Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Mark Post]

>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at  5:05 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Bowler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
-snip-
> I took that to mean that you were disagreeing with Dave Berry, and saying
> that Linux on a Mainframe makes more sense than IBM OS on a PC, because
> Linux on a Mainframe saves millions of dollars whereas IBM OS on a PC does
> not.

In the context of that thread, that is exactly what I meant.  In the context of 
"was writing Hercules a worthwhile thing to do?" I agree with you (and lots of 
other people) that it is a good thing to do, hence the "while I like Hercules 
quite a bit" part.  I do think it is a worthwhile thing.  I believe running 
Linux on an IBM mainframe, for production purposes, makes far more sense than 
running an IBM OS on Hercules for production purposes, since none of the 
current versions are licensable on Hercules.

Not everything in life is about business and making money.  I appreciate the 
people who act on that and do thinks like Linux, Hercules, Apache, Samba, etc., 
etc.  It's one of the reasons why I created Slack/390.  No money to be had 
there at all, but it was a fabulous experience for me.


Mark Post

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Roger Bowler]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:05:05 -0500, Roger Bowler wrote:
>I took that to mean that you were disagreeing with Dave Berry

Whoops! I meant Dave Barry of course. Sorry about that Dave.

Roger Bowler

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Roger Bowler]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:42:16 -0600, Mark Post wrote:
 On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at  3:53 PM, Roger Bowler wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:08:29 -0600, Mark Post (NOVELL.COM) wrote:
>>>Hmm.  While I like Hercules quite a bit, I've never heard of anyone saving
>>>millions of dollars running anything on it.  I do know a lot of businesses
>>>that are saving that kind of money on mainframe Linux, however.
>>
>> While I have no way of knowing whether your assertion is correct, I do feel
>> obliged to point out that saving millions of dollars is not the sole measure
>> of whether something is worthwhile or not.
>
>And if you had kept the comment I was responding to, it would have been
reasonably clear to anyone reading your comment that I would agree with you.
>
>Mark Post

Hmm. I must be missing something. Here are the comments you were responding
to, I think:

On 09/04/2007 at 09:32 AM, "Britz, Anton - CO 7th" said:
>I am still not sure why anybody would want to run an IBM operating 
>system on a PC.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  4:23 PM, Dave Barry wrote: 
> It makes way better sense than running Linux on a Mainframe.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:08:29 -0600, Mark Post (NOVELL.COM) wrote:
>Hmm.  While I like Hercules quite a bit, I've never heard of anyone saving
>millions of dollars running anything on it.  I do know a lot of businesses
>that are saving that kind of money on mainframe Linux, however.

I took that to mean that you were disagreeing with Dave Berry, and saying
that Linux on a Mainframe makes more sense than IBM OS on a PC, because
Linux on a Mainframe saves millions of dollars whereas IBM OS on a PC does
not. If that was not what you meant, then my apologies for misunderstanding
your message (I blame the multiple levels of quoting inserted by the
mailreaders, which I have tried to untangle above :-)

Regards,
Roger Bowler

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Mark Post]

>>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at  3:53 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Bowler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:08:29 -0600, Mark Post (NOVELL.COM) wrote:
>>Hmm.  While I like Hercules quite a bit, I've never heard of anyone saving
>>millions of dollars running anything on it.  I do know a lot of businesses
>>that are saving that kind of money on mainframe Linux, however.
> 
> While I have no way of knowing whether your assertion is correct, I do feel
> obliged to point out that saving millions of dollars is not the sole measure
> of whether something is worthwhile or not.

And if you had kept the comment I was responding to, it would have been 
reasonably clear to anyone reading your comment that I would agree with you.


Mark Post

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Shane]

On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 14:53 -0500, Roger Bowler wrote:

> I do feel
> obliged to point out that saving millions of dollars is not the sole measure
> of whether something is worthwhile or not.

And that from a man well qualified to comment - *especially*  about the
motivation for, and effort expended, on the original concept that led to
Hercules.
Thank you Roger, from me at least ...

Shane ...

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Chase, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Roger Bowler
> 
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:08:29 -0600, Mark Post (NOVELL.COM) wrote:
> >Hmm.  While I like Hercules quite a bit, I've never heard of anyone 
> >saving millions of dollars running anything on it.  I do know a lot
of 
> >businesses that are saving that kind of money on mainframe Linux,
however.
> 
> While I have no way of knowing whether your assertion is 
> correct, I do feel obliged to point out that saving millions 
> of dollars is not the sole measure of whether something is 
> worthwhile or not.

Frequently it is, in "MBA-Land", despite that the "alternatives" may
cost as much or more.

-jc-

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/15/2007
   at 06:37 AM, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Which is why I added "in the conventional sense".  Your apparent need to
>snipe at every post I make is becoming tiresome.

ROTF,LMAO! I don't even read every post that you make. You overestimate
your own importance.

>Not a console "in a conventional sense".

You're rewriting history. We were calling those consoles long before the
era of console typewriters and console displays. See, e.g., A22-6703-4
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Roger Bowler]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:08:29 -0600, Mark Post (NOVELL.COM) wrote:
>Hmm.  While I like Hercules quite a bit, I've never heard of anyone saving
>millions of dollars running anything on it.  I do know a lot of businesses
>that are saving that kind of money on mainframe Linux, however.

While I have no way of knowing whether your assertion is correct, I do feel
obliged to point out that saving millions of dollars is not the sole measure
of whether something is worthwhile or not.

Roger Bowler
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler
Hercules "the people's mainframe"
"Embracing IBM's zSeries strategy (pro-IBM and zSeries)"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Andreas F. Geissbuehler]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:37:50 +0100, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote:

>> Of course there was a console ...
>
>Which is why I added "in the conventional sense".  Your apparent need to 
snipe at every post I
>make is becoming tiresome.
>
>And I would have called it a "control panel", not a console.  The only way it 
could talk to
>you was to halt at specific adresses.  The only way you could talk back was 
via sense
>switches.  Flick 'A' on, press start - that kind of thing.  Not a console "in 
>a 
conventional
>sense".

Phil, you are 100% correct. We used some instruction sequence like this to 
communicate with the operator:
*   ASK OPERATOR WHAT NEXT:
 H 111,111  LOAD 1's into A + B Address
ASKBSS  MONTHLY,1 START MONTHLY TOTALS IF SENSE-SW=1
 BSS  DAILY,2  RUN DAILY IF SENSE-SW=2
EOJH 999,999   LOAD 9's into A + B Address
 B EOJ END OF JOB

The Halt ("H") would freeze all flashing lights on the console, the A and B 
address lights would display the fake address (1's, 9's) in binary. The 
operator 
would wake up, realize what happened, look up the operations manual or Job 
Setup sheet, flick the requested toggle switches up/down, press the "Start"  
button, ...and doze off again. 

Now, don't be too hard on Shmuel, he has written a few, somewhat more 
useful posts in the past...:-).

Andreas F. Geissbuehler
AFG Consultants Inc.
http://www.afgc-inc.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

1401 simulator for OS/360

[Phil Payne]

> Of course there was a console ...

Which is why I added "in the conventional sense".  Your apparent need to snipe 
at every post I
make is becoming tiresome.

And I would have called it a "control panel", not a console.  The only way it 
could talk to
you was to halt at specific adresses.  The only way you could talk back was via 
sense
switches.  Flick 'A' on, press start - that kind of thing.  Not a console "in a 
conventional
sense".

-- 
  Phil Payne
  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
  +44 7833 654 800

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Mark Post]

>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  4:23 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Barry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
> 09/04/2007
>at 09:32 AM, "Britz, Anton - CO 7th" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
>>I am still not sure why anybody would want to run an IBM operating 
>>system on a PC.
> 
> It makes way better sense than running Linux on a Mainframe.

Hmm.  While I like Hercules quite a bit, I've never heard of anyone saving 
millions of dollars running anything on it.  I do know a lot of businesses that 
are saving that kind of money on mainframe Linux, however.


Mark Post

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Dave Barry]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
09/04/2007
   at 09:32 AM, "Britz, Anton - CO 7th" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>I am still not sure why anybody would want to run an IBM operating 
>system on a PC.

It makes way better sense than running Linux on a Mainframe.

db

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
09/10/2007
   at 07:45 AM, "Chase, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Reduced to its essence, a computer is nothing more than a vast array of
>switches and a clock.

Clock? We don't need no stinking clock. Google for Philco.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/10/2007
   at 09:08 PM, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>There was, in the conventional sense and on the majority of systems, no
>console. 

Of course there was a console; don't confuse a console with a
keyboard/display or keyboard/printer device.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:51:21 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>>In the real world, however, clock signals are an extremely effective
>>way of maintaining stability in a digital system, as the analog world
>>and human engineering flaws creep in. A few firms tried making
>>asynchronous designs, perhaps the best known were DECs PDP-6 and KA-10
>>processors, but they learned that noise, uneven speeds of the logic
>>circuits, and race conditions make design very difficult - and
>>servicing a sick machine even worse.
>
>Weren't Crays built with real race logic?
>
>But they have been superseded by technology that finds more value with
>stability.
>
("Race" is such a pejorative word, even in this nonanthropological
sense; use "asynchronous" instead.)

Doesn't the clock logic add whatever stability by making the clock
the slowest element in the system, so the clock loses all races,
then pacing everything else by that?  The clock can't make switches
change state any faster than they would in its absence.

The PDP-6 timing diagram contained intriguing instructions similar to:

If the operand is in expanded memory, add 3 nsec for each foot
of cable between the main chassis and the expansion chassis.

(Yes, expanded memory went in a separate chassis!)

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Howard Brazee]

On 10 Sep 2007 08:52:41 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:

>In the real world, however, clock signals are an extremely effective
>way of maintaining stability in a digital system, as the analog world
>and human engineering flaws creep in. A few firms tried making
>asynchronous designs, perhaps the best known were DECs PDP-6 and KA-10
>processors, but they learned that noise, uneven speeds of the logic
>circuits, and race conditions make design very difficult - and
>servicing a sick machine even worse.

Weren't Crays built with real race logic?

But they have been superseded by technology that finds more value with
stability.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

1401 simulator for OS/360

[Phil Payne]

Pedantry - it's an emulator, not a simulator.

> Did the 1401 have a program timer?

No.  It had no program-accessible "clock".  It didn't know clock time at all, 
and dates were
input via date cards that were application-specific.

In most senses, there was no operating system and no supervisor.  Any 
exceptional conditions
were spotted simply:

a) it stopped

b) a peripheral had a light on, or some equally obvious state.

There was, in the conventional sense and on the majority of systems, no 
console.  There was a
backlit panel, and next to it was a swing-out gate that let you do highly 
illegal things with
the tape units.  I can still close my eyes, reach for the little flap at the 
top of that gate,
flip it upwards, reach in and squeeze the gate lock, and pull the gate forward 
and down.  I
must have done it thousands of times.

In the early days of System/360, the great and infallible IBM shipped "Series 
500" 2400' tapes
from the plant with no tapemarks.  I spent hour after happy hour mounting these 
tapes on 7330s
attached to a 1401, dialing up each unit in turn, and flipping the "Write Tape 
Mark" switch.
Whole shifts, sometimes.

System reset, check reset, start.

And what no one ever seems to mention - the 1401 had a _unique_ smell.  And it 
was good for
drying wet trainers.  The 1406 Memory Extension Unit was just the ideal height 
for a standing
four-handed card game.  And even coffee-proof. You don't get that from an 
emulator.

Back then, the operators used to reuse tape trimmings by taping them to the 
tops of all grey
boxes so the fans made them stream upwards.  If you saw one down, the fan had 
failed - call
your friendly CE.

We gave CEs free parking spots, free canteen meals, free coffee.  Never had to 
look far for
one.

-- 
  Phil Payne
  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
  +44 7833 654 800

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Roger Bowler]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:57:27 -0400, William Donzelli wrote:
>There are a few machines from circa 1960 still in working condition,
>including CHM's 1401 system.

Paul Pierce seems to have some interesting stuff:
http://www.piercefuller.com/collect/index.html

Regards,
Roger Bowler
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler
Hercules "the people's mainframe"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:52:22 -0400, William Donzelli wrote:

>> That doesn't make sense.
>> How would you manage time-outs and other events sensitive to the passage of 
>> time?
>
>Programmable one-shots would work, but that would be disgusting.
>
>I think Sutherland meant the internal clock for pulsing the logic
>circuits, rather than a TOD clock.
>
Did the 1401 have a program timer?  I suspect it relied more on
a technique described by Knuth for a hypothetical computer for
instructional purposes:

...  There is no "tape check" indicator, etc., to cover
exceptional conditions on the peripheral devices.  Any
such condition (e.g. paper jam, unit turned off, out of
tape, etc.) causes the unit to remain busy, a bell rings,
and the skilled computer operator fixes things manually
using ordinary maintenance procedures.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[David Andrews]

On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 14:52 -0400, William Donzelli wrote:
> > That doesn't make sense.
> > How would you manage time-outs and other events sensitive to the passage of 
> > time?
> I think Sutherland meant the internal clock for pulsing the logic
> circuits, rather than a TOD clock.

Yeppers.  Google "ivan sutherland clock" and "I feel lucky".  Sun
Research has several circa-2001 papers on tap that discuss Sutherland's
asynchronous design methodology.

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[William Donzelli]

> That doesn't make sense.
> How would you manage time-outs and other events sensitive to the passage of 
> time?

Programmable one-shots would work, but that would be disgusting.

I think Sutherland meant the internal clock for pulsing the logic
circuits, rather than a TOD clock.

--
Will

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Ted MacNEIL]

>And Ivan Sutherland maintained in an article
published in Scientific American a few years ago that the clock is superfluous 
and detrimental.

That doesn't make sense.
How would you manage time-outs and other events sensitive to the passage of 
time?

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[William Donzelli]

> Will, about 15 years ago I saw one in the (then) new Civilization Museum in
> Ottawa (Canada). Not sure if after 40 years any of these real machines would
> still work reliably enough to run a demo program...

There are a few machines from circa 1960 still in working condition,
including CHM's 1401 system.

Other than mechanical problems with tape units, most faults
encountered during the restoration were dirty contacts and leaky
transistors, I think.

Given enough willpower and talent, even a 709 could be restored.

--
Will

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Andreas F. Geissbuehler]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:57:54 -0400, William Donzelli 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>* One did get sold on Ebay several years back, out of Germany. It is
>now at the Computer History Museum.

Will, about 15 years ago I saw one in the (then) new Civilization Museum in 
Ottawa (Canada). Not sure if after 40 years any of these real machines would 
still work reliably enough to run a demo program...

Andreas F. Geissbuehler
AFG Consultants Inc.
http://www.afgc-inc.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[William Donzelli]

> There is probably something here I am missing, but this sounds like
> pure and (not so) simple fun to me.  Hobby work.  It reminds me of
> the "GlowWorms"** groups where people work with vacuum tube
> radios.

Yes, pure and simple fun is correct. There are now more than a few of
us that enjoy fiddling around with older machines, just to see how it
was before Windows took over the world. The 1401 series was an
important machine, and there are a few of us that would certainly like
to get a real one, but none are to be found*. A simulator is the only
way to go.

* One did get sold on Ebay several years back, out of Germany. It is
now at the Computer History Museum.

** "Glowbugs", actually - it is a group specific to very low power
tube ham transmitters and receivers.

--
Will

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[William Donzelli]

> And Ivan Sutherland maintained in an article published in Scientific
> American a few years ago that the clock is superfluous and detrimental.

In the ideal world, yes, they are.

In the real world, however, clock signals are an extremely effective
way of maintaining stability in a digital system, as the analog world
and human engineering flaws creep in. A few firms tried making
asynchronous designs, perhaps the best known were DECs PDP-6 and KA-10
processors, but they learned that noise, uneven speeds of the logic
circuits, and race conditions make design very difficult - and
servicing a sick machine even worse.

--
Will

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Andreas F. Geissbuehler]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:32:57 -0600, Britz, Anton - CO 7th 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>So my conclusion with all these simulators/Hercules etc is that it is
>because we have a lot of bored and confused MVS/zOs System programmers
>that wants to make the whole world speak IBM.

Zillions of humans do drive automobiles and don't really understand what's 
under the hood. Never mind the zillions of users, tens of thousands 
of "computer professionals" / computer specialists write programs for 
computers and do not -- and need not -- understad how a computer really 
works. And like you, they could't care less!

Anton, below that surface on which you live and work, there is an absolutely 
fascinating world. In some ways like honing and tuning an engine and then 
taking the car out onto the race track.

A select group derives great satisfaction from exercising ultimate control over 
a computer. Some do this for a living after many years of learning, 
supplemented by years of hands-on work. Others do it for pleasure, writing 
kernels, interrupt handlers, debating weather it should be an XR, an SR or an 
SLR that clears a register. 

Just as a by the way: To write programs, the 1401 was an amazingly simple 
computer. It wasn't as intimidating as a 360 or an Intel 8080. It is a great 
machine for teaching "Assembly Language Programming" basics (except for the 
3 index registers there are no user addressable registers or adders, and no 
IOS). 

Andreas F. Geissbuehler
AFG Consultants Inc.
http://www.afgc-inc.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:45:55 -0500, Chase, John wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Warner Mach
>>
>> Anyone who finds it amazing that someone would bring up a
>> 1401 simulator under Hercules "just for the heck of it"
>> should check out this site where the gentleman built an
>> entire computer using relays:
>>
>> http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/Relay/index.html
>
>Reduced to its essence, a computer is nothing more than a vast array of
>switches and a clock.
>
And Ivan Sutherland maintained in an article published in Scientific
American a few years ago that the clock is superfluous and detrimental.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Chase, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Warner Mach
> 
> Anyone who finds it amazing that someone would bring up a 
> 1401 simulator under Hercules "just for the heck of it" 
> should check out this site where the gentleman built an 
> entire computer using relays:
> 
> http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/Relay/index.html

Reduced to its essence, a computer is nothing more than a vast array of
switches and a clock.

-jc-

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Warner Mach]

Anyone who finds it amazing that someone would bring up a 1401 simulator
under Hercules "just for the heck of it" should check out this site
where the gentleman built an entire computer using relays:

http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/Relay/index.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Patrick O'Keefe]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:32:57 -0600, Britz, Anton - CO 7th
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>...
>I am still not sure why anybody would want to run an IBM operating
>system on a PC.
>
>The only possible reason is "Commercial Software" written for the IBM
>operating System , that you want to port to a PC platform ...

If you know that is the only possible reason then you don't need to ask, 
do you?  But perhaps you've realized there may be other reasons.

>...
>So my conclusion with all these simulators/Hercules etc is that it is
>because we have a lot of bored and confused MVS/zOs System programmers
>that wants to make the whole world speak IBM.
>...

I don't know what all you are grouping together in "all these
simulators/Hercules etc".  The topic of this thread "1401 simulator
for OS/360" is quite different than the other non-Hercules PC-based
OS/360, 370, 390, z/OS packages that have been discussed or wished
for here.  There is no commercial value in this simulator.   There is little
educational value (that I can see) other than an example developing
a simulator of one set of hardware on another.  And why look beyond
Hercules itself for that?)

There is probably something here I am missing, but this sounds like
pure and (not so) simple fun to me.  Hobby work.  It reminds me of 
the "GlowWorms" groups where people work with vacuum tube 
radios.

"... bored and confused ..."?  Sounds more like people that enjoy their
kind of work so much that they can do it for fun.

And it sounds like that is a foreign concept to you.  If so, it's your loss.

Pat O'Keefe

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Roger Bowler]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:24:17 -0500, Rafa Pereira wrote:
>Maybe off topic but some of you my be interested in this: I have done some
>tests with the 1401 simulator for OS/360 by William Wilcox, on Hercules:
>http://perso.wanadoo.es/rptv2005/ibm1401/en/sim1401.html
>I have never worked with 1401 or OS/360, so comments and corrections are
>welcome.

This is a truly excellent piece of work which deserves to be archived on
bitsavers or something so that it is not lost to posterity.

Regards,
Roger Bowler
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler
Hercules "the people's mainframe"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
09/04/2007
   at 09:32 AM, "Britz, Anton - CO 7th" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>I am still not sure why anybody would want to run an IBM operating system
>on a PC.

Perhaps they're not as rich as you are.

>but these days, the same "Commercial Software" on a mainframe, 
>is available for the small/midsize platforms.

FSVO small/midsize much more expensive than a PC.

>So my conclusion with all these simulators/Hercules etc is that it is
>because we have a lot of bored and confused MVS/zOs System programmers

Well, somebody is confused.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Thompson, Steve]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Britz, Anton - CO 7th
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

Hi,

I am still not sure why anybody would want to run an IBM operating
system on a PC.

The only possible reason is "Commercial Software" written for the IBM
operating System , that you want to port to a PC platform but these
days, the same "Commercial Software" on a mainframe, is available for
the small/midsize platforms.

So my conclusion with all these simulators/Hercules etc is that it is
because we have a lot of bored and confused MVS/zOs System programmers
that wants to make the whole world speak IBM.


Because it allows them to develop software, or run/test software that
requires S/3xx architecture, or z/Arch, without having to purchase IBM's
hardware.

You are a bit off on your assertion with the "only possible reason". At
this point, IBM has pulled the ability of persons to do development on
cheap sanctioned computing platforms. So Hercules allows that
development to be done. Then that software can be moved, at a later
point, to an actual mainframe.

Some of these sysprogs even get involved in the support of Herc, and so
learn things about hardware functions controlled by micro-code, and so
get a much better feel for how things are done/should be done. It
improves their understanding.

Me thinks that your conclusion(s) is a bit jaded. It might be that VM,
VSE, VS1, etc. programmers may want the rest of the world to stop
thinking that rebooting solves 99% of the problems. Well, in my case,
rebooting to Linux fixed the Windoze problems...

Therefore, my conclusion is that you are a Jedi-Knight. 

Regards,
Steve Thompson

Opinions expressed by poster are strictly those of the poster and do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of posters employer.

--

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Rich Smrcina]

Britz, Anton - CO 7th wrote:


So my conclusion with all these simulators/Hercules etc is that it is
because we have a lot of bored and confused MVS/zOs System programmers
that wants to make the whole world speak IBM.


And what's wrong with that?



Note: Did you see the IBM adverts between all the College Football/US
open tennis this weekend ?  Did you see what they are trying to sell you
.. Nothing to do with mainframes, mainframe operating systems etc. 


So what were they selling?  For those of us not watching College 
Football all weekend... :)


--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2008 - Chattanooga - April 18-22, 2008

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: 1401 simulator for OS/360

[Britz, Anton - CO 7th]

Hi,

I am still not sure why anybody would want to run an IBM operating
system on a PC.

The only possible reason is "Commercial Software" written for the IBM
operating System , that you want to port to a PC platform but these
days, the same "Commercial Software" on a mainframe, is available for
the small/midsize platforms.

So my conclusion with all these simulators/Hercules etc is that it is
because we have a lot of bored and confused MVS/zOs System programmers
that wants to make the whole world speak IBM.

Note: Did you see the IBM adverts between all the College Football/US
open tennis this weekend ?  Did you see what they are trying to sell you
.. Nothing to do with mainframes, mainframe operating systems etc. 

Anton 
 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rafa Pereira
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: 1401 simulator for OS/360

Hi all,

Maybe off topic but some of you my be interested in this: I have done
some tests with the 1401 simulator for OS/360 by William Wilcox, on
Hercules:

http://perso.wanadoo.es/rptv2005/ibm1401/en/sim1401.html

I have never worked with 1401 or OS/360, so comments and corrections are
welcome.

Regards.

Rafa.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search
the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
The information contained in this email may be privileged, confidential or 
otherwise protected from disclosure.  All persons are advised that they may 
face penalties under state and federal law for sharing this information with 
unauthorized individuals.  If you received this email in error, please reply to 
the sender that you have received this information in error.  Also, please 
delete this email after replying to the sender.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

1401 simulator for OS/360

[Rafa Pereira]

Hi all,

Maybe off topic but some of you my be interested in this: I have done some
tests with the 1401 simulator for OS/360 by William Wilcox, on Hercules:

http://perso.wanadoo.es/rptv2005/ibm1401/en/sim1401.html

I have never worked with 1401 or OS/360, so comments and corrections are
welcome.

Regards.

Rafa.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html