> > I understand the benchmark results, but does that mean that current PC > could support the same workload. At John Hancock in the early 1970s a 168 > supported a fairly hefty batch workload and an online inquiry system for > 400+ file clerks. > > If a current PC can't support that workload, what is the difference? Maybe > benchmarks don't mean that much...
I can run MVS 3.8 considerably faster than the 168s could. We had a 168MP to implement Medibank in the mid 70s. Getting the other software, setting it and, and getting the workload's another matter. Has anyone seen IMS DB/DC from that era? -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. ============================== If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
