1401 as full processor was Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
[Default] On 1 Jan 2019 21:58:00 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main bruce_hew...@hotmail.com (Bruce Hewson) wrote: >and for those who have no real idea about the IBM1401 Back in the early to mid 1960s the site I was working at had a 1401 that ran an order entry system that used 1311 disks. The product, customer and other direct access files were on the disks. The invoices were printed and a tape with billing information was written. The input was cards converted from paper tapes fed by the various warehouses and shipping documents were punched out to be split by warehouse and sent to the warehouses by dedicated keypunches that could teletype the orders to warehouses (special modification done by the person who became my boss). It took about 3 hours from entry of order to shipment. This was first replaced by 360/30 with 1401 emulation that ran the 1401 emulation and a very stripped version of QTAM so the card input that the 1401 program saw was actually input from QTAM and the punched card output became direct transmissions to the field. The 1401 direct access files became 360 ISAM files on 2311s. Clark Morris > >watch this YouTube video > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQueCt114Gk > >Regards >Bruce Hewson > >-- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
and for those who have no real idea about the IBM1401 watch this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQueCt114Gk Regards Bruce Hewson -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
On 12/27/18 11:36 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 08:28:07 -0500, Mark Regan wrote: > >> https://www.computerworld.com/article/3330396/application-development/situation-normal-all-fudged-up.html >> > Did I miss something? Did it describe the "one adjustment," on the "One card" > that he added? Would it be obvious if I were familiar with 1401 operations? > > Regardless, if was so easy I'd call their security lax. > > -- gil Probably not related to 1401 operations so much as unit-record. The obvious thought from typical unit-record processing is that each card corresponded to a unit and the number of personnel in the unit. The totals were surmised to be in error because 55 people in secret positions in unknown units had been deliberately omitted -- in other words, bad data with no way to "fix" it because correct data was no doubt classified. Pick one card for one unit, add 55 people to the count for that unit, now totals across all units magically agree with the total persons known to be in country. Officer who made impossible report request now satisfied. No serious breach in security -- data already known to be in error now just in error in slightly different way. I can't speak for today's military, but in the late 1960's Army the main purpose of many reports was to give the illusion of precision and that proper procedures were always being followed; but many routine reports were just routinely signed and filed, and even some that were not so routine were occasionally deliberately fudged for good reasons. I recall in particular one monthly "Fire Marshal" report where an undetected typo caused it to indicate we had acquired some serious fire hazards, and that typo was propagated from the carbon copy for several months before we realized the error and corrected the next submitted report. No one upstream ever complained about our fire hazards -- the reports were obviously assumed to confirm "good" inspections and were filed away un-read. Joel C. Ewing -- Joel C. Ewing -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
All I can say is computers, Mainframe and PC have changed so much, who can keep up. I am kinda there now, Java Java is all I hear and no IBM z type projects. Time moves on.. Scott On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > Well, I started on a 650, but I once saw a post here from Werner Buchholz; > you don't get much old timer than that. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > of scott Ford > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 4:44 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > Boy I thought I was an old timer, BAL on a 360-20 ...I feel better, > your..lol > > Scott > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:37 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > I never mentioned the Altos; you did. > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > > of Wayne Bickerdike > > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:41 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > tank > > > > "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's > not > > a mainframe, nor is the 1401." > > > > I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? > > > > I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So > my > > memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. > > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > > If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's > > not > > > a mainframe, nor is the 1401. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf > > > of Wayne Bickerdike > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > > tank > > > > > > Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion > about > > > what constitutes a mainframe? > > > > > > The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the > > Cromemco > > > System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the > mainframe, > > > the demise of which was imminent. LOL. > > > > > > Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a > > > mainframe:) > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > > > > > > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > > > > > > > > > > http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > > > > . > > > > > > > > > it appears to have the only > > > > > > > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called > > it > > > a > > > > mainframe? > > > > > > > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were > certainly > > > > regarded as a mainframe. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > > > > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > > > > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army > > 1969-1971 > > > > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of > > "The > > > > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came > > down > > > > > f
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
Well, I started on a 650, but I once saw a post here from Werner Buchholz; you don't get much old timer than that. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of scott Ford Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 4:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank Boy I thought I was an old timer, BAL on a 360-20 ...I feel better, your..lol Scott On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:37 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > I never mentioned the Altos; you did. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > of Wayne Bickerdike > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:41 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's not > a mainframe, nor is the 1401." > > I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? > > I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So my > memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's > not > > a mainframe, nor is the 1401. > > > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > ____________________ > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > > of Wayne Bickerdike > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > tank > > > > Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about > > what constitutes a mainframe? > > > > The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the > Cromemco > > System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, > > the demise of which was imminent. LOL. > > > > Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a > > mainframe:) > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > > > > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > > > > > > http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > > > . > > > > > > > it appears to have the only > > > > > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called > it > > a > > > mainframe? > > > > > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > > > regarded as a mainframe. > > > > > > > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > > > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army > 1969-1971 > > > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of > "The > > > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came > down > > > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, > > > > > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > > > > > -- > > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf > > > of Joel C. Ewing > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > > tank > > > > > &
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
Boy I thought I was an old timer, BAL on a 360-20 ...I feel better, your..lol Scott On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:37 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > I never mentioned the Altos; you did. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > of Wayne Bickerdike > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:41 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's not > a mainframe, nor is the 1401." > > I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? > > I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So my > memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's > not > > a mainframe, nor is the 1401. > > > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > ________________ > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > > of Wayne Bickerdike > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > tank > > > > Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about > > what constitutes a mainframe? > > > > The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the > Cromemco > > System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, > > the demise of which was imminent. LOL. > > > > Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a > > mainframe:) > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > > > > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > > > > > > http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > > > . > > > > > > > it appears to have the only > > > > > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called > it > > a > > > mainframe? > > > > > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > > > regarded as a mainframe. > > > > > > > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > > > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army > 1969-1971 > > > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of > "The > > > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came > down > > > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, > > > > > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > > > > > -- > > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf > > > of Joel C. Ewing > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > > tank > > > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > > > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > > > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > > > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > > > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > > &g
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
I never mentioned the Altos; you did. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's not a mainframe, nor is the 1401." I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So my memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's not > a mainframe, nor is the 1401. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > of Wayne Bickerdike > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about > what constitutes a mainframe? > > The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the Cromemco > System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, > the demise of which was imminent. LOL. > > Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a > mainframe:) > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > > > http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > > . > > > > > it appears to have the only > > > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called it > a > > mainframe? > > > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > > regarded as a mainframe. > > > > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, > > > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > > of Joel C. Ewing > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > tank > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, > > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the > > size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > Ros
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
Look at the date on that; it's revisionist history. You won't find any contemporaneous documents referring to the 1401 as a mainframe. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank Even IBM are confusing: IBM 1401: The Mainframe https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tXx7lvP7_-qQ4_0fpJWQlfLcb9u2Q7d9RdP4of0wfOC6mDgMJUjUutIIbHwBmHWUeHLYjBGBjNmFYMLDLIfsW_cEcanP6CR88t3CV4ksCmMZBpHXMXxXYYkiEpCLO9LDY83kKgrq_RoklCchjzdM1yv-nUoa0vu4Wz3QgXRCd63n-TGvN5Ie4rJpDfGaPIR2ycDTh9EF4d9k61iSqSE7fckTAAkzDCkn9HGgmvaZ-o1r3DFti6wHmeeKg4i3itcf3nq-qB6gfYDxIJqg8oXpu7MeOdXxy-5MmIsG73-SyH5aR1NXBSGM1a2HfJwpdj6Uo-MExgkCd7o-_txboBKFq53jyolH9NmG63Gv483lxcbML23igRCkxNkIXh4WbmpQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fibm%2Fhistory%2Fibm100%2Fus%2Fen%2Ficons%2Fmainframe%2F On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:41 AM Wayne Bickerdike wrote: > "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's > not a mainframe, nor is the 1401." > > I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? > > I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So my > memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > >> If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's >> not a mainframe, nor is the 1401. >> >> >> -- >> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >> >> >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf >> of Wayne Bickerdike >> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >> tank >> >> Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about >> what constitutes a mainframe? >> >> The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the >> Cromemco >> System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, >> the demise of which was imminent. LOL. >> >> Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a >> mainframe:) >> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: >> >> > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; >> > >> > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in >> > >> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf >> > . >> > >> > > it appears to have the only >> > >> > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called >> it a >> > mainframe? >> > >> > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly >> > regarded as a mainframe. >> > >> > >> > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but >> > never the 1440 or 1460. >> > >> > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army >> 1969-1971 >> > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The >> > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came >> down >> > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a >> > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company >> > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, >> > >> > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. >> > >> > -- >> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >> > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >> > >> > >> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on >> behalf >> > of Joel C. Ewing >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM >> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >> tank >>
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
On a roll here... They weren't hyphenated either. Z80 and S100. Give me a Z28 anyday. On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:45 AM Wayne Bickerdike wrote: > Even IBM are confusing: > > IBM 1401: The Mainframe > > https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/mainframe/ > > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:41 AM Wayne Bickerdike > wrote: > >> "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's >> not a mainframe, nor is the 1401." >> >> I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? >> >> I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So >> my memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: >> >>> If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's >>> not a mainframe, nor is the 1401. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> >>> ____ >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on >>> behalf of Wayne Bickerdike >>> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >>> tank >>> >>> Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about >>> what constitutes a mainframe? >>> >>> The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the >>> Cromemco >>> System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, >>> the demise of which was imminent. LOL. >>> >>> Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a >>> mainframe:) >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> >>> > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; >>> > >>> > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in >>> > >>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf >>> > . >>> > >>> > > it appears to have the only >>> > >>> > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called >>> it a >>> > mainframe? >>> > >>> > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly >>> > regarded as a mainframe. >>> > >>> > >>> > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but >>> > never the 1440 or 1460. >>> > >>> > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army >>> 1969-1971 >>> > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of >>> "The >>> > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came >>> down >>> > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a >>> > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company >>> > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, >>> > >>> > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> > >>> > >>> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on >>> behalf >>> > of Joel C. Ewing >>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM >>> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >>> tank >>> > >>> > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the >>> > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") >>> > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM >>> > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pret
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
Even IBM are confusing: IBM 1401: The Mainframe https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/mainframe/ On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:41 AM Wayne Bickerdike wrote: > "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's > not a mainframe, nor is the 1401." > > I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? > > I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So my > memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > >> If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's >> not a mainframe, nor is the 1401. >> >> >> -- >> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >> >> >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf >> of Wayne Bickerdike >> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >> tank >> >> Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about >> what constitutes a mainframe? >> >> The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the >> Cromemco >> System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, >> the demise of which was imminent. LOL. >> >> Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a >> mainframe:) >> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: >> >> > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; >> > >> > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in >> > >> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf >> > . >> > >> > > it appears to have the only >> > >> > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called >> it a >> > mainframe? >> > >> > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly >> > regarded as a mainframe. >> > >> > >> > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but >> > never the 1440 or 1460. >> > >> > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army >> 1969-1971 >> > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The >> > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came >> down >> > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a >> > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company >> > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, >> > >> > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. >> > >> > -- >> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >> > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >> > >> > >> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on >> behalf >> > of Joel C. Ewing >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM >> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >> tank >> > >> > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the >> > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") >> > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM >> > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any >> > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was >> > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, >> > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the >> > size of a single rack and could even be carried. >> > >> > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 >> > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The >> > Old Guard
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
"If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's not a mainframe, nor is the 1401." I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So my memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's not > a mainframe, nor is the 1401. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > of Wayne Bickerdike > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about > what constitutes a mainframe? > > The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the Cromemco > System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, > the demise of which was imminent. LOL. > > Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a > mainframe:) > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > > > http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > > . > > > > > it appears to have the only > > > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called it > a > > mainframe? > > > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > > regarded as a mainframe. > > > > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, > > > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > > of Joel C. Ewing > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > tank > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, > > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the > > size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the > > time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been > > done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I > > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more > > man-hours of manually
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's not a mainframe, nor is the 1401. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about what constitutes a mainframe? The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the Cromemco System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, the demise of which was imminent. LOL. Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a mainframe:) On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > . > > > it appears to have the only > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called it a > mainframe? > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > regarded as a mainframe. > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > ________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the > size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the > time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been > done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more > man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names changed, > but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been > no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but slow > down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at > that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for > tracking military personnel. > Joel C. Ewing > > On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf of Mark Regan > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM &
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
I only waiting for a reply from Statler and Waldorf... (grump, grump). Kees. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of scott Ford Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 18:43 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank I helped convert from a System 3 to a 4361 On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 10:21 PM Wayne Bickerdike wrote: > Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion > about what constitutes a mainframe? > > The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the > Cromemco System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from > the mainframe, the demise of which was imminent. LOL. > > Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a > mainframe:) > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > > > http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/1401/A24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64 > .pdf > > . > > > > > it appears to have the only > > > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have > > called it > a > > mainframe? > > > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were > > > certainly > > regarded as a mainframe. > > > > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, > > but never the 1440 or 1460. > > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army > > > 1969-1971 (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk > > > at HHC of "The Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some > > > memo that came down from above the Battalion suggesting the > > > possibility of using a punched-card-based system for maintaining > > > and producing our Company Roster. That might have involved an IBM > > > 1401, > > > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > > behalf of Joel C. Ewing > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld > > Shark > tank > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came > > out, they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically > > only the size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army > > 1969-1971 (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at > > HHC of "The Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo > > that came down from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility > > of using a punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing > > our Company Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my > > impression at the time was that the functions they were describing > > could easily have been done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever > > came of it while I > > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more > > man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names > > changed, but given that our time was cheap and available, there > > would have been no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our > > time but slow > > down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at > > that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for > > tracking military personnel. > > Joel C. Ewing > > > > On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > > behalf of Mark Regan >
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
I helped convert from a System 3 to a 4361 On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 10:21 PM Wayne Bickerdike wrote: > Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about > what constitutes a mainframe? > > The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the Cromemco > System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, > the demise of which was imminent. LOL. > > Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a > mainframe:) > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > > > http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/1401/A24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > > . > > > > > it appears to have the only > > > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called it > a > > mainframe? > > > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > > regarded as a mainframe. > > > > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, > > > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > > of Joel C. Ewing > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark > tank > > > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, > > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the > > size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the > > time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been > > done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I > > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more > > man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names changed, > > but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been > > no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but slow > > down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at > > that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for > > tracking military personnel. > > Joel C. Ewing > > > > On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > > behalf of Mark Regan > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > > > > > > > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about what constitutes a mainframe? The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the Cromemco System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, the demise of which was imminent. LOL. Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a mainframe:) On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; > > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in > http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/1401/A24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf > . > > > it appears to have the only > > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called it a > mainframe? > > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > regarded as a mainframe. > > > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but > never the 1440 or 1460. > > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, > > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf > of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the > size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the > time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been > done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more > man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names changed, > but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been > no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but slow > down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at > that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for > tracking military personnel. > Joel C. Ewing > > On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf of Mark Regan > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > > > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q10YPvrxhvPVeFvR6IYMhBl0Po4k4-03fXnkJSammKYm3lrjMJyX4f-lcp9YlEt59dyzYTF_at6wT-i9VPdyfHx5DVlOyFFEzAQxZe-ifUcS7uOAE70lUB6w6ZfwDLRp9vhqQVEaCVSjXFSY0F4a2YhM92FII0XRqIAu4y7yW4Iop4TXQVM-iMQuqleDME3jgueepL3jXWQ797SaO4hRpNph47Gl9FOTKIqwIXeAe2DNqPGTQMlRexhctM6zHXZYT2EbywHPaw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3330396%2Fapplication-development%2Fsituation-normal-all-fudged-up.html > > > > ... > > > > -- > Joel C. Ewing > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu wi
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
> Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/1401/A24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf. > it appears to have the only If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called it a mainframe? > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly > regarded as a mainframe. The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but never the 1440 or 1460. > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, More likely a UNIVAC 1005. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the size of a single rack and could even be carried. With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names changed, but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but slow down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for tracking military personnel. Joel C. Ewing On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of > Mark Regan > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q10YPvrxhvPVeFvR6IYMhBl0Po4k4-03fXnkJSammKYm3lrjMJyX4f-lcp9YlEt59dyzYTF_at6wT-i9VPdyfHx5DVlOyFFEzAQxZe-ifUcS7uOAE70lUB6w6ZfwDLRp9vhqQVEaCVSjXFSY0F4a2YhM92FII0XRqIAu4y7yW4Iop4TXQVM-iMQuqleDME3jgueepL3jXWQ797SaO4hRpNph47Gl9FOTKIqwIXeAe2DNqPGTQMlRexhctM6zHXZYT2EbywHPaw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3330396%2Fapplication-development%2Fsituation-normal-all-fudged-up.html > > ... > -- Joel C. Ewing -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
That page was written in the 21st century, decades after the 1401 was dead. Back in the day, I never heard the 1401 referred to as anything other than a small computer or "tinkertoy". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Joe Monk Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 4:37 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank https://secure-web.cisco.com/1L2raQ-8_G9-SYk2KnILVSKPww9HrRORF069I5Uo84AILQ5FaWTvVGjdotgxI9IaVfTV3OEZzOC0Ul3EKY_IubpP46jSpA0GdrOniDnQe7Oev07YpnJM8CyRxlgHIvqAdg5o_NN3qYvLl1LfFtwSxNjnfpvrpqvXN3U_fgr5pEc9WctnZvyiOdFpRu6-uB3tkgntD7eVoUL8c1aOawCJOS3Qv7GLfpaf0hNZAT50fza14oiDgl_LzqbxxNtoIvZeVT3NgkrEhKRg5s69Hg_sewGG8IHXdGEjaDq2ethkrZ71-HHKVwSowCux51lIH06hi_JHWWUs5qjs5yyR_HGaKY9866HIlP-4M2ek7drNCe1YwxNUCpsZcMT5-L7ox_qZ2/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fibm%2Fhistory%2Fibm100%2Fus%2Fen%2Ficons%2Fmainframe%2F IBM themselves refer to the 1401 as a mainframe Joe On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:56 PM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the > size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the > time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been > done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more > man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names changed, > but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been > no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but slow > down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at > that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for > tracking military personnel. > Joel C. Ewing > > On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf of Mark Regan > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > > > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q10YPvrxhvPVeFvR6IYMhBl0Po4k4-03fXnkJSammKYm3lrjMJyX4f-lcp9YlEt59dyzYTF_at6wT-i9VPdyfHx5DVlOyFFEzAQxZe-ifUcS7uOAE70lUB6w6ZfwDLRp9vhqQVEaCVSjXFSY0F4a2YhM92FII0XRqIAu4y7yW4Iop4TXQVM-iMQuqleDME3jgueepL3jXWQ797SaO4hRpNph47Gl9FOTKIqwIXeAe2DNqPGTQMlRexhctM6zHXZYT2EbywHPaw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3330396%2Fapplication-development%2Fsituation-normal-all-fudged-up.html > > > > ... > > > > -- > Joel C. Ewing > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 08:28:07 -0500, Mark Regan wrote: >https://www.computerworld.com/article/3330396/application-development/situation-normal-all-fudged-up.html > Did I miss something? Did it describe the "one adjustment," on the "One card" that he added? Would it be obvious if I were familiar with 1401 operations? Regardless, if was so easy I'd call their security lax. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
Great history, thanks. Hmm... there's a picture of a 1401 at the Vatican in 1960. Maybe they we're working on "The Nine Billion Names of God" On 12/27/2018 1:37 AM, Joe Monk wrote: https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/mainframe/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/mainframe/ IBM themselves refer to the 1401 as a mainframe Joe On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:56 PM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the > size of a single rack and could even be carried. > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the > time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been > done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more > man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names changed, > but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been > no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but slow > down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at > that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for > tracking military personnel. > Joel C. Ewing > > On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf of Mark Regan > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > > > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q10YPvrxhvPVeFvR6IYMhBl0Po4k4-03fXnkJSammKYm3lrjMJyX4f-lcp9YlEt59dyzYTF_at6wT-i9VPdyfHx5DVlOyFFEzAQxZe-ifUcS7uOAE70lUB6w6ZfwDLRp9vhqQVEaCVSjXFSY0F4a2YhM92FII0XRqIAu4y7yW4Iop4TXQVM-iMQuqleDME3jgueepL3jXWQ797SaO4hRpNph47Gl9FOTKIqwIXeAe2DNqPGTQMlRexhctM6zHXZYT2EbywHPaw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3330396%2Fapplication-development%2Fsituation-normal-all-fudged-up.html > > > > ... > > > > -- > Joel C. Ewing > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came out, they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the size of a single rack and could even be carried. With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army 1969-1971 (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names changed, but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but slow down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for tracking military personnel. Joel C. Ewing On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of > Mark Regan > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q10YPvrxhvPVeFvR6IYMhBl0Po4k4-03fXnkJSammKYm3lrjMJyX4f-lcp9YlEt59dyzYTF_at6wT-i9VPdyfHx5DVlOyFFEzAQxZe-ifUcS7uOAE70lUB6w6ZfwDLRp9vhqQVEaCVSjXFSY0F4a2YhM92FII0XRqIAu4y7yW4Iop4TXQVM-iMQuqleDME3jgueepL3jXWQ797SaO4hRpNph47Gl9FOTKIqwIXeAe2DNqPGTQMlRexhctM6zHXZYT2EbywHPaw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3330396%2Fapplication-development%2Fsituation-normal-all-fudged-up.html > > ... > -- Joel C. Ewing -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank
What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Mark Regan Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark tank https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q10YPvrxhvPVeFvR6IYMhBl0Po4k4-03fXnkJSammKYm3lrjMJyX4f-lcp9YlEt59dyzYTF_at6wT-i9VPdyfHx5DVlOyFFEzAQxZe-ifUcS7uOAE70lUB6w6ZfwDLRp9vhqQVEaCVSjXFSY0F4a2YhM92FII0XRqIAu4y7yW4Iop4TXQVM-iMQuqleDME3jgueepL3jXWQ797SaO4hRpNph47Gl9FOTKIqwIXeAe2DNqPGTQMlRexhctM6zHXZYT2EbywHPaw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3330396%2Fapplication-development%2Fsituation-normal-all-fudged-up.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
