On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:33:29 -0500, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > >hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> Watson pushed S/360 out the door so fast partly because his product >> line was stale and competitors were gaining on him. Honeywell was >> 'stealing' his 1401 customers with their machine and Watson couldn't >> stand that fact. On the one hand, we can see that competition was >> good in that it pushed for improved technology and support that S/360 >> offered. On the other hand, was the competition bad in that a machine >> was announced before its time*? > >2nd hand tale of some of the competitors testimony in gov./ibm >anti-trust trial ... all computer manufacturers knew by the late 50s >that the single most important factor in the market place was to have a >compatible architecture across the whole machine line ... and they >weren't able to get all the different plant managers to toe the line >... different plant managers responsible for different models would do >various optimizations for the particular technology that they were >using. Only Watson prevailed in forcing all the plant managers >(responbile for the different models) to toe the 360 architecture >comptability line.
Which then got fouled by DOS360 being substantially different from OS360. I am still trying to figure out how they both got /* as end of card data. > >this was raised recently in this thread by comments about the pain >various customers had in migrating from earlier machines to 360 (and >never wanting to ever do that again). >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009s.html#60 360 programs on a z/10 > >also mentioned in the thread ... that lesson/concept got temporarily >lost in the future system detour >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys > >there was a corollary ... that being the only vendor getting the single >most important thing right ... it might be able to get lots of other >things wrong ... and still dominate the market. > >part of the issue back then was that software was somewhat simpler and >tended to have machine/architecture dependeancies exposed. there has >been some software progress in 40yrs being able to better abstract >hardware features. > >other posts in this thread: >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#52 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#57 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#68 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#69 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#4 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#9 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#13 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#16 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#17 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#20 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#24 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#26 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#28 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#29 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#30 360 programs on a z/10 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#34 360 programs on a z/10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
