IBM System/3 & 3277-1
Mike Ross
I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
collection (which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38). I need to
locate a 3277 Model 1 to use as a console. (The system doesn't come with one;
the guy who I got it from still has another S/3 in production use (!!!!) and
only has one good 3277, plus one faulty one as a spares donor).
Failing that, I'd like good info about alternatives to the 3277-1 for use as a
console (can a 3278 be made to work? what about 3rd party 3270 terms which might
have 3277 'emulation mode' or somesuch? Or even software emulators). I'm not
entirely clear on this, but I think the system owner said it wasn't even enough
for it to be a 3277-1; it had to be a 3277-1 with a special extra card
installed?
And yes, for that real retro feel, I'd also like to get hold of one of the
original Selectric console devices for this!
Thanks
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Peter Flass
> Folks,
>
> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
> collection
Lucky:-)
(which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38). I need to
> locate a 3277 Model 1 to use as a console. (The system doesn't come with one;
> the guy who I got it from still has another S/3 in production use (!!!!) and
> only has one good 3277, plus one faulty one as a spares donor).
>
> Failing that, I'd like good info about alternatives to the 3277-1 for use as a
> console (can a 3278 be made to work?
I doubt it, isn't the 3278 a DFT device?
what about 3rd party 3270 terms which might
> have 3277 'emulation mode' or somesuch?
Memorex 1377s work well weigh about half as much.
Or even software emulators). I'm not
> entirely clear on this, but I think the system owner said it wasn't even enough
> for it to be a 3277-1; it had to be a 3277-1 with a special extra card
> installed?
I though these computers used 5250s. Maybe the S/3 is too old.
Al Kossow
> Folks,
>
> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
> collection
Were you able to get any software for it?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
>> collection
>
>Were you able to get any software for it?
Software is not a problem; as I say it's coming from a location where there is
still a production system. When I get it to the point where I need software,
I'll be able to get it. Printsets too...
Al Kossow
> When I get it to the point where I need software,
> I'll be able to get it. Printsets too...
>
If it were me, I'd get the software now.
But that's just paranoid me..
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> When I get it to the point where I need software,
>> I'll be able to get it. Printsets too...
>>
>
>If it were me, I'd get the software now.
>But that's just paranoid me..
I'll see what I can do... we already have a copy of SSP for S/3 archived, do we
not? I distinctly recall bringing it up on SIMH...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
> collection (which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38). I need to
> locate a 3277 Model 1 to use as a console. (The system doesn't come with one;
> the guy who I got it from still has another S/3 in production use (!!!!) and
> only has one good 3277, plus one faulty one as a spares donor).
Didn't the System/3 have all separate minature components designed for
it, rather than using S/360-370 peripherals?
As an aside, IBM developed an offline punched card sorter for the
System/3, in the tradition of classic punched card tab machines (like
an 082). This was IBM's last pure punched card oriented device. I
don't have the model number handy (it's in the IBM S/360 history). I
think it required multiple passes due to fewer pockets. It was pretty
small. Anyone ever see such an device?
In S/360 installations it was common to have some old tab machines
serve for auxillary purposes, such as card-to-print, interpreting, or
sorting. It would seem to me the mainframe could sort a deck of cards
faster and cheaper than an old card sorter, but many jobs required
manual handling.
Mike Ross
>On Sep 30, 11:11 pm, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
>> collection (which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38). I need to
>> locate a 3277 Model 1 to use as a console. (The system doesn't come with one;
>> the guy who I got it from still has another S/3 in production use (!!!!) and
>> only has one good 3277, plus one faulty one as a spares donor).
>
>Didn't the System/3 have all separate minature components designed for
>it, rather than using S/360-370 peripherals?
I think you're thinking of the 5424 96-column MFCF. The other peripherals
commonly used were standard channel devices - 3340 disks and 3430 tapes. The
3277-1 was a 'special' for the hardwired console - workstations could be
standard 3278s. No 3274 or similar controller remember, the logic to drive the
screens was built-in to the CPU, as in later twinax midrange machines.
I've just discovered it's possible to IMPL and IPL the S/3 (diagnostics at
least) from 8" floppy on the 3741... so I'll be looking for suitable IPLable
diagnostic floppies at some point... apparently the 3741 looked, sounded, and
felt exactly like a 5424 to the S/3, as far as IMPL/IPL logic was concerned.
Gerard Schildberger
Well, if the end result is to sort a deck of cards, yes, the mainframe
could sort a deck pretty fast, but then it had to punch a new (sorted)
deck.
The older tab sorter used the card deck for input, and physically
sorted the cards. Punching a new deck via the mainframe is costly,
especially if the card deck is in the thousands of cards.
Also, the newly punched deck may also then have to be
interpreted.
Interpreting a card deck usually means passing it through some
machine, such as a 126 or 129 card interpreter (to put ink
printing on the top of the card so a human being can read the
card's contents --- assuming that the contents are
alphanumerics or somesuch). __________________________Gerard S.
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
>> collection
>
>Lucky:-)
FYI:
http://www.corestore.org/3.htm
I eventually got TWO processors - one with a damaged front panel, for
restoration/spares.
:-)
Charlie Gibbs
(Gerard Schildberger) writes:
>> In S/360 installations it was common to have some old tab machines
>> serve for auxillary purposes, such as card-to-print, interpreting,
>> or sorting. It would seem to me the mainframe could sort a deck
>> of cards faster and cheaper than an old card sorter, but many jobs
>> required manual handling.
>
> Well, if the end result is to sort a deck of cards, yes, the mainframe
> could sort a deck pretty fast, but then it had to punch a new (sorted)
> deck.
>
> The older tab sorter used the card deck for input, and physically
> sorted the cards. Punching a new deck via the mainframe is costly,
> especially if the card deck is in the thousands of cards.
> Also, the newly punched deck may also then have to be
> interpreted.
We had an interesting compromise on our Univac 9300. We had a
1001 attached; this was a machine with two card readers feeding
multiple stackers (the one in the middle could be selected from
either feed). It looked sort of like an IBM 2540 but with two
readers instead of a reader and a punch. We came across a sort
program that used this beastie and its stacker selection capability.
We used it for a large multi-column alphanumeric sort; it was smart
enough to need far fewer passes than a standard card sorter did.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Dutch Owen
> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
> collection (which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38). I need to
> locate a 3277 Model 1 to use as a console. (The system doesn't come with one;
> the guy who I got it from still has another S/3 in production use (!!!!) and
> only has one good 3277, plus one faulty one as a spares donor).
Wow! I nevered imagined there was still a model 15 in production use!
Alas I don't know where to find one of those funky half-screen 3270s
for you. I suspect IBM used them for their Mod 15 operator's console
because no actual customers would by a 40X12 resolution screen for that $$$!
I'm the fellow that wrote the S/3 simulator for SIMH, and provided the
Mod 10 SCP to Bob. That copy of the SCP came to me from Henk Stegeman
back when we were working on the sim (me writing, he testing and telling
me where I screwed up). I also have a mod 10 CCP disk and some others
but they are all model 10 specific.
I've wanted for years now to expand the SIMH model 10 to include
model 15 functionality, but I don't have any software to test it with.
If you get a copy of the Model 15 SCP, and/or any diagnostics, would
you share a machine-readable copy with me?
Thanks
Dutch
Mike Ross
I'd be happy to - but software will be a little further down the road from here.
In the meantime, here's what we have:
http://www.corestore.org/3.htm
Del Cecchi
IE 3740 etc? Viking, odin, vidar et al?
Is it sort of ugly and boxy? Use twinax instead of coax?
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:71n5h3lvqnlqqrnhk...@4ax.com...
Del Cecchi
by the way, there is a S/3 of some flavor sitting in the IBM Rochester
cafeteria.
Del Cecchi
"Gerard Schildberger" <Gera...@rrt.net> wrote in message
news:4702bb08$1...@news.702com.net...
number was for the old stand alone card machines.
>
Mike Ross
wrote:
>you sure it is a 3277 and not one of the Rochester twinax workstations?
>IE 3740 etc? Viking, odin, vidar et al?
100% positive. The 3277 consoles can be seen, if you look carefully, in the
following images:
http://www.kcg.ac.jp/museum/computer/general/img/ibm/ibm370-125-1.gif
http://ibmcollectables.com/albums/album05/s_davessys3.jpg
(the latter also has the more common 3278, but I'm told only the 3277,
specifically the 3277-1, can be used as a console - unless anyone knows
different?)
Twinax didn't come in until much later - 1977, with the System/34 IIRC.
PS the 3740 was a data entry station, nothing to do with twinax - I have one,
see: http://www.corestore.org/3.htm - when you speak of twinax workstations I
presume you mean 5250 et. al.?
Mike Ross
wrote:
>by the way, there is a S/3 of some flavor sitting in the IBM Rochester
>cafeteria.
Might make them an offer ;-)
Do you work there? Seriously, if you do, and you think people might be
interested, by all means print out my assorted S/3x web pages and put them up -
some old-timers might get all misty-eyed and nostalgic... ahhhh, MST!
Michael J Kingston
<delcecchi...@gmail.com> writes
>
>"Gerard Schildberger" <Gera...@rrt.net> wrote in message
>news:4702bb08$1...@news.702com.net...
>>| hancock4 wrote:
Etc, etc
>>
>> Interpreting a card deck usually means passing it through some
>> machine, such as a 126 or 129 card interpreter (to put ink
>> printing on the top of the card so a human being can read the
>> card's contents --- assuming that the contents are
>> alphanumerics or somesuch). __________________________Gerard S.
>>
>>
>If it was 80 column cards it could also be done by a 407 or whatever the
>number was for the old stand alone card machines.
>>
>
>
Only a partial solution - "407 or whatever the number" couldn't print
all 80 cols (nor characters aligned with columns), had limited character
set. I remember it well. In the period late 60s we looked at that
PITA###solution and abandoned it. More effective to just list the whole
deck and rely on our skills at locating individual cards for correction.
OK, these were programs, JCL etc, and we usually employed cols 73-80 for
sequence numbers, in steps of 10 or 100, to permit insertions. Maybe
other applications less amenable to organisation. Housework, housework,
all that housework, just to make up for lack of printing card punches.
--
Michael J Kingston
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
> collection (which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38).
I understand for applications, the System/3 used an upgraded version
of RPG (originally developed for the 1401 and still in use today for S/
3 AS/400 descendants.)
Would anyone know what kind of assembler language was used for the
System/3? Does a "principles of operation" exist for the System/3?
(For the AS/400 I never could figure the internal code architecture,
IBM used something called "LIC" that was rather vague. I once tried
to get an optional machine language listing of my application program
compilation but it was very confusing. I believe IBM used a multi-
layered approach for AS/400 internals, remnants of its "Future System"
effort. I was not a big AS/400 fan, except for a file-aid tool that
was better than mainframe tools.)
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> (For the AS/400 I never could figure the internal code architecture,
> IBM used something called "LIC" that was rather vague. I once tried
> to get an optional machine language listing of my application program
> compilation but it was very confusing. I believe IBM used a multi-
> layered approach for AS/400 internals, remnants of its "Future System"
> effort. I was not a big AS/400 fan, except for a file-aid tool that
> was better than mainframe tools.)
one of the things that as/400 layered approach bought was that it could
move from a CICS chip to a (power/pc) RISC chip w/o a lot of trouble.
the future system project was going to replace 360/370 in the
early-to-mid 70s ... when the project was eventually canceled there was
big effort to make up for lost time resulting from the future system
distraction
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys
attempting to get stuff back into the 370 (hardware & software) product
pipelines ... crash program for 303x was part of that. part of the
analysis "killing" the project was that if a "future system" machine was
built from the fastest hardware then available (370/195) it would have
the thruput of a 370/145.
the folklore is that some of the future system participants regrouped in
rochester, coming out with the s/38 (which didn't have nearly the
thruput requirements).
i've periodically commented that there is some characteristics of the
801 risc activities in the 70s .... to go to the exact opposite extreme
of what went on in future system.
a early, big push for 801/risc was effort to replace the multitude of
corporate internal microprocessors with common risc architecture chips
(every low-to-mid range 370 implemented with microcode on their own
unique microprocessor, controllers, and other kinds of microprocessors).
one of these was going to be the s/38 followon, as/400. the common
801/risc microprocessor effort ran into all sorts of problems and
eventually died off ... at which time, as/400 had crash project to
design a new CISC processor. misc. past 801, romp, rios, fort knox,
power, power/pc, somerset, etc postings
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801
as well as some old email from the period
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#801
effectively the effort was revisited when rochester began move of as/400
from their CISC chip to its current use of 801/RISC chip.
Lars Poulsen
> Would anyone know what kind of assembler language was used for the
> System/3? Does a "principles of operation" exist for the System/3?
I would think it does. Never looked for it.
> (For the AS/400 I never could figure the internal code architecture,
> IBM used something called "LIC" that was rather vague. I once tried
> to get an optional machine language listing of my application program
> compilation but it was very confusing. I believe IBM used a multi-
> layered approach for AS/400 internals, remnants of its "Future System"
> effort. I was not a big AS/400 fan, except for a file-aid tool that
> was better than mainframe tools.)
I had been wondering the same for years, until I finally bought and
read "Inside the AS/400" by Frank G Soltis
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-AS-400-Frank-Soltis/dp/1882419669
Amazon's used books market has it for about 6 dollars plus shipping
and I highly recommend it. (I sold my copy back after reading it.)
The AS/400 is a very interesting concept. It took me a while to wrap
my mind around the idea that the defined and documented architecture
is two levels above what we old-timers would think of as the
Instruction-Set Architecture. We expect such an approach to be too
inefficient, but in the case of AS/400, it has worked very well,
and let the customer programs survive amazing perturbations in
underlying hardware.
/ Lars Poulsen
Mike Ross
>In alt.folklore.computers Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org> wrote:
>
>> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the Corestore
>> collection (which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38). I need to
>> locate a 3277 Model 1 to use as a console. (The system doesn't come with one;
>> the guy who I got it from still has another S/3 in production use (!!!!) and
>> only has one good 3277, plus one faulty one as a spares donor).
>
> Wow! I nevered imagined there was still a model 15 in production use!
>
> Alas I don't know where to find one of those funky half-screen 3270s
>for you. I suspect IBM used them for their Mod 15 operator's console
>because no actual customers would by a 40X12 resolution screen for that $$$!
So much for $$$$... I found someone I remembered, who had mentioned a year or
two ago that he had a couple of 3277s. Service bureau up in Seattle I think...
he has two 3277s!!! Thing is, he won't sell me one - he's only willing to sell
the whole setup, two 3277s and the 3272 controller that goes with them - and he
wants $1750 (!!!), which I can't afford.
Still appealing for people to check their cupboards, closets, and back rooms...
Al Kossow
> Would anyone know what kind of assembler language was used for the
> System/3? Does a "principles of operation" exist for the System/3?
>
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/system3/
Mike Hore
>
> Would anyone know what kind of assembler language was used for the
> System/3? Does a "principles of operation" exist for the System/3?
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/system3/
It's all in there -- more than you'd ever want! Especially
GA21-9103-1_System3_ComponentsRef_Nov70.pdf
which has the full instruction set.
>
> (For the AS/400 I never could figure the internal code architecture,
The s/38 - AS/400 was a different beast altogether.
Cheers, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hore mike_h...@OVE.invalid.aapt.net.au
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Wade
I think he might be wanting for a long time...
Mike Ross
power? Or were they all three-phase?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Am I imagining things, or was the 5415 optionally available wired for two-phase
> power? Or were they all three-phase?
I'm a little confused, I thought electricity came in only 'single-
phase' and 'three-phase'.
FWIW, many years ago IBM machines were offered in AC and DC versions.
The power consumption varied by power source. Way back then some
regions had DC as a power source. To this day some electric railroads
use 25 Hz instead of 60 Hz, which is a legacy mode.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<mike.kings...@digweed2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Only a partial solution - "407 or whatever the number" couldn't print
> all 80 cols (nor characters aligned with columns), had limited character
> set.
You're thinking of the Interpreter. It wasn't intended for
programmers. The Interpreter could print IIRC 60 characters on the
top line and 20 characters on the second line. The typeface was
bigger and clearer than a keypunch's. Some could print a large number
sideways on the edge of the card. They may have been able to print
elsewhere on the card as well. Anyway, the Interpreter was more
intended to produce human readable fields on the card which not
necessarily and often didn't correspond to the order of punchings. A
card so interpreted could be used as a turn-around document in an
invoice.
I'm guessing, but the interpreter may have been used to turn a punch
card into a check by printing the date, payee, and amount on specific
lines and locations on the face of the card (though it couldn't print
the amount in words).
Many shops had one laying around to translate decks, but it was
cumbersome because of the non-alignment and limited first line.
The 407 Accounting Machine was used to print a listing from a deck of
cards. This was actually a wasteful application since the 407 could
do so much more, it was essentially a 'spreadsheet' machine, that is,
it would sub-total and total rows of transaction detail cards and
print headings. There was a cheaper version known as the 402, and an
older version, the 405. The 407 was the flagship of the tab machine
line.
> Housework, housework,
> all that housework, just to make up for lack of printing card punches.
Printing key punches cost more, but IMHO it was false economy because
of the human time necessary to read cards. But I think operators got
pretty proficient at reading basic alphabetic and numeric characters
from data. Special characters, such as ()*"<>,./ that one would find
in a computer program were another story.
Western Union said in 1963 it wasn't happy about ASCII since its
people could read Baudot from a paper tape but would have trouble
reading ASCII punches. Back when we used TTYs as terminals, we'd
program the computer to print out special sequences so the paper tape
would look like letters and we'd make up a little banners. (Our HP
always punched the parity bit which made it easier).
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
>On Oct 19, 5:02 am, Michael J Kingston
><mike.kings...@digweed2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Only a partial solution - "407 or whatever the number" couldn't print
>> all 80 cols (nor characters aligned with columns), had limited character
>> set.
>
>You're thinking of the Interpreter. It wasn't intended for
>programmers. The Interpreter could print IIRC 60 characters on the
>top line and 20 characters on the second line. The typeface was
>bigger and clearer than a keypunch's. Some could print a large number
>sideways on the edge of the card. They may have been able to print
>elsewhere on the card as well. Anyway, the Interpreter was more
>intended to produce human readable fields on the card which not
>necessarily and often didn't correspond to the order of punchings. A
>card so interpreted could be used as a turn-around document in an
>invoice.
Yes.
>
>I'm guessing, but the interpreter may have been used to turn a punch
>card into a check by printing the date, payee, and amount on specific
>lines and locations on the face of the card (though it couldn't print
>the amount in words).
I don't think that it could print that far down on the card, at least
not the common interpreter. It could do two rows of 60 chars each
near the top of a card, and which cols printed where was controlled by
a plug board.
>
>Many shops had one laying around to translate decks, but it was
>cumbersome because of the non-alignment and limited first line.
>
>The 407 Accounting Machine was used to print a listing from a deck of
>cards. This was actually a wasteful application since the 407 could
>do so much more, it was essentially a 'spreadsheet' machine, that is,
>it would sub-total and total rows of transaction detail cards and
>print headings. There was a cheaper version known as the 402, and an
>older version, the 405. The 407 was the flagship of the tab machine
>line.
Also a 403, IIRC.
>> Housework, housework,
>> all that housework, just to make up for lack of printing card punches.
>
>Printing key punches cost more, but IMHO it was false economy because
>of the human time necessary to read cards. But I think operators got
>pretty proficient at reading basic alphabetic and numeric characters
>from data. Special characters, such as ()*"<>,./ that one would find
>in a computer program were another story.
Being able to read the cards was useful for programming, not so useful
for data entry.
>Western Union said in 1963 it wasn't happy about ASCII since its
>people could read Baudot from a paper tape but would have trouble
>reading ASCII punches. Back when we used TTYs as terminals, we'd
>program the computer to print out special sequences so the paper tape
>would look like letters and we'd make up a little banners. (Our HP
>always punched the parity bit which made it easier).
I could read ASCII from a paper tape. Took me a while. :-)
--
ArarghMail710 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Frank McCoy
>On Oct 24, 6:44 am, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> Am I imagining things, or was the 5415 optionally available wired for two-phase
>> power? Or were they all three-phase?
>
>I'm a little confused, I thought electricity came in only 'single-
>phase' and 'three-phase'.
>
"Two-Phase" power is actually FOUR-phase power.
Both two-phase and three-phase are *rotating* power.
Two-phase isn't nearly as common these days.
However, for proper conversion from one to the other, since both are
*rotating* power; with three-phase being 120-degree phases and two-phase
being 90-degree-phases, all you really need is the right kind of
transformer. A ring or Delta transformer works best and easiest; but a
Y transformer *can* be crossed over to a + transformer. A bit more
difficult though.
>
>FWIW, many years ago IBM machines were offered in AC and DC versions.
>The power consumption varied by power source. Way back then some
>regions had DC as a power source. To this day some electric railroads
>use 25 Hz instead of 60 Hz, which is a legacy mode.
>
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Walter Bushell
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> The 407 Accounting Machine was used to print a listing from a deck of
> cards. This was actually a wasteful application since the 407 could
> do so much more, it was essentially a 'spreadsheet' machine, that is,
> it would sub-total and total rows of transaction detail cards and
> print headings. There was a cheaper version known as the 402, and an
> older version, the 405. The 407 was the flagship of the tab machine
> line.
And what was the sorter? Ah, the beauties of the radix sort. This beast
put cards into 10 output slots, based on the digit in a specified
column, thus enabling sorting with tab cards and no computers.
Charlie Gibbs
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (hancock4) writes:
> On Oct 19, 5:02 am, Michael J Kingston
> <mike.kings...@digweed2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Only a partial solution - "407 or whatever the number" couldn't print
>> all 80 cols (nor characters aligned with columns), had limited character
>> set.
>
> You're thinking of the Interpreter. It wasn't intended for
> programmers. The Interpreter could print IIRC 60 characters on the
> top line and 20 characters on the second line. The typeface was
> bigger and clearer than a keypunch's. Some could print a large number
> sideways on the edge of the card. They may have been able to print
> elsewhere on the card as well. Anyway, the Interpreter was more
> intended to produce human readable fields on the card which not
> necessarily and often didn't correspond to the order of punchings.
> A card so interpreted could be used as a turn-around document in an
> invoice.
IIRC the 557 interpreter could print anywhere above any row of
a card. It was all a matter of how you wired the plugboard.
The default program, as you mentioned, printed the first 60
columns above the top row and the remaining 20 columns above
the next row. I once wired one up to scramble the order in which
it printed columns; when leaving messages for a friend it was a
rudimentary form of encryption, while leaving the plugboard in
after I left was a rudimentary form of practical joke.
Having 60 characters printed across the width of 80 columns was
a bit of a pain to read. I guess cramming in more print positions
was beyond the technology of the time. Some cards had a separate
set of numbers printed on them that corresponded to the 557's print
positions, which reduced the pain somewhat. The printing was
wonderfully clear, though - much nicer than the dot-matrix
printing of the 026/029/129.
The Univac 1710 VIP (Verifying Interpreting Punch) incorporated
a tiny drum printer mechanism which could print 80 fully-formed
characters across the card, which lined up with the columns.
But the 1710 came along a lot later than the 557 (although just
in time to trounce the IBM 129). It could act as an interpreter -
not nearly as fast as the 557, but like the 557 you could start
it up and walk away. I even figured out how to make it print
information that was totally unrelated to the contents of a card
(which was great for identifying the little self-booting mainframe
programs I wrote that fit onto one or two cards). I suppose you
could have used this trick to identify drum cards, if it wasn't
so much easier to just scribble the description on them with a
marking pen. (Can you call them drum cards when the 1710 didn't
have a drum to wrap them around?)
Mike Ross
>On Oct 24, 6:44 am, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> Am I imagining things, or was the 5415 optionally available wired for two-phase
>> power? Or were they all three-phase?
>
>I'm a little confused, I thought electricity came in only 'single-
>phase' and 'three-phase'.
OK, that was loose language on my part - I should have said 'three-phase' and
'split-phase' - 'split-phase' being the usual residential arrangement in the
USA, having two wires each at 110V WRT neutral/ground, and 220V between the two
wires.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> I could read ASCII from a paper tape. Took me a while. :-)
previous post in this thread:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#48 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
i eventually learned to read 12-2-9 (i.e. card punch holes for hex "02")
"txt" text deck cards ... as part of multi-punch/duplicate cards and
punching patches ... i had a 2000 card assembler program and it was
frequently faster to multi-punch fixes (into duplicate/new card) than to
reassemble program (which could take 30-60 minutes elapsed time ... this
was on 360/30 under os/360 release 6 ... i had dedicated university
machine room on weekends for 48hrs stretch). basically had to not only
be able to read storage dumps and equivalence between hexcode and things
like instructions and/or addresses ... but the similar information on
cards in "punch hole" representation.
field/col definition for 12-2-9 TXT card:
col
1 12-2-9 / x'02'
2-4 TXT
5 blank
6-8 relative address of first instruction on record
9-10 blank
11-12 byte count ... number of bytes in information field
15-16 ESDID
17-72 56-byte information field
73-80 deck id, sequence number, or both
cols. 2-4 and 73-80 were character ... the other fields were hex.
q&d converstion of gcard ios3270 to html
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html
but it lacks card punch hole equivalence for hex (on real green card)
here is actual scan of a 360 green card ... front & back (11mb)
http://weblog.ceicher.com/archives/IBM360greencard.pdf
from:
http://weblog.ceicher.com/archives/2006/12/ibm_system360_green_card.html
the following table is from
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/codes.html
giving equivalence between card punch codes, hexidemal value, and
ebcdic
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 A0 B0 C0 D0 E0 F0
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
0|NUL| |DS | |SP | & | - | | | | | | | | | 0 |0
|__1|___|__2|___|__3|__4|__5|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
1| | |SOS| | | | / | | a | j | | | A | J | | 1 |1
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
2| | |FS | | | | | | b | k | s | | B | K | S | 2 |2
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
3| |TM | | | | | | | c | l | t | | C | L | T | 3 |3
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
4|PF |RES|BYP|PN | | | | | d | m | u | | D | M | U | 4 |4
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
5|HT |NL |LF |RS | | | | | e | n | v | | E | N | V | 5 |5
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
6|LC |BS |EOB|UC | | | | | f | o | w | | F | O | W | 6 |6
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
7|DEL|IL |PRE|EOT| | | | | g | p | x | | G | P | X | 7 |7
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
8| | | | | | | | | h | q | y | | H | Q | Y | 8 |8
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
9| | | | | | | | | i | r | z | | I | R | Z | 9 |9
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
A| | | | | ¢ | ! | | : | | | | | | | | |2-8
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
B| | | | | . | $ | , | # | | | | | | | | |3-8
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
C| | | | | < | * | % | @ | | | | | | | | |4-8
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
D| | | | | ( | ) | _ | ' | | | | | | | | |5-8
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
E| | | | | + | ; | > | = | | | | | | | | |6-8
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
F| | | | | | | ¬ | ? | " | | | | | | | | |7-8
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
12 11 10 12 11 10 12 11 10 12 11 10
9 9 9 10 12 11
i.e. hex values down the left and across the top, punch holes
dorwn the right adn across the bottom.
and card punch format ... card rows are number 12, 11, 0-9 from the top.
/&-0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR/STUVWXYZb#@'>V?.¤[<§!$*];^±,%v\¶
12 / O OOOOOOOOO OOOOOO
11| O OOOOOOOOO OOOOOO
0| O OOOOOOOOO OOOOOO
1| O O O O
2| O O O O O O O O
3| O O O O O O O O
4| O O O O O O O O
5| O O O O O O O O
6| O O O O O O O O
7| O O O O O O O O
8| O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
9| O O O O
|__________________________________________________________________
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> And what was the sorter? Ah, the beauties of the radix sort. This beast
> put cards into 10 output slots, based on the digit in a specified
> column, thus enabling sorting with tab cards and no computers.
I think there were actually 12 or 13 pockets, one for each row and one
for rejects.
Sorters were in the 08x series. They were fast, common was 1,000
cards per minute and even 2,000 cards per minute. They could select
off certain levels.
Sorters were a critical part of the tab process and often a utility
machine within a computer room.
What I don't understand is pre sorting a deck that will be used as
input to the computer--couldn't the computer sort it faster than a
person could? The machine sorted strictly sequentially, while the
computer had bubble or shell sorts that were more efficient. maybe
tape sorting was slow, but disk sorting should've been fast. If the
machine had some core ie 128 k, then plenty of work could be done
within the CPU at very high speed.
There was a 101 Statistical Sorter that was electronic and did counts
as well as sort, producing a printed record.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> IIRC the 557 interpreter could print anywhere above any row of
> a card. It was all a matter of how you wired the plugboard.
I don't have a manual handy, but in the old days there were
applications that took advtg of that printing capability. Cards would
be punched to serve as tub files for look up. Cards could be sent out
to customers, used as control tags, etc.
I remember our phone bill had a return punched card which had some
information interpreted on it. I once took it into work and
duplicated it to see the actual arrnagement, it was quite different
than the visual.
> Having 60 characters printed across the width of 80 columns was
> a bit of a pain to read. I guess cramming in more print positions
> was beyond the technology of the time. Some cards had a separate
> set of numbers printed on them that corresponded to the 557's print
> positions, which reduced the pain somewhat. The printing was
> wonderfully clear, though - much nicer than the dot-matrix
> printing of the 026/029/129.
The high quality printing was a compromise between readability and
alignment. I'm sure they could've shrunk the print wheels to fit on a
column but at a loss of readability. Again, the machine wasn't
designed for programmers (who didn't quite yet exist in 1948), but
rather users who didn't care about alignment to the column.
Computer and tab operators, who'd have to look at raw data cards,
tended to be looking at basic alpha and numeric data which was easier
to manually read, compared to fancy special characters.
What amazed me was how old fashioned tab machines looked in a S/360
computer room. To compare, today a piece of gear from 20 years ago
will look dated, but not grossly out of place. But in 1968 a tab
machine, with its very rounded streamlined heavy look appeared
terribly old fashioned compared to the geometric straight lines of S/
360 designs. Around 1955 the design world changed radically from the
heaviness of the old school to the lightness of the modern world.
(See the book 'Populuxe").
IBM developed a few tab machines in the late 1950s such as the 608/609
calculators and a collator. These did have a more rectangular shape.
Also, the late 1950s 1401 and 7090 were more modern looking. IBM
spent money on design of its products.
Walter Bushell
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> What I don't understand is pre sorting a deck that will be used as
> input to the computer--couldn't the computer sort it faster than a
> person could? The m
achine sorted strictly sequentially, while the
> computer had bubble or shell sorts that were more efficient. maybe
> tape sorting was slow, but disk sorting should've been fast. If the
> machine had some core ie 128 k, then plenty of work could be done
> within the CPU at very high speed.
First the sorters were for the time period before computers and were
part of a tab installation. A computer may have had 4K of memory and not
enough tape drives to make sorting efficient.
I don't know what you mean by a sorting sequentially.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> field/col definition for 12-2-9 TXT card:
>
> col
> 1 12-2-9 / x'02'
> 2-4 TXT
> 5 blank
> 6-8 relative address of first instruction on record
> 9-10 blank
> 11-12 byte count ... number of bytes in information field
> 15-16 ESDID
> 17-72 56-byte information field
> 73-80 deck id, sequence number, or both
>
> cols. 2-4 and 73-80 were character ... the other fields were hex.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#69 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
"txt" card decks were nearly executable output from assemblers and
compilers. more information about format of other cards in txt card
deck
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#14 IBM Model Numbers (was: First video terminal?)
before i learned about "rep" cards, i would duplicate a "TXT",
multipunching the patch/fix into the duplicated card.
keypunches just had keys for punching the character information, if you
were dealing with hex ... for which there was no equivalent character
... it would be necessary to "multi-punch" to get the correct holes
punched. for hex, it was necessary to read the holes ... since even if
the card had been "interpreted" ... there were no corresponding
character symbols for the majority of the hex codes.
my process was to fan the txt card deck ... reading the holes in cols
6-8 (displacement address in the program of data punched in the specific
card) ... looking for the card corresponding to the data i needed to
patch. I would then take that card and duplicate it out to the cols that
needed to be "fixed" ... multi-punch the corrections (in the
duplicate/new card) and then resume duplicating the remaining of the
card.
misc past posts mentioning multi-punch
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#17 unit record & other controllers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#75 Florida is in a 30 year flashback!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#26 HELP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#27 HELP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#27 Is anybody out there still writting BAL 370.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#28 Is anybody out there still writting BAL 370.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#63 OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#24 Systems software versus applications software definitions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005c.html#54 12-2-9 REP & 47F0
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006c.html#17 IBM 610 workstation computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006g.html#43 Binder REP Cards (Was: What's the linkage editor really wants?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006g.html#58 REP cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#64 Large Computer Rescue
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#51 IBM S/360 series operating systems history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#78 What happened to the Teletype Corporation?
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> What I don't understand is pre sorting a deck that will be used as
> input to the computer--couldn't the computer sort it faster than a
> person could? The machine sorted strictly sequentially, while the
> computer had bubble or shell sorts that were more efficient. maybe
> tape sorting was slow, but disk sorting should've been fast. If the
> machine had some core ie 128 k, then plenty of work could be done
> within the CPU at very high speed.
simple example would be fortran student jobs. the "master" of the
program is the individual student's card deck. the student has access to
only fortran compile & execution capability ... and compile would be one
pass of the input card deck.
when i started, the univ. had 1401 that was used as unit-record
front-end to 709. the card decks (potentially multiple student jobs)
would be collected in card tray. when the tray approached full (our
every couple hrs), the tray of cards would be read by the 1401 and
transferred to tape. the tape would be carried to 709 tape drive and
processed (sequentially, each job compiled and executed) with output
going to another tape. When processing finished, the output tape would
be moved to 1401 and results printed.
The operator would take the printed, fan-fold output, "burst it"
... i.e. tear it into individual jobs, match the bursted print output
with corresponding original card deck, wrap the bursted print output
around the input card deck (with rubber band) and place it in output bin
for student pickup.
there were some administrative jobs that used sort ... but that
frequently had trays and trays of cards ... written to tape .. and then
multiple tape sort (with intermediate tape files) that ran for extended
period of time.
i did write part of an application that was used for class registration.
2540 could not only read "holes" ... but also had the capability of
reading "sense-marked" cards (i.e. no. 2 pencil marks in little boxes on
cards). the 2540 had two feeds from the sides with five card stackers in
the middle. one side read cards and could select two of the read-side
stackers or the middle stacker, the other side punched cards and could
select two of the punch-side stackers or the middle stacker.
class registration had all these sense-marked cards ... which would read
and place in the middle stacker. if the processing found some problem
with a card ... a blank card from the punch side would be punched behind
the recently read sense-marked card (with some problem ... before the
next card would be read/processed)
standard processing had an operator removing cards from the stacker and
placing in card trays. all of the class registration sense-marked cards
were plain manilla. the "punch" cards were loaded with cards that had
yellow (or sometimes red) across the top band of the card.
once all class registration cards were processed ... there would be
multiple trays ... sporadically sprinkled with yellow top-edge cards
... clearly identifying the registration cards with some kind of
problem.
q&d conversion of gcard ios3270 to html
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html
reader/punch channel program command codes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#23
system/360 model 30 machine room, 2540 is seen in middle, in front
of the tape drives and partly obscured by 2311 disk drive. the "card
reader" (feed) is on the right and the punch is on the left, the five
output stackers are in the center
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP2030.html
system 370 model 40 machine room, 2540 is in upper middle
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP2040.html
better picture of 2540 on the right with somebody loading deck of
cards to be read
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/events/anniversaries/40th/images/ibm360_672/slide19.jpg
howard...@cusys.edu
wrote:
>And what was the sorter? Ah, the beauties of the radix sort. This beast
>put cards into 10 output slots, based on the digit in a specified
>column, thus enabling sorting with tab cards and no computers.
Lots of labor, with multiple passes for each column with alphanumeric
- and the machine was the size of a wall - but it was cheaper than
computer time.
howard...@cusys.edu
>What I don't understand is pre sorting a deck that will be used as
>input to the computer--couldn't the computer sort it faster than a
>person could? The machine sorted strictly sequentially, while the
>computer had bubble or shell sorts that were more efficient. maybe
>tape sorting was slow, but disk sorting should've been fast. If the
>machine had some core ie 128 k, then plenty of work could be done
>within the CPU at very high speed.
Sure it could. But labor and the sorting machine were cheaper.
Dan Espen
> On Oct 24, 5:12 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>> And what was the sorter? Ah, the beauties of the radix sort. This beast
>> put cards into 10 output slots, based on the digit in a specified
>> column, thus enabling sorting with tab cards and no computers.
...
> What I don't understand is pre sorting a deck that will be used as
> input to the computer--couldn't the computer sort it faster than a
> person could?
Lots of shops, no disk.
Even with a disk, the sort program was loaded from cards.
I seem to remember the sort program being huge and the input
being stuffed into the middle of the deck.
Then you had to modify the receiving program to read disk instead
of tape.
Still, years of my early career (1964 and on) were spent changing
EAM job flows to totally computer driven flows.
Usually with huge labor savings and accuracy improvements.
Lots of management resistance too.
Usually they had some pet new project they'd sold and could
care less about the hours spent sorting and misfiling card decks.
howard...@cusys.edu
<dan...@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com> wrote:
>Lots of shops, no disk.
>Even with a disk, the sort program was loaded from cards.
>I seem to remember the sort program being huge and the input
>being stuffed into the middle of the deck.
>
>Then you had to modify the receiving program to read disk instead
>of tape.
Sorting files too big for disks wasn't a problem that ended in the
card-sorter days. The interesting one is when the files to be
sorted were multiple tape files.
The solution was to sort what could fit on a tape - repeating on
multiple tapes until the file was spread about a bunch of sorted
tapes. Then merge the tape files. Hopefully we had enough tape
drives for all of the tapes to be merged in one pass.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> i did write part of an application that was used for class registration.
> 2540 could not only read "holes" ... but also had the capability of
> reading "sense-marked" cards (i.e. no. 2 pencil marks in little boxes on
> cards). the 2540 had two feeds from the sides with five card stackers in
> the middle. one side read cards and could select two of the read-side
> stackers or the middle stacker, the other side punched cards and could
> select two of the punch-side stackers or the middle stacker.
>
> class registration had all these sense-marked cards ... which would read
> and place in the middle stacker. if the processing found some problem
> with a card ... a blank card from the punch side would be punched behind
> the recently read sense-marked card (with some problem ... before the
> next card would be read/processed)
Thanks for the background. I hope you won't minds lots of questions.
<g>
How did you control routing the cards to the appropriate stacker? My
yellow card has a chart for the 3504/3505 card reader with Commands
for Sense, feed-select stacker, read,feed, select stacker. Tere's a
binary code for a byte, but where does this byte go--the channel
control word (CCW)? Could this be done in COBOL or was assembler
required? (There are other "I/O Command Codes" listed as well.)
Were their timing considerations to select the stacker, that is, were
you limited in how many instructions you could have in the time the
card reader needed to react to the stacker selection? When you edited
the card, were you just checking for readability, or actually checking
the selection (ie the course code existed, was a valid choice for that
student, etc.)? (Our 2540 would kick out unreadable cards, that is,
those with a punch-code that didn't exist.)
I didn't know the 2540 could read mark-sense spots, was that a
standard or optional feature? I thought mark-sense cards had to be
run through a Reproducer which would read, translate, and punch the
card for the fields coded.
I think the old Reproducers read the marks by touch and conductivity
testing (pencil lead is graphite which conducts), while the 2540 used
photocells to read cards. I believe the pioneer IBM test scoring
machine 'tabulated' the final score merely by checking the current
flow from touching the answer sheet. The more correct answers, the
more current would flow and the further the dial would move on the
meter.
I hated taking tests scored by computer, I always worried I'd fill in
the wrong circle or fill it in wrong. I also found it maddening,
especially on a long test like the SATs.
(The telephone company was a big user of mark-sense cards. On bills
to customer, there was space for their receiving clerks to code in the
amount paid. Long distance operators filled them in for toll tickets.
even on automated operator consoles they kept cards for special call
handling.)
Thanks again. The insights are always appreciated.
Dan Espen
Yep, saw a few really massive tape sorts run for hours.
If I recall, the 360 era sort was one of the few programs
that would use "read tape block backwards".
I always tried to stay away from tape only shops.
All the real fun was with disks.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
One could also sort using a collator (559 ?).
-Split the deck in two.
-Begin merging. (Assume you had a board wired for merging the
appropriate fields)
-As the merged pocket filled, take the cards and distribute them
into the input hoppers to keep those nearly equal.
The collating process would lengthen the runs of cards that were
in sort order and after at most log2 of N passes the deck should
be in order.
If there was were many cards then sort the cards in batches and
merge the batches.
Only problem was that the collator was fairly slow, so this was
only useful if the sort field was fairly wide and the runs in
order were already fairly long.
--
Rostyk
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
>On Oct 25, 6:01 am, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <l...@garlic.com> wrote:
>> i did write part of an application that was used for class registration.
>> 2540 could not only read "holes" ... but also had the capability of
>> reading "sense-marked" cards (i.e. no. 2 pencil marks in little boxes on
>> cards). the 2540 had two feeds from the sides with five card stackers in
>> the middle. one side read cards and could select two of the read-side
>> stackers or the middle stacker, the other side punched cards and could
>> select two of the punch-side stackers or the middle stacker.
>>
>> class registration had all these sense-marked cards ... which would read
>> and place in the middle stacker. if the processing found some problem
>> with a card ... a blank card from the punch side would be punched behind
>> the recently read sense-marked card (with some problem ... before the
>> next card would be read/processed)
>
>Thanks for the background. I hope you won't minds lots of questions.
><g>
>
>How did you control routing the cards to the appropriate stacker? My
>yellow card has a chart for the 3504/3505 card reader with Commands
>for Sense, feed-select stacker, read,feed, select stacker. Tere's a
>binary code for a byte, but where does this byte go--the channel
>control word (CCW)? Could this be done in COBOL or was assembler
>required? (There are other "I/O Command Codes" listed as well.)
COBOL, no, AFAIK.
Although there might have been an option to the assign.
Besides, a lot of shops used Hasp or some such, and program had no
control of the card reader.
>Were their timing considerations to select the stacker, that is, were
>you limited in how many instructions you could have in the time the
>card reader needed to react to the stacker selection? When you edited
>the card, were you just checking for readability, or actually checking
>the selection (ie the course code existed, was a valid choice for that
>student, etc.)? (Our 2540 would kick out unreadable cards, that is,
>those with a punch-code that didn't exist.)
I don't know on a 2540. On a 1402, you had so many ms to issue the
select stacker command after the read card command.
>I didn't know the 2540 could read mark-sense spots, was that a
I didn't think so, either.
>standard or optional feature? I thought mark-sense cards had to be
>run through a Reproducer which would read, translate, and punch the
>card for the fields coded.
That's the way it was done for the scoring program that I worked on
for my college.
>I think the old Reproducers read the marks by touch and conductivity
>testing (pencil lead is graphite which conducts), while the 2540 used
>photocells to read cards.
Likewise, I don't know about a 2540, but the 1402 used wire brushes to
read the holes.
<snip>
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> Although there might have been an option to the assign.
>
> Besides, a lot of shops used Hasp or some such, and program had no
> control of the card reader.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#48 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#69 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#70 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#71 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
for this student class registration app ... it run w/o hasp.
green card reader/punch command codes:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#23
from above:
Command Binary Hex
Sense 0000 0100 04
Feed, Select Stacker SS10 F011
Read Only 11D0 F010
Diagnostic Read 1101 0010 D2
Read, Feed, Select Stacker SSD0 F010
there was read, feed, and select stacker in single command
this had the minimum overhead, if you already knew
what stacker the card was going into ... i.e.
SSD0 F010 .... or 1100 0010 ... C2
would do ebcdic read, feed and select stacker 3.
or you could do read separately from feed, select stacker.
for student class registration app ... just do read, feed, select
stacker 3 ... process the information ... and if there was a problem, do
a write, feed, select stacker three ... writing a totally blank card
(idea was just to put a blank colored card behind registration cards
that needed more work).
i had mentioned that i had done port of 1401 mpio application (unit
record frontend for 709) to 360/30. I would do separate read from
feed/select stacker ... not to dynamically select stacker ... but i
wouldn't know before hand whether it was bcd or binary. I would do bcd
read ... and if it got an error, i would reread with binary read
... before doing feed, select stacker.
past posts mentioning hasp
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hasp
i had done highly optimized os/360 system that included hasp. i got
nearly three times thruput compared to vanilla os/360 plus hasp
(for standard university student job stream).
this is part of presentation i gave at fall '68 share meeting in boston
... mentioning the just os/360 system thruput and performance work
(running on real hardware) ... a lot of cp67 system thruput and
performance work ... and os/360 system thruput in virtual machine.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#18 CP/67 & OS MFT14
recent posts mentioning doing 1401 mpio port
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#51 IBM S/360 series operating systems history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#52 ANN: Microsoft goes Open Source
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007m.html#73 Operating systems are old and busted
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#59 IBM System/360 DOS still going strong as Z/VSE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#2 what does xp do when system is copying
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> How did you control routing the cards to the appropriate stacker? My
> yellow card has a chart for the 3504/3505 card reader with Commands
> for Sense, feed-select stacker, read,feed, select stacker. Tere's a
> binary code for a byte, but where does this byte go--the channel
> control word (CCW)? Could this be done in COBOL or was assembler
> required? (There are other "I/O Command Codes" listed as well.)
original post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#71 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
recent post that discusses part of 2540/3505 ccw op-code format
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#0 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
the discussion that covered the 2540/3505 ccw op-code (command-code)
format ...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#23
was just the "command code" field of the ccw (first byte). here is
format of channel command word (8 bytes, double world)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#12
the full 8-byte CCW (from above) is
Format-0 Channel Command Word
0---------------1---------------2---------------3---------------+
| Command code | Data address |
0---------------1---------------2---------------3---------------+
4---------------5---------------6---------------7---------------+
| Flags |///////////////| Byte count |
4---------------5---------------6---------------7---------------+
Standard Command codes Flags
xxxx 0000 Invalid Bit 32 (80) - Chain data
++++ ++01 Write 33 (40) - Chain command
++++ 0100 Sense 34 (20) - Suppress incorrect length
++++ ++10 Read 35 (10) - Suppress data transfer
xxxx 1000 Transfer in Channel 36 (08) - Program controlled interrupt
++++ ++11 Control 37 (04) - Use Indirect Data Address Word
++++ 1100 Read Backward 38 (02) - Suspend
0000 0011 Control No-op 39 (01) - Must be 0
1110 0100 Sense ID
x - Bit Ignored + - Modifier Bit for Specific Type of Device
....
so operating system "access methods" ... effectively i/o libraries were
the same for both cobol and assembler. these "access methods" generated
channel programs (sequences of channel command words) and invoked
kernel/system call for it to be executed. access methods would have some
number of options that could allow various kinds of control
... including things like stacker (however, most systems ran with hasp
or other "spooling" function that handled all the unit record ... and
stored the records as intermediary disk files. by the time an
application got around to executing, the physical cards normally had
long since been processed.
misc. past posts mentioning hasp
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hasp
"access methods" were library routines typically written in
assembler. it would be possible for application programmers to implement
their own equivalent "access method" code that generated their own
channel programs and directly invoked the kernel/system call to do the
actual i/o operation.
i believe most of the student registration app was in cobol ... but i
wrote some assembler for doing the card reader/punch scenario and some
glue code that it allowed to be called from cobol.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I didn't know the 2540 could read mark-sense spots, was that a
> standard or optional feature? I thought mark-sense cards had to be
> run through a Reproducer which would read, translate, and punch the
> card for the fields coded.
>
> I think the old Reproducers read the marks by touch and conductivity
> testing (pencil lead is graphite which conducts), while the 2540 used
> photocells to read cards. I believe the pioneer IBM test scoring
> machine 'tabulated' the final score merely by checking the current
> flow from touching the answer sheet. The more correct answers, the
> more current would flow and the further the dial would move on the
> meter.
original post:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#71 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
misc. other responses
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#0 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#1 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
i remember the 2540 having brushes ... and my recollection was that the
2540 had option to directly read sense marks ... but this was over 40yrs
ago ... so i could be wrong (but i have no recollection of the sense
mark cards being preprocessed and generating a "real" hole-punched
equivalent ... for processing by the student class registration
application).
when i was doing the 1401 mpio port ... they would let me have the
machine room for the weekend ... i would pull a 48hr shift from 8am sat
until 8am mon ... and then drag myself off to some monday classes.
after a couple weekends, i learned that the first thing needed doing was
standard operator shift maintenance ... before doing anything else
clean all the tape heads ... and take the 2540 reader/punch apart and
clean all the components (especially the reader read brushes) and put it
back together.
Peter Flass
Timing was problematic anyway. IIRC this would work, but the program
only had a small amount of time to decide which stacker to select.
Otherwise the device would de-clutch, and there would be a significant
delay getting it up to speed again.
clack...clack...clack instead of bzzzzzzzzzz.
Peter Flass
>
> 2540 had option to directly read sense marks
This sounds right. The 2501 was optical, IIRC. Does Bitsavers have the
manuals for these up?
Mike Ross
>"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
>news:724nh3ptu6f185lh5...@4ax.com...
>> So much for $$$$... I found someone I remembered, who had mentioned a year
>> or
>> two ago that he had a couple of 3277s. Service bureau up in Seattle I
>> think...
>> he has two 3277s!!! Thing is, he won't sell me one - he's only willing to
>> sell
>> the whole setup, two 3277s and the 3272 controller that goes with them -
>> and he
>> wants $1750 (!!!), which I can't afford.
>>
>
>I think he might be wanting for a long time...
Maybe... point of order: I've never seen a 3272. What do they look like? How big
are they? Do they have knobs and blinkenlights like some of the old comms
controllers? (e.g. 3705)
Thanks
bbreynolds
> Maybe... point of order: I've never seen a 3272. What do they look like? How big
> are they? Do they have knobs and blinkenlights like some of the old comms
> controllers? (e.g. 3705)
>
Gunmetal gray box about 32" wide, 18" deep, 28" high (not near one at
this time,
just a recollection as to dimensions), white top. A lengthy search
found a picture
of what I believe to be one shot from the side at:
http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/gallery/ral82/med/r83r2471m.jpg
Same sized box used for 3271; nothing external on front other than
power switch,
a power-on light, and probably for the 3272 an "enable/disable"
toggle. Opening
back panel would give access to channel cables (3272) or communication
cable
(3271) and the coax cables (base of four connections, added feature
codes to
populate up to 32 ports).
This thread started about the 3277-001 used on a System/3 Model 15
(would
that be a 5415?): as 3277's relied on the 3271/3272/3275 for the major
portion
of their intelligence, I would assume that there would have had to
been some
pretty substantial hardware in the System/3 to make the 3277-001
believe it
was attached to a controller. I can't think how the functions would be
split
out on a 3277 not on a controller; unless the 3277-001 was "gutted".
Any
hint if a cable other than a simple coax connected the 3277 to the
CPU?
Bruce B. Reynolds, Trailing Edge Technologies, Glenside PA
Mike Ross
>On Oct 27, 9:45 am, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>
>> Maybe... point of order: I've never seen a 3272. What do they look like? How big
>> are they? Do they have knobs and blinkenlights like some of the old comms
>> controllers? (e.g. 3705)
>>
>
>Gunmetal gray box about 32" wide, 18" deep, 28" high (not near one at
>this time,
>just a recollection as to dimensions), white top. A lengthy search
>found a picture
>of what I believe to be one shot from the side at:
>
>http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/gallery/ral82/med/r83r2471m.jpg
>
>Same sized box used for 3271; nothing external on front other than
>power switch,
>a power-on light, and probably for the 3272 an "enable/disable"
>toggle. Opening
>back panel would give access to channel cables (3272) or communication
>cable
>(3271) and the coax cables (base of four connections, added feature
>codes to
>populate up to 32 ports).
Many thanks. So... no blinkenlights.
>This thread started about the 3277-001 used on a System/3 Model 15
>(would
>that be a 5415?):
It would. See it here: http://www.corestore.org/3.htm
>as 3277's relied on the 3271/3272/3275 for the major
>portion
>of their intelligence, I would assume that there would have had to
>been some
>pretty substantial hardware in the System/3 to make the 3277-001
>believe it
>was attached to a controller. I can't think how the functions would be
>split
>out on a 3277 not on a controller; unless the 3277-001 was "gutted".
>Any
>hint if a cable other than a simple coax connected the 3277 to the
>CPU?
I can't find any. Down in that area there's the single coax for the console
3277, the channel interface for the 5424/3741, and a double convenience outlet -
presumably also for the 3277. There are half a dozen loose power-type single
wires with labels 'TB1' through 'TB6' on the ends; I *presume* these are also
for the 5424. I can't think what else they could be for, unless... an old
console Selectric?
I've been told, third-hand, from an associate of the guy who still has a
System/3 running in production in his service bureau, that the console 3277 had
a 'special card' - an additional card? - in it. I'm not clear if this some extra
console functionality, or just 'the' card which differentiates a 3277 model 1
from the much more common model 2...
I'm still awaiting a printset for my machine, but I think you're on the right
track in assuming the logic for the 3277 is in the 5415. Certainly there's no
question of an external controller being involved.
Cheers
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> This thread started about the 3277-001 used on a System/3 Model 15
> (would that be a 5415?): as 3277's relied on the 3271/3272/3275 for
> the major portion of their intelligence, I would assume that there
> would have had to been some pretty substantial hardware in the
> System/3 to make the 3277-001 believe it was attached to a
> controller. I can't think how the functions would be split out on a
> 3277 not on a controller; unless the 3277-001 was "gutted". Any hint
> if a cable other than a simple coax connected the 3277 to the CPU?
3277 had quite a bit of local intelligence ... it was possible to do
some custom stuff in the terminal that changed the repeat start-delay
and repeat ... as well as adding fifo to handle keyboard locking up if
you happen to be typing when the system went to (re)write something on
the screen. the move to 3274 controller for 3278/3279/etc terminals ...
moved all that intelligence back into the controller ... reducing amount
of electronics and manufacturing costs. with electronics moved back into
controller ... it also degraded performance and response.
several of us complained about it ... but were told that 327x terminals
were targeted at data entry market and didn't have the requirements for
interactive response and human factors that would be needed for
something like interactive computing. as seen in some of the referenced
performance comparisons ... say
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol
... it was much more difficult to achieve subsecond response with
3274/3278 vis-a-vis 3272/3277. However, for mvs/tso with system response
already on the order of a second (or much worse) ... it was pretty
negligible consideration. however, heavily loaded vm/cms systems tended
to be more on the order of a quarter second (or less, one system i had
care&feeding of ... was on the order of .11 seconds 90th percentile for
trivial interactive under heavy load).
past posts mentioning some (hardware) fixes to 3277 ... and not being
able to doing anything with later 3278/3279 because even that bit of
electronics had been moved back into the controller (and/or some other
3272/3277 issues vis-a-vis 3274/3278).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#23 CP spooling & programming technology
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#49 Edsger Dijkstra: the blackest week of his professional life
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#28 IBM S/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#69 System/1 ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#193 Back to the original mainframe model?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#239 IBM UC info
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#63 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#65 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#66 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#67 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#12 4341 was "Is a VAX a mainframe?"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#23 IBM's mess
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#12 Now early Arpanet security
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#49 any 70's era supercomputers that ran as slow as today's supercompu
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#51 DARPA was: Short Watson Biography
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#30 3270 protocol
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#33 3270 protocol
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#44 3270 protocol
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#46 3270 protocol
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#32 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#17 3270 protocol
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#14 Mail system scalability (Was: Re: Itanium troubles)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#43 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#48 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#50 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#67 Total Computing Power
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#74 Itanium2 power limited?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#77 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#2 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#6 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#24 Original K & R C Compilers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#29 Vector display systems
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002q.html#51 windows office xp
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#29 360/370 disk drives
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#18 Early attempts at console humor?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#69 OT: One for the historians - 360/91
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#72 OT: One for the historians - 360/91
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#23 CPU Impact of degraded I/O
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#24 CPU Impact of degraded I/O
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003e.html#43 IBM 3174
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003h.html#15 Mainframe Tape Drive Usage Metrics
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003i.html#30 A Dark Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#24 Red Phosphor Terminal?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#20 What is timesharing, anyway?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#22 What is timesharing, anyway?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#14 When nerds were nerds
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#36 When nerds were nerds
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003p.html#44 Mainframe Emulation Solutions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#7 IBM operating systems
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#30 Moribund TSO/E
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#0 were dumb terminals actually so dumb???
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#54 [HTTP/1.0] Content-Type Header
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#11 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#24 |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| questions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#27 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#27 Shipwrecks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#32 Shipwrecks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#8 Whatever happened to IBM's VM PC software?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004q.html#35 [Lit.] Buffer overruns
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005e.html#13 Device and channel
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005e.html#32 Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005e.html#33 Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005h.html#38 Systems Programming for 8 Year-olds
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005h.html#40 Software for IBM 360/30
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005r.html#12 Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005r.html#14 Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005r.html#15 Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005r.html#17 Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005r.html#20 Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005r.html#28 Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#17 winscape?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#45 winscape?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005u.html#22 Channel Distances
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006.html#42 IBM 610 workstation computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#21 IBM 3090/VM Humor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006e.html#9 terminals was: Caller ID "spoofing"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006e.html#28 MCTS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006i.html#34 TOD clock discussion
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#24 sorting was: The System/360 Model 20 Wasn't As Bad As All That
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#51 stacks: sorting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#56 AT&T Labs vs. Google Labs - R&D History
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006q.html#10 what's the difference between LF(Line Fee) and NL (New line) ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006q.html#16 what's the difference between LF(Line Fee) and NL (New line) ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006q.html#58 Intel abandons USEnet news
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#42 Ranking of non-IBM mainframe builders?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#34 The Future of CPUs: What's After Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#42 The Future of CPUs: What's After Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006u.html#55 What's a mainframe?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#19 Ranking of non-IBM mainframe builders?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#20 Ranking of non-IBM mainframe builders?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#14 vm/sp1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007c.html#5 old productivity response time studies
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#5 Is computer history taugh now?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#70 Is computer history taught now?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#39 sizeof() was: The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> some custom stuff in the terminal that changed the repeat start-delay
> and repeat ... as well as adding fifo to handle keyboard locking up if
> you happen to be typing when the system went to (re)write something on
> the screen. the move to 3274 controller for 3278/3279/etc terminals ...
> moved all that intelligence back into the controller ... reducing amount
> of electronics and manufacturing costs. with electronics moved back into
> controller ... it also degraded performance and response.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#7 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
another example of the electronics in 3277 was the 3277ga ... which was
a large tektronics tube that had special adapter to plug into the side
of 3277 terminal. system would write standard 3270 datastream, escape
characters in the datastream would divert output to the 3277ga. 3277ga
was capable of fairly high-performance graphic displays ... at much
lower price than 2250/3250.
misc. past posts mentioning 3277ga
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#51 DARPA was: Short Watson Biography
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#29 Vector display systems
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#8 Whatever happened to IBM's VM PC software?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006e.html#9 terminals was: Caller ID "spoofing"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006e.html#28 MCTS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006q.html#16 what's the difference between LF(Line Fee) and NL (New line) ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#19 Ranking of non-IBM mainframe builders?
Rich Greenberg
Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org> wrote:
>I'm still awaiting a printset for my machine, but I think you're on the right
>track in assuming the logic for the 3277 is in the 5415. Certainly there's no
>question of an external controller being involved.
Given IBM's tendency to reuse hardware I would hazard a guess that
significant portions of a 3272 was in the 5415.
--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
I think that one could specify UNIT=2540 to actually get to use the
card reader in direct mode rather than processing the spooled file
from disk.
--
Rostyk
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
If memory hasn't failed me, we read mark sense cards on something that
was called a 1230. We didn't have one in the computing center. It was
in a separate laboratory somewhere in the School of Education.
We sent the decks over there. I don't remember what we got back.
I think the 1230 may have punched the marked card.
--
Rostyk
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> If memory hasn't failed me, we read mark sense cards on something that
> was called a 1230. We didn't have one in the computing center. It was
> in a separate laboratory somewhere in the School of Education.
> We sent the decks over there. I don't remember what we got back.
> I think the 1230 may have punched the marked card.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#71 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#2 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
wiki mark sense page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_sense
mentions that 513, 514, 557, and 519 could handle mark sense. also
has pointer to 805 test scoring machine.
513 & 514 reproducing punches could handle mark sense ... so it is
possible that a 513/514 had preprossed the mark sense student
registration cards ... and the 2540 was only processing the reproduced
punch cards (and i just not paying that much attention).
the wiki reference also has url for 513/514 (pdf) reference manual
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> some custom stuff in the terminal that changed the repeat start-delay
> and repeat ... as well as adding fifo to handle keyboard locking up if
> you happen to be typing when the system went to (re)write something on
> the screen. the move to 3274 controller for 3278/3279/etc terminals ...
> moved all that intelligence back into the controller ... reducing amount
> of electronics and manufacturing costs. with electronics moved back into
> controller ... it also degraded performance and response.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#7 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#8 IBM System/3 & 3277-1
somebody picking around in some of the referenced old postings, sent
private email asking about reference to ANR download being 2-3 times
baster than DCA download ... and what was ANR ... other than APPN
"Automatic Networking Routing".
ANR was3272/3277 ... vis-a-vis DCA 3274/3278-9. In addition
to DCA having slower human (real terminal) response ... because
so much of the electronics had been moved back into controller,
it also affected later terminal emulation download thruput.
quicky search engine for 3277 & anr turns up
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctech/2007-September/084640.html
misc. past posts mentioning terminal emulation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#emulation
as client/server started to proliferate ... the communication
group made various attempts (like SAA) to protect their
terminal emulation install base. when we came up with
3tier/multi-tier architecture ... we took lots of heat from
the sna and saa forces. misc. posts mentioning coming up with
multitier networking architecture
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#3tier
for other drift ... APPN started out as AWP164. For a time,
the person responsible and I used to report to the same
executive. I would periodically chide him that the communication
group didn't appreciate what he was doing and that he should
instead work on real networking (like tcp/ip). In fact, the
communication group non-concurred with announcing APPN. After
some delay and escalation, the announcement letter was carefully
rewritten to not state any connection between APPN and SNA.
of course we were also running hsdt project ... misc. posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
and recent post illustrating gap between what we
were doing and what the communication group was doing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#64
part of the issue was that in early days of SNA ... my wife had
co-authored AWP39 ... peer-to-peer networking ... which the
communication group possibly viewed as competitive with their
communication activity. she was then con'ed into going to pok to be in
charge of loosely-coupled architecture and was frequently battling with
SNA forces that it wasn't appropriate for loosely-coupled operation. She
came up with peer-coupled shared data architecture ... which didn't see
a lot of uptake until sysplex ... except for IMS hot-standby
... misc. past references
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#shareddata
recent posts mentioning ASWP39
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007b.html#9 Mainframe vs. "Server" (Was Just another example of mainframe
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007b.html#48 6400 impact printer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#55 Is computer history taugh now?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#35 sizeof() was: The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#39 sizeof() was: The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#62 Friday musings on the future of 3270 applications
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007o.html#72 FICON tape drive?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#12 JES2 or JES3, Which one is older?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#23 Newsweek article--baby boomers and computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#46 Are there tasks that don't play by WLM's rules
Del Cecchi
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:42:56 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
> <delcecchi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>by the way, there is a S/3 of some flavor sitting in the IBM Rochester
>>cafeteria.
>
> Might make them an offer ;-)
>
> Do you work there? Seriously, if you do, and you think people might be
> interested, by all means print out my assorted S/3x web pages and put
> them up -
> some old-timers might get all misty-eyed and nostalgic... ahhhh, MST!
I am recently retired. Sorry for not catching the followup for so long.
del
Del Cecchi
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:41:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
> <delcecchi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>you sure it is a 3277 and not one of the Rochester twinax workstations?
>>IE 3740 etc? Viking, odin, vidar et al?
>
> 100% positive. The 3277 consoles can be seen, if you look carefully, in
> the
> following images:
>
> http://www.kcg.ac.jp/museum/computer/general/img/ibm/ibm370-125-1.gif
>
> http://ibmcollectables.com/albums/album05/s_davessys3.jpg
>
> (the latter also has the more common 3278, but I'm told only the 3277,
> specifically the 3277-1, can be used as a console - unless anyone knows
> different?)
>
> Twinax didn't come in until much later - 1977, with the System/34 IIRC.
>
> PS the 3740 was a data entry station, nothing to do with twinax - I
> have one,
> see: http://www.corestore.org/3.htm - when you speak of twinax
> workstations I
> presume you mean 5250 et. al.?
>
yes, of course 5250 series. Duh. Ugly square boxes.
Del Cecchi
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:1192805725....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 11:11 pm, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>
>> I've been fortunate enough to get a System/3 (Model 15) to add to the
>> Corestore
>> collection (which already includes Systems /32, /34, /36, and /38).
>
> I understand for applications, the System/3 used an upgraded version
> of RPG (originally developed for the 1401 and still in use today for S/
> 3 AS/400 descendants.)
>
> Would anyone know what kind of assembler language was used for the
> System/3? Does a "principles of operation" exist for the System/3?
>
> (For the AS/400 I never could figure the internal code architecture,
> IBM used something called "LIC" that was rather vague. I once tried
> to get an optional machine language listing of my application program
> compilation but it was very confusing. I believe IBM used a multi-
> layered approach for AS/400 internals, remnants of its "Future System"
> effort. I was not a big AS/400 fan, except for a file-aid tool that
> was better than mainframe tools.)
>
In the S/38, the processor executed something called IMPI for internal
microprogrammed Instructions (it was a microcoded engine) that in turn
interpreted MI or machine interface via vertical microcode or VMC. The
same basic scheme was maintained on as/400 with VMC replaced by VLIC or
LIC. and IMPI going through several iterations ending with powerpc or
thereabouts.
Much of the actual work of programs was done by the OS with integrated
database, thereby enhancing efficiency.
sorry for late response
>
krw
delcecchi...@gmail.com says...
>
> I am recently retired. Sorry for not catching the followup for so long.
Congratulations! Another one sees the light. I've just moved out of
state, so there is no way they're getting me back. ;-)
--
Keith
h.j.st...@hccnet.nl
> In article <ot67i3h9ufjib9rsbdakcaq2jbf04jk...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>
> >I'm still awaiting a printset for my machine, but I think you're on the right
> >track in assuming the logic for the 3277 is in the 5415. Certainly there's no
> >question of an external controller being involved.
>
> Given IBM's tendency to reuse hardware I would hazard a guess that
> significant portions of a 3272 was in the 5415.
the DA (Display Adaptor) in the model 15 was a small micro-controller
build with MST.
Mike Ross
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:41:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>you sure it is a 3277 and not one of the Rochester twinax workstations?
>>IE 3740 etc? Viking, odin, vidar et al?
>
>100% positive. The 3277 consoles can be seen, if you look carefully, in the
>following images:
>
>http://www.kcg.ac.jp/museum/computer/general/img/ibm/ibm370-125-1.gif
>
>http://ibmcollectables.com/albums/album05/s_davessys3.jpg
>
>(the latter also has the more common 3278, but I'm told only the 3277,
>specifically the 3277-1, can be used as a console - unless anyone knows
>different?)
>
>Twinax didn't come in until much later - 1977, with the System/34 IIRC.
Ressurecting this old thread to announce that I've been shopping:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=270284170574
Who would believe it? A 3277 Model 1 on ebay!!!!
Mike
(pleased but still looking for 3340 - and more 3277 for spares! An MFCM would be
good too..)