IEBPTPCH oddity

[Howard Brazee]

Doing some more IEBPTPCH clean-up.

We have an old job that copies printed output from tape to print.

The proc is:
//TEBC   PROC PRTM1='(A,,941S),FCB=941S,DEST=CENTRAL,COPIES=1'
//TEBC#1 EXEC PGM=IEBPTPCH *** PRINT SPOOL
TAPE 
//SYSIN  DD DSN=UMS.PROD.DATA(PREFORMA),DISP=SHR //SYSUT1 DD
DSN=&DSN,UNIT=TAPE,DISP=(OLD,KEEP),VOL=SER=&TAPE //SYSUT2 DD
SYSOUT=&PRTM1 //SYSPRINT   DD SYSOUT=* 

Trouble is, the output appears to be wider than the printer, double
spacing the printing, and getting TOF after two pages.

I tried changing the SYSIN from
 PRINT PREFORM=A
to 
 PRINT PREFORM=M 
that wasn't it.

So I replaced the IEBPTPCH with an ICEGENER, and the output printed
out correctly.

I have no idea how long this has been wrong.   I wonder if it might
have worked correctly for a while until some OS upgrade broke it.

--
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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Howard Brazee]

I'm guessing it may have always been bad.   I added a LRECL=133 and
the job ran fine.   My old documentation shows that IEBPTCH defaults
to 121 characters (why?).

I have no idea why users never let us know the report was like that.

--
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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Ed Gould]

Howard,

A *LONG* time ago in an MF environment a 121 print position printer  
was needed for a minimal install environment.


Ed

On Nov 27, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:


I'm guessing it may have always been bad.   I added a LRECL=133 and
the job ran fine.   My old documentation shows that IEBPTCH defaults
to 121 characters (why?).

I have no idea why users never let us know the report was like that.

--
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


--
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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Tim Hare]

If they're like our users, they no longer use the report but just don't 
bother to tell us. Someone dutifully files it on a shelf, because they 
"don't know what that report is for, but the IT guys send it every week "

Tim Hare
Senior Systems Programmer
Florida Department of Transportation
(850) 414-4209


> I have no idea how long this has been wrong. 

>I have no idea why users never let us know the report was like that.

--
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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Howard Brazee]

On 28 Nov 2006 06:48:35 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>If they're like our users, they no longer use the report but just don't 
>bother to tell us. Someone dutifully files it on a shelf, because they 
>"don't know what that report is for, but the IT guys send it every week "

These guys rarely print out the report, but sometimes use it - it
helps them determine what's wrong with a related program.

Funny wrapping doesn't bother them as much on-line, especially for the
shorter wrapped lines that appear as double spaced - with page count
and page headers every other page.

Which is a phenomenon that moves reports the other direction. Instead
of changing reports from 121 to 133 characters, change them to 80
characters to make it easier for them to browse them on-line.

Or, of course, making them downloadable.   It appears that the
downloadable Office or Crystal Reports versions are being replaced by
XML in a Web centric world.

--
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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Hal Merritt]

Two possibilities. One, they think that's how the report is supposed to
look. Two, no one looks at the report and no one is willing to take the
responsibility to ask that it be stopped. 

 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IEBPTPCH oddity

I'm guessing it may have always been bad.   I added a LRECL=133 and
the job ran fine.   My old documentation shows that IEBPTCH defaults
to 121 characters (why?).

I have no idea why users never let us know the report was like that.

 
NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are 
intended exclusively
for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together 
with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, 
disclosure 
or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
error, please immediately
advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies.

--
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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/27/2006
   at 07:33 PM, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>A *LONG* time ago in an MF environment a 121 print position printer  
>was needed for a minimal install environment.

120.
 
-- 
 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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Ed Gould]

On Dec 16, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:


In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/27/2006
   at 07:33 PM, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:


A *LONG* time ago in an MF environment a 121 print position printer
was needed for a minimal install environment.


120.


Shmoel:

Of course you are right the first position being a printer control  
character.


For a secondary question was the 144 (143?) character printer called  
a 1443 or ?


Ed
 


--
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: IEBPTPCH oddity

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12/17/2006
   at 01:26 PM, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Shmoel:

That's Shmuel!

>For a secondary question was the 144 (143?) character printer called 
> a 1443 or ?

144 print positionss; LRECL=145 for FB{A|M} and 149 for VB{A|M}; 1443
sounds right. For background, and device with a 14xx model number was
originally[1] sold for use on a 14xx/7010 machine, any device with a
2xxx model number was originally sold for use on a S/360 system and
any device with a 3xxx model number was originally sold for use on a
S/370 system. In later years I started seeing devices that deviate
from the old numbering rules.

[1] But may have been more common on the 70xx systems than on the
1401, 1410, 1440, 1460 and 7010.
 
-- 
 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