACKSLASH
http://www.bobbemer.com/BACSLASH.HTM
other recent posts mentioning 360 "goof":
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#56 New HD
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#72 One reason for monocase was Re: Dualcase vs monocase. Was: Article for the boss
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#14 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#61 32760?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#3 Ported Tools - Unix
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#49 Internet Mainframe Forums Considered Harmful
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 11, 2013, 10:30:18 AM9/11/13
to
In <1628372020520296.WA...@listserv.ua.edu>, on
09/09/2013
>What you suggest is more like batch than interactive.
EDIT is like batch? In what way?
>It was a program which issued prompts to DD SYSTERM
I don't know what "it" is, but EDIT did *NOT* issue prompts to DD
SYSTERM. EDIT used standard TSO services for terminal I/O.
>Why isn't there an ASIS option on ALLOCATE?
Because you didn't submit a requirement with a compelling business
case. It's been several decades, so I doubt that it's that important
to you.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
09/09/2013
at 09:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin <PaulGB...@AIM.COM> said:
><RHETORIC> Why does DSN(*) exist at all? </RHETORIC>
To accomodate batch applications under TSO.
><RHETORIC> Why does DSN(*) exist at all? </RHETORIC>
>What you suggest is more like batch than interactive.
>It was a program which issued prompts to DD SYSTERM
SYSTERM. EDIT used standard TSO services for terminal I/O.
>Why isn't there an ASIS option on ALLOCATE?
case. It's been several decades, so I doubt that it's that important
to you.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 11, 2013, 10:30:42 AM9/11/13
to
In <6865411767021646.WA...@listserv.ua.edu>, on
09/10/2013
long before the date you asked about.
>TTY 33 ASR
Did the 33 even support lower case? What did you see with, e.g., a
2741?
>Later, using CDC Kronos,
Display code didn't have lower case. I believe that with NOS and
NOS/BE CDC switched to ASCII, which did have LC.
>and then IBM MVS, I wondered, why couldn't they do likewise: let
>the output device fold if it chooses to; otherwise let it display
>mixed case.
Then you were asking for an explanation of something that wasn't true.
All the way back to OS/360, TSO supported mixed case.
Now, if you had asked why IBM didn't impose a corporate standard that
all programs use mixed case in their column headers, that would have
been a reasonable question.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
09/10/2013
at 01:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin <PaulGB...@AIM.COM> said:
>But how much IBM software in 1978 actually exploited it?
Batch or interactive? IBM interactive software exploited lower case
>But how much IBM software in 1978 actually exploited it?
long before the date you asked about.
>TTY 33 ASR
Did the 33 even support lower case? What did you see with, e.g., a
2741?
>Later, using CDC Kronos,
Display code didn't have lower case. I believe that with NOS and
NOS/BE CDC switched to ASCII, which did have LC.
>and then IBM MVS, I wondered, why couldn't they do likewise: let
>the output device fold if it chooses to; otherwise let it display
>mixed case.
All the way back to OS/360, TSO supported mixed case.
Now, if you had asked why IBM didn't impose a corporate standard that
all programs use mixed case in their column headers, that would have
been a reasonable question.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 11, 2013, 10:31:05 AM9/11/13
to
In <e63998df.daf9.4ae4...@aol.com>, on 09/10/2013
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
at 02:29 AM, efinnell15 <efinn...@AOL.COM> said:
>There was a 'Universal Train'. I don't remember the number.
Probably UN on the 1403 and U11 on the 3211.
>There was a 'Universal Train'. I don't remember the number.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 11, 2013, 10:31:26 AM9/11/13
to
In <029201ceae5d$2b0a7420$811f5c60$@mxg.com>, on 09/10/2013
the fastest.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
at 02:37 PM, Barry Merrill <ba...@MXG.COM> said:
>I vaguely recall benchmarking the print time of several Print Trains
>in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know I
>identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
>and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case,
SN and TN would have been the slowest, then PN and QN, withn AN and HN
>I vaguely recall benchmarking the print time of several Print Trains
>in the early 70s, and my memory of specifics was weak, but I know I
>identified three or four specific IDs that were 2 to 3 times longer
>and I'm pretty sure they all had mixed case,
the fastest.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 11, 2013, 11:27:33 AM9/11/13
to
ly...@GARLIC.COM (Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes:
> How ASCII Came About
> http://www.bobbemer.com/ASCII.HTM
> HOW ASCII GOT ITS BACKSLASH
> http://www.bobbemer.com/BACSLASH.HTM
re:
> How ASCII Came About
> http://www.bobbemer.com/ASCII.HTM
> HOW ASCII GOT ITS BACKSLASH
> http://www.bobbemer.com/BACSLASH.HTM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#33 Teletypewriter Model 33
for other drift
Bob's history index
http://www.bobbemer.com/HISTORY.HTM
list this under "Stories in Waiting"
The Impact of Printers upon charter sets
http://www.bobbemer.com/BC.HTM
Paul Gilmartin
Sep 11, 2013, 12:00:46 PM9/11/13
to
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:03:18 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> on 09/09/2013 at 09:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>
>><RHETORIC> Why does DSN(*) exist at all? </RHETORIC>
>
>To accomodate batch applications under TSO.
>
>>What you suggest is more like batch than interactive.
>
>EDIT is like batch? In what way?
>
>>It was a program which issued prompts to DD SYSTERM
>
>I don't know what "it" is, but EDIT did *NOT* issue prompts to DD
>SYSTERM. EDIT used standard TSO services for terminal I/O.
>
Sometimes it appears that you deliberately over-prune quoted
material so you can refute something the previous poster
never said. "It" was my program (or the user's), not EDIT.
And editing a file to supply as input to a program rather than
replying to prompts with a terminal makes the operation of that
program more batch-like than interactive, regardless that the
editor operated interactively.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:12:41 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>>But how much IBM software in 1978 actually exploited it?
>
>Batch or interactive? IBM interactive software exploited lower case
>long before the date you asked about.
>
The appropriate metaphor is that OS/360 et seq. support lower case
in about the same sense that the noose supports the hanged man.
>>TTY 33 ASR
>
>Did the 33 even support lower case? What did you see with, e.g., a
>2741?
>
33 by folding; I was never afflicted with a 2741.
>>Later, using CDC Kronos,
>
>Display code didn't have lower case. I believe that with NOS and
>NOS/BE CDC switched to ASCII, which did have LC.
>
In it later days, Kronos provided lower case as digraphs in Display
Code. Cumbersome, but so is UTF-8 in similar respects.
-- gil
> on 09/09/2013 at 09:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>
>><RHETORIC> Why does DSN(*) exist at all? </RHETORIC>
>
>To accomodate batch applications under TSO.
>
>>What you suggest is more like batch than interactive.
>
>EDIT is like batch? In what way?
>
>>It was a program which issued prompts to DD SYSTERM
>
>I don't know what "it" is, but EDIT did *NOT* issue prompts to DD
>SYSTERM. EDIT used standard TSO services for terminal I/O.
>
material so you can refute something the previous poster
never said. "It" was my program (or the user's), not EDIT.
And editing a file to supply as input to a program rather than
replying to prompts with a terminal makes the operation of that
program more batch-like than interactive, regardless that the
editor operated interactively.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:12:41 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>>But how much IBM software in 1978 actually exploited it?
>
>Batch or interactive? IBM interactive software exploited lower case
>long before the date you asked about.
>
in about the same sense that the noose supports the hanged man.
>>TTY 33 ASR
>
>Did the 33 even support lower case? What did you see with, e.g., a
>2741?
>
>>Later, using CDC Kronos,
>
>Display code didn't have lower case. I believe that with NOS and
>NOS/BE CDC switched to ASCII, which did have LC.
>
Code. Cumbersome, but so is UTF-8 in similar respects.
-- gil
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 12, 2013, 7:03:45 AM9/12/13
to
In <0711121653687111.WA...@listserv.ua.edu>, on
09/11/2013
I wrote, or to people who write ambiguous text and fault others for
not guessing the correct meaning.
>"It" was my program
Then why the nonsense about EDIT? And how does "it" have anything do
do with any suggestion of mine? ("What you suggest is more like batch
than interactive.")
>And editing a file to supply as input to a program rather than
>replying to prompts with a terminal makes the operation of that
>program more batch-like than interactive,
A program that is not written to do standard terminal I/O is already
batch; I don't see how using EDIT to prepare input (which I *didn't*
suggest in the first place) could make it any more batch like.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
09/11/2013
at 11:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin <PaulGB...@AIM.COM> said:
>Sometimes it appears that you deliberately over-prune quoted material
>so you can refute something the previous poster never said.
I have no doubt that it appears so to people who don't understand what
>Sometimes it appears that you deliberately over-prune quoted material
>so you can refute something the previous poster never said.
I wrote, or to people who write ambiguous text and fault others for
not guessing the correct meaning.
>"It" was my program
Then why the nonsense about EDIT? And how does "it" have anything do
do with any suggestion of mine? ("What you suggest is more like batch
than interactive.")
>And editing a file to supply as input to a program rather than
>replying to prompts with a terminal makes the operation of that
>program more batch-like than interactive,
batch; I don't see how using EDIT to prepare input (which I *didn't*
suggest in the first place) could make it any more batch like.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Paul Gilmartin
Sep 12, 2013, 10:15:21 AM9/12/13
to
On 2013-09-12, at 05:03, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:03:03 -0400, Shmuel Metz wrote:
>
>>Try "ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*)
>
>Why would I do that for an interactive command? Try EDIT foo.text.
>
That meets my understanding of "suggest".
-- gil
>
> at 11:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>
>> Sometimes it appears that you deliberately over-prune quoted material
>> so you can refute something the previous poster never said.
> ...
> at 11:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>
>> Sometimes it appears that you deliberately over-prune quoted material
>> so you can refute something the previous poster never said.
> A program that is not written to do standard terminal I/O is already
> batch; I don't see how using EDIT to prepare input (which I *didn't*
> suggest in the first place) could make it any more batch like.
>
Ahem:
> batch; I don't see how using EDIT to prepare input (which I *didn't*
> suggest in the first place) could make it any more batch like.
>
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:03:03 -0400, Shmuel Metz wrote:
>
>>Try "ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*)
>
>Why would I do that for an interactive command? Try EDIT foo.text.
>
-- gil
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
Sep 12, 2013, 12:55:41 PM9/12/13
to
In <08DF7293-A3BA-47CE...@aim.com>, on 09/12/2013
The problem is that I suggested something totally unrelated to what
you attributed to me. I suggest that you try EDIT in order to see how
TSO handles mixed case, since that was the issue in dispute.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
The problem is that I suggested something totally unrelated to what
you attributed to me. I suggest that you try EDIT in order to see how
TSO handles mixed case, since that was the issue in dispute.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Robert Wessel
Sep 12, 2013, 2:08:35 PM9/12/13
to
On 9 Sep 2013 13:59:31 -0700, ly...@GARLIC.COM (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
wrote:
>part of the problem with 3270s were that they were half-duplex ... so
>could be annoying for interactive computing. at least the 2741 keyboard
>locked when it didn't want you typing. On 3270s it was possible to be
>typing when the system goes to write the screen ... resulting in
>terminal lockup requiring the reset key to be hit. However, there was
>enough electronics in the 3277 head ... that it was possible to put a
>FIFO in the head ... that accumulated characters if the screen was being
>written ... avoiding the lockup & reset problem
>
>then along came 3274/3728 where a lot of the terminal electronics were
>moved back into the controller (and impossible to deal with the
>half-duplex problem) ... it also made hardware processing and response
>much slower ... past posts with old 3272/3277 and 3274/3278 comparison
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol
The managed to reintroduce type-ahead on 3174s with the "Entry
Assists" feature. A major change in the 3174s was a much faster CPU
than in the 3274s, and a vast increase in memory, so there was room to
add those features. The terminal itself, nor the protocol on the
wire, were not really the problem, mainly that the 3274 was
underpowered for handling much of that work the dumber 3278 push back
to the controller.
wrote:
>part of the problem with 3270s were that they were half-duplex ... so
>could be annoying for interactive computing. at least the 2741 keyboard
>locked when it didn't want you typing. On 3270s it was possible to be
>typing when the system goes to write the screen ... resulting in
>terminal lockup requiring the reset key to be hit. However, there was
>enough electronics in the 3277 head ... that it was possible to put a
>FIFO in the head ... that accumulated characters if the screen was being
>written ... avoiding the lockup & reset problem
>
>then along came 3274/3728 where a lot of the terminal electronics were
>moved back into the controller (and impossible to deal with the
>half-duplex problem) ... it also made hardware processing and response
>much slower ... past posts with old 3272/3277 and 3274/3278 comparison
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol
The managed to reintroduce type-ahead on 3174s with the "Entry
Assists" feature. A major change in the 3174s was a much faster CPU
than in the 3274s, and a vast increase in memory, so there was room to
add those features. The terminal itself, nor the protocol on the
wire, were not really the problem, mainly that the 3274 was
underpowered for handling much of that work the dumber 3278 push back
to the controller.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 12, 2013, 3:09:01 PM9/12/13
to
Robert Wessel <robert...@yahoo.com> writes:
> The managed to reintroduce type-ahead on 3174s with the "Entry
> Assists" feature. A major change in the 3174s was a much faster CPU
> than in the 3274s, and a vast increase in memory, so there was room to
> add those features. The terminal itself, nor the protocol on the
> wire, were not really the problem, mainly that the 3274 was
> underpowered for handling much of that work the dumber 3278 push back
> to the controller.
but by the time of the 3174 ... 3270s were moving to dumb terminal
> The managed to reintroduce type-ahead on 3174s with the "Entry
> Assists" feature. A major change in the 3174s was a much faster CPU
> than in the 3274s, and a vast increase in memory, so there was room to
> add those features. The terminal itself, nor the protocol on the
> wire, were not really the problem, mainly that the 3274 was
> underpowered for handling much of that work the dumber 3278 push back
> to the controller.
emulation and type-ahead was being handled in emulators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3270
Note that by the time of the 3277 emulation card upload/download being
3times throughput of 3278 emulation card upload/download ... were on same
3274 controllers (i.e. datacenters were upgrading all controllers to 3274
... but some configured to handle 3277 protocol). ... 3277 attached to
3274 ... section 7-37, 7-38
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/3270/GA27-2749-10_3270_Information_Display_System_Component_Description_Feb80.pdf
the 3174 faster processor would have helped ... but didn't eliminate the
difference in 3277 coax protocol chatter versus 3278 coax protocol
chatter.
a senior disk engineer managed to get a talk scheduled at the annual,
internal communication group conference ... supposedly on the subject of
3174 performance ... but opened the talk with the statement that the
communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the
disk division.
the issue was the communication group was desperately trying to fight
off client/server and distributed computing and protect their dumb
(emulated) terminal install base. the disk division was seeing a drop in
disk sales with data fleeing the datacenters to more distributed
computing friendly platforms. the disk division had come up with a
number of solutions to address the opportunities ... but they were
constantly being vetoed by the communication group ... which had
corporate strategic responsibility for everything that crossed the
datacenter walls
note that 2-3yrs earlier, the top executives had predicted that the
company revenue was going to double ... mostly based on mainframes ...
and instituted massive building program to double mainframe
manufacturing capacity (even tho indicators were already that it was
starting to head in the opposite direction) ... company going into the
red in the early 90s and big decline in mainframe business.
also note these kind of battles with communication group go back even
further. my wife had been con'ed into going to POK to be in charge of
mainframe loosely-coupled architecture ... where she did "peer-coupled
shared data" architecture ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#shareddata
... which saw little uptake until sysplex ... except for IMS
hot-standby. The lack of uptake contributed to her not staying long ...
however also there were the re-occuring battles with the communication
group trying to force her into using SNA for loosely-coupled operation.
There would be periodic termporary truces where they said she could use
anything she wanted within the datacenter, but the communication group
owned everything that crossed the datacenter walls ... but they would
then resume their efforts to try and force her to use SNA.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 13, 2013, 9:36:02 AM9/13/13
to
ly...@GARLIC.COM (Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes:
> ... which saw little uptake until sysplex ... except for IMS
> hot-standby. The lack of uptake contributed to her not staying long ...
> however also there were the re-occuring battles with the communication
> group trying to force her into using SNA for loosely-coupled operation.
> There would be periodic termporary truces where they said she could use
> anything she wanted within the datacenter, but the communication group
> owned everything that crossed the datacenter walls ... but they would
> then resume their efforts to try and force her to use SNA.
actually IMS hot-standby had a different problem with SNA. While IMS
> ... which saw little uptake until sysplex ... except for IMS
> hot-standby. The lack of uptake contributed to her not staying long ...
> however also there were the re-occuring battles with the communication
> group trying to force her into using SNA for loosely-coupled operation.
> There would be periodic termporary truces where they said she could use
> anything she wanted within the datacenter, but the communication group
> owned everything that crossed the datacenter walls ... but they would
> then resume their efforts to try and force her to use SNA.
hot-standby could be back up & operational in very short time ... in a
configuration with 30k-60k terminals (sessions), it could take VTAM
2-3hrs to get all the sessions re-established (VTAM session
establishment was real resource hog even on the largest processor
configuration available from IBM).
I was working with a baby-bell to turn out some work they had done for
a 37x5 emulator, as a product. They had done a NCP emulator on
Series/1 that had significantly more function and better performance
that real 37x5. A separate feature was it also supported non-IBM,
non-SNA systems old posts discussing implementation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#70
Among other things, it told the host VTAM that all resources were
cross-domain ... owned by some other VTAM ... when in fact they were
"owned" by the distributed and redundant network infrastructure. RU
traffic was also carried over real network. What interested IMS
hot-standby was being able to create shadow sessions on the IMS
hot-standby (in addition to the standard session on the active IMS
system) ... so everything was immediately ready to go on the
hot-standby.
My objective was to ship initially on Series/1 but very quickly upgrade
it to a (801/risc) RIOS chip implementation. The communcation group was
well-known for all sort of FUD and corporate dirty tricks ... so with
some help ... I got agreement from the largest 37x5 customer to
completely fund the whole effort (the customer claimed being able to
move to the new type1 product supported by IBM ... they would recoup
total cost in less than a year). The communication group even tried a
lot of FUD on my comparison numbers with the 3725 (see reference URLs),
however the numbers came straight out of the communication group's 3725
configurator AID on the HONE system (some of the communication group
responsible for much of the FUD didn't even know about their HONE
configurator AIDs) ... misc. past posts mentioning HONE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone
I was so confident that I even gave a detailed presentation at a fall
SNA Architecture Review Board meeting. How the communication group
finally was able to block the product can only be described as truth
is greater than fiction.
We also crossed the communication group in their battle against
client/server and distributed computing when we came up with 3-tier
networking architecture and were out pitching it to corporate
executives. This is part of one such presentation which also contrasts
16mbit token-ring with 10mbit enet (which brought down a lot more of
thier FUD on our heads)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002q.html#40
other past posts mentioning 3tier
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submnetwork.html#3tier
Robert Wessel
Sep 17, 2013, 1:09:53 AM9/17/13
to
On 12 Sep 2013 12:09:01 -0700, ly...@GARLIC.COM (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
wrote:
>Robert Wessel <robert...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> The managed to reintroduce type-ahead on 3174s with the "Entry
>> Assists" feature. A major change in the 3174s was a much faster CPU
>> than in the 3274s, and a vast increase in memory, so there was room to
>> add those features. The terminal itself, nor the protocol on the
>> wire, were not really the problem, mainly that the 3274 was
>> underpowered for handling much of that work the dumber 3278 push back
>> to the controller.
>
>but by the time of the 3174 ... 3270s were moving to dumb terminal
>emulation and type-ahead was being handled in emulators.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3270
>
>Note that by the time of the 3277 emulation card upload/download being
>3times throughput of 3278 emulation card upload/download ... were on same
>3274 controllers (i.e. datacenters were upgrading all controllers to 3274
>... but some configured to handle 3277 protocol). ... 3277 attached to
>3274 ... section 7-37, 7-38
>http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/3270/GA27-2749-10_3270_Information_Display_System_Component_Description_Feb80.pdf
>
>the 3174 faster processor would have helped ... but didn't eliminate the
>difference in 3277 coax protocol chatter versus 3278 coax protocol
>chatter.
While that's mostly true, the 3174, amongst other things, kept a copy
of the terminal buffer in local storage (obviously for CUT mode
devices only), and only sent updates down the wire. So the extra
chattiness was largely a non-issue. That did have a significant
impact on file transfer programs running via a CUT mode device, which
would update the terminal's buffer directly, which led IBM to add a
configuration option (the somewhat infamous "File Transfer Aid Bit"),
which would cause the 3174 to copy the terminal buffer back when it
serviced a read command.
But things like Entry Assists definitely worked on "real" CUT mode
terminals, which certainly still existed, even though many people were
using PC based terminal emulators instead.
wrote:
>Robert Wessel <robert...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> The managed to reintroduce type-ahead on 3174s with the "Entry
>> Assists" feature. A major change in the 3174s was a much faster CPU
>> than in the 3274s, and a vast increase in memory, so there was room to
>> add those features. The terminal itself, nor the protocol on the
>> wire, were not really the problem, mainly that the 3274 was
>> underpowered for handling much of that work the dumber 3278 push back
>> to the controller.
>
>but by the time of the 3174 ... 3270s were moving to dumb terminal
>emulation and type-ahead was being handled in emulators.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3270
>
>Note that by the time of the 3277 emulation card upload/download being
>3times throughput of 3278 emulation card upload/download ... were on same
>3274 controllers (i.e. datacenters were upgrading all controllers to 3274
>... but some configured to handle 3277 protocol). ... 3277 attached to
>3274 ... section 7-37, 7-38
>http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/3270/GA27-2749-10_3270_Information_Display_System_Component_Description_Feb80.pdf
>
>the 3174 faster processor would have helped ... but didn't eliminate the
>difference in 3277 coax protocol chatter versus 3278 coax protocol
>chatter.
of the terminal buffer in local storage (obviously for CUT mode
devices only), and only sent updates down the wire. So the extra
chattiness was largely a non-issue. That did have a significant
impact on file transfer programs running via a CUT mode device, which
would update the terminal's buffer directly, which led IBM to add a
configuration option (the somewhat infamous "File Transfer Aid Bit"),
which would cause the 3174 to copy the terminal buffer back when it
serviced a read command.
But things like Entry Assists definitely worked on "real" CUT mode
terminals, which certainly still existed, even though many people were
using PC based terminal emulators instead.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 17, 2013, 2:13:43 AM9/17/13
to
Robert Wessel <robert...@yahoo.com> writes:
> While that's mostly true, the 3174, amongst other things, kept a copy
> of the terminal buffer in local storage (obviously for CUT mode
> devices only), and only sent updates down the wire. So the extra
> chattiness was largely a non-issue. That did have a significant
> impact on file transfer programs running via a CUT mode device, which
> would update the terminal's buffer directly, which led IBM to add a
> configuration option (the somewhat infamous "File Transfer Aid Bit"),
> which would cause the 3174 to copy the terminal buffer back when it
> serviced a read command.
>
> But things like Entry Assists definitely worked on "real" CUT mode
> terminals, which certainly still existed, even though many people were
> using PC based terminal emulators instead.
los gatos lab vlsi tools group was doing lots of work with metaware's
> While that's mostly true, the 3174, amongst other things, kept a copy
> of the terminal buffer in local storage (obviously for CUT mode
> devices only), and only sent updates down the wire. So the extra
> chattiness was largely a non-issue. That did have a significant
> impact on file transfer programs running via a CUT mode device, which
> would update the terminal's buffer directly, which led IBM to add a
> configuration option (the somewhat infamous "File Transfer Aid Bit"),
> which would cause the 3174 to copy the terminal buffer back when it
> serviced a read command.
>
> But things like Entry Assists definitely worked on "real" CUT mode
> terminals, which certainly still existed, even though many people were
> using PC based terminal emulators instead.
TWS and then two of the people did a mainframe Pascal ... which was used
for a lot of internal VLSI tools and later morphed into vs/pascal
product ... it was also used for the original mainframe tcp/ip product
... recently mentioned in this post:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#54
in the early 80s one of the two people responsible for pascal, left and
did a silicon valley startup to do a fancy 3270 controller clone
... which had a bunch of outboard functions in support of real dumb
terminals. a big target was the TSO market place because of the really
horrible TSO human factors and response ... and they were attempting to
mask as much of it as possible. however, with the advent of ibm/pcs and
3270 terminal emulation ... that market imploded and the company
disolved (it was only somebody like ibm's communication group that would
have thought there was something more there). They somewhat got their
investment money by showing large difference between TSO and CMS ... and
claiming that they could make TSO close to CMS with enhanced functions
outboard in a clone controller (customers would pay real money to make
TSO semi-bearable).
I periodically visited them in their digs while the controller was under
development.
other trivia ... after the 3270 clone controller company imblodes, he
then goes on to be VP of software development at MIPS and when SGI buys
MIPS ... he moves on to be the general manager of the SUN business unit
that included JAVA.
marginally related frame tale. circa 1990, object-oriented software was
becoming the range in silicon valley ... Apple had PINK effort ... a new
operating system implemented in object-oriented programming, SUN had
similar SPRING effort. Apple spun off much of its object-oriented into
Taligent which morphed into object-oriented program development
environment with object classes grouped in frameworks.
We were contacted and asked if we would consider taking over SPRING and
turning it out as commercial product ... I've periodically claimed that
there appeared to be some amount of overlap between SPRING and JAVA
old email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#email960203
and this past post has part of the description of SPRING's "client-side
interpreter"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#32
past posts in this thread:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#23 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#24 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#25 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#21 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#23 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#24 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#25 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#33 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#35 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#44 Teletypewriter Model 33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#46 Teletypewriter Model 33
0 new messages