Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 10:11 PM, Brian L. Stuart via cctalk wrote: On Wed, 11/15/17, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: PDP-5 and LINC certainly fit that requirement. Funny the LINC should come up tonight. Earlier this evening I went to a talk given by Mary Allen Wilkes who was

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On Wed, 11/15/17, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > PDP-5 and LINC certainly fit that requirement. Funny the LINC should come up tonight. Earlier this evening I went to a talk given by Mary Allen Wilkes who was the developer of the system software for the LINC. She had one

Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)

On 11/15/2017 09:13 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: On 2017-11-15 10:07 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each

Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)

On 2017-11-15 10:07 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays??  HA, they had auto-style

Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)

On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays?? HA, they had auto-style CIGARETTE LIGHTERS BUILT INTO the "radar screen"

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 02:12 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were designed to be used at a much more personal

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 01:13 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business. Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers

Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)

> On Nov 15, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: > > > Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the > same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. With all of the possibly apocryphal stories of

Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)

> On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > On 11/15/2017 02:39 PM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > >> Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of >> the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very >>

Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)

On 11/15/2017 02:39 PM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of > the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very > expensive, and required a lot of support -- that meant special > power, air conditioning, raised

"Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)

I wrote: >> While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending >> on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were >> designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale >> mainframe machines housed in the glass-walled rooms where only

RE: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending > on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were > designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale > mainframe machines

RE: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

From: Rick Bensene Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:59 AM Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote: >> Yes, 1968-1973 had time-sharing for personal computing, but not "personal >> computers" > While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending on who > is using the term, these machines,

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending > on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were > designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale > mainframe machines

RE: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote: >Yes, 1968-1973 had time-sharing for personal computing, but not "personal computers" We tend to forget about earlier "personal" computers...machines that were generally designed for one individual to be able to sit down and use interactively. That isn't to say that said

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 11:18 AM, Alan Perry via cctalk wrote: > Burroughs > UNIVAC > NCR > CDC > Honeywell Ah, so post-Snow White. --Chuck

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/17 11:13 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business. Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous for this.  Honeywell made a LOT of computers

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business.  > Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous > for this.  Honeywell made a LOT of computers in various forms - > aerospace, minicomputer,

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/15/2017 09:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: but because of Honeywell's incompetence at the computer business. (That incompetence eventually resulted in a decision - probably correct from the _business_ point of view, given said incompetence - to get out of the computer business.)

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

> From: Ben Franchuk > Multics never really made it out of the lab. This 'bogo-meme' (to use a word I coined) is, well, totally flat wrong. Multics was a reasonably successful product for Honeywell from the end of 1972 (when the H6180 was introduced) to around 1987 (when they stopped

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:58 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk > wrote: > > On 11/14/2017 11:20 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in >> architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably >> strike

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/14/2017 8:37 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ben via cctalk wrote: Computer Science seems to be mostly developed in the 1968 - 1973 time frame by average people with access with a (personal) computer with about 32K of memory. We could use some clarification of

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/14/2017 09:10 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: I think the 360 marked the change from hardware-driven development to software-driven. The 'arcane' architectures would have maximised performance for a given amount of hardware, and programmers were relatively cheap. But the 360 reversed that,

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/14/2017 11:20 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably strike the average reader of today as being arcane, what with sign-magnitude representation, subtractive

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ben via cctalk wrote: Computer Science seems to be mostly developed in the 1968 - 1973 time frame by average people with access with a (personal) computer with about 32K of memory. We could use some clarification of your terminology. Because MOST people do not consider

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

I think the 360 marked the change from hardware-driven development to software-driven. The 'arcane' architectures would have maximised performance for a given amount of hardware, and programmers were relatively cheap. But the 360 reversed that, hardware was now cheap and didn't need to work at

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 14/11/17 18:20, Chuck Guzis via cctech wrote: It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably strike the average reader of today as being arcane, what with sign-magnitude representation, subtractive index

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably strike the average reader of today as being arcane, what with sign-magnitude representation, subtractive index registers and so on. The 7080, probably even more so.

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Al Kossow via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On 11/14/17 6:16 AM, william degnan via cctalk wrote: > > Following top post of this reply... > > > > There is a doc called 709-7090 General Information Manual D22-6508, > which I > > don't see in

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/14/17 6:16 AM, william degnan via cctalk wrote: > Following top post of this reply... > > There is a doc called 709-7090 General Information Manual D22-6508, which I > don't see in bitsavers (I don't have). we have it http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102663993 I'll

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Camiel > Vanderhoeven via cctech > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:01 AM > To: Noel Chiappa; cctech; cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers > > Have you really looked at everything that is on B

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

ocument. Thank you IBM Customer Engineering! >> >> -Original Message- >> From: cctech [mailto:cctech-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Camiel >> Vanderhoeven via cctech >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:01 AM >> To: Noel Chiappa; cctech; cctalk@clas

RE: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

IBM's early 'scientific' computers Have you really looked at everything that is on Bitsavers? It¹s much more than just the engineering manuals. If I may offer a suggestion, have a look at this document and see if it fits your needs: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7090/ce/223-6895

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

Have you really looked at everything that is on Bitsavers? It¹s much more than just the engineering manuals. If I may offer a suggestion, have a look at this document and see if it fits your needs: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7090/ce/223-6895-1_7090_CE_Reference_Syste

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/13/2017 09:32 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: Please, everyone, I do actually know of BitSavers; you don't need to point me at it. When I said: >> I could look at the engineering manuals, but I was hoping for something >> in between them and Bashe et al. I assumed everyone

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

Please, everyone, I do actually know of BitSavers; you don't need to point me at it. When I said: >> I could look at the engineering manuals, but I was hoping for something >> in between them and Bashe et al. I assumed everyone would understand that by "engineering manuals", I was

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

On 11/13/2017 01:23 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: So, I was trying to find info about the early IBM 709/7090/7094 computers, but when I went to what is supposedly the authoritative work on these computers (among others): Charles J. Bashe, Lyle R. Johnson, John H. Palmer, Emerson W.

Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

What are you looking for ? Have you checked bitsavers http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7090/ and the subdirectory http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7090/ce/ for the 7094 there is even more detail http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7094/ce/ -pete On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Noel

Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers

So, I was trying to find info about the early IBM 709/7090/7094 computers, but when I went to what is supposedly the authoritative work on these computers (among others): Charles J. Bashe, Lyle R. Johnson, John H. Palmer, Emerson W. Pugh, "IBM's Early Computers", MIT Press, Cambridge, 1986