And beyond the 7 bit ASCII there were many National ASCII code pages using the 8th bit.
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 12:07 PM Steve Thompson <ste...@wkyr.net> wrote: > > I think the answer to this question "If IBM had "inflicted" ASCII > on its customers in 1964, would the System/360 have had the wide > acceptance that it did?" was the WANG VS series machines. Just > from my personal experience, many banks were using them, and IBM > was, to some degree, targeting them with MP2000 & 3000 boxes. > Again from my experience in programming with the Wang VS systems, > they appeared to me to be a S/360 with DAT. I think this may have > been because Dr. Wang waited until the patents expired for the > S/370 features. I was involved in migrating several of those > systems into an MVS/JES3 environment (mid-1980s time frame) used > by a major bank that was buying up small banks that were using > WANG VS machines. I had to convert their banking software data to > match Florida Software (for banks) [not to be confused with the > State of Florida]. Steve Thompson > On 5/8/2024 11:36 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: > > I have seen this before, and I am not persuaded. I find it interesting > > that all of the references provided were written by Mr. Beemer himself, > > some of them with another author. > > > > Perhaps, in hindsight it would have been better if IBM had made the > > System/360 an ASCII only machine. But at the time, ASCII was new and > > relatively unknown. As it was, the market had generally rejected ASCII > > on System/360, so the USASCII bit was removed with the introduction of > > System/370 in 1970. > > > > Both ASCII and EBCDIC are limited. ASCII, even more so because it is a > > 7 bit code, though there are proprietary 8 bit extensions. No one knew > > in 1964 that Unicode would later be designed based upon ASCII. > > > > The claim that "A 1-to-1 translation between the two [ASCII and EBCDIC] > > exists" is false.Each includes characters that are not defined in the > > other. This has always been the case. > > > > If IBM had "inflicted" ASCII on its customers in 1964, would the > > System/360 have had the wide acceptance that it did? We will never know. > > > > According to "Architecture of System/360" > > https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gatech.edu/dist/8/175/files/2015/08/IBM-360.pdf > > > > <quote> > > The reasons against such exclusive adoption was the > > widespread use of the BCD code derived from and easily > > translated to the IBM card code. To facilitate use of both > > codes, the central processing units are designed with a > > high degree of code independence, with generalized code > > translation facilities, and with program-selectable BCD or > > ASCII modes for code-dependent instructions. Neverthe- > > less, a choice had to be made for the code-sensitive I/O > > devices and for the programming support, and the solution > > was to offer both codes, fully supported, as a user option. > > Systems with either option will, of course, easily read or > > write I/O media with the other code. > > </quote> > > > > Aside from that, it wasn't the "P-bit", but the A bit. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
