Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

t...@vse2pdf.com (Tony Thigpen) writes: > The 4300 did not come out of Endicott. It was developed in Germany, in > the same lab that developes DOS/VSE. As an undergraduate I do lots of work on cp67 (including to run in 256kbyte machine). The morph of cp67 to vm370, did a lot of simplification of

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

other trivia in the wake of FS and mad rush ... 303x was kicked off ... as mentioned 3033 was 168 logic remapped to 20% faster chips ... that happened to have ten times more circuits per chip. Using original 168 logic, 3033 would have been only 20% faster than 168 (aka 3.6mips). However, some

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

In <87egefr5wr@garlic.com>, on 12/21/2015 at 10:52 AM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler said: >It showed 4341 was faster than 158&3031 Doesn't that depend on whether your benchmark is packed decimal or gloating poin arithmetic? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On 20 Dec 2015 18:15:48 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >In <3555618195553184.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on >12/20/2015 > at 07:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin ><000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> said: > >>On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

jcew...@acm.org (Joel C. Ewing) writes: > No (about the "free", not about the "dead for decades"), DOS/VS was the > last really free base (last version Release 34?). Perhaps technically > DOS/VSE was "free", as there didn't appear to be a monthly licensing > charge for DOS/VSE itself

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

> Endicott did something similar for e-architecture (4331 & 4341) > tailoredfor vs1 The 4300 did not come out of Endicott. It was developed in Germany, in the same lab that developes DOS/VSE. Tony Thigpen Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote on 12/21/2015 03:05 AM: jcew...@acm.org (Joel C. Ewing)

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

No wonder they didn't break. On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: >> Endicott did something similar for e-architecture (4331 & 4341) >> tailoredfor vs1 > > The 4300 did not come out of Endicott. It was developed in Germany, in the > same lab that developes

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Not only the 4300, but also the MP3000, which also did not break. :-) Tony Thigpen Mike Schwab wrote on 12/21/2015 10:36 AM: No wonder they didn't break. On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: Endicott did something similar for e-architecture (4331 & 4341)

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > >>one example explicitly named being VSE/Power versus Power/VS. > >POWER was an addon. > Is VSE without POWER almost, but not quite, entirely unlike OS without JES? -- gil

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

In <3555618195553184.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on 12/20/2015 at 07:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> said: >On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > >>>one example explicitly named being VSE/Power versus Power/VS.

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

In <56773a22.1090...@acm.org>, on 12/20/2015 at 05:30 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" said: >but the ComputerWorld article I referenced said that with DOS/VSE >users started to pay for components that used to be free with IBM >DOS/VS, And you believed them because? >one example

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On 12/20/2015 08:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: one example explicitly named being VSE/Power versus Power/VS. POWER was an addon. Is VSE without POWER almost, but not quite, entirely unlike OS without JES? -- gil

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On 12/20/2015 03:36 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In <56771642.3000...@acm.org>, on 12/20/2015 >at 02:57 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" said: > >> No (about the "free", not about the "dead for decades"), DOS/VS was >> the last really free base (last version Release 34?).

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

In <56771642.3000...@acm.org>, on 12/20/2015 at 02:57 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" said: >No (about the "free", not about the "dead for decades"), DOS/VS was >the last really free base (last version Release 34?). Perhaps >technically DOS/VSE was "free", as there didn't appear to be

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On 12/19/2015 07:48 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In , on 12/18/2015 >at 08:31 PM, Clark Morris said: > >> Are there any current IBM references to DOS/VSE? > DOS/VSE is the old free base, and has been dead for

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Yeah, except PC DOS is more like DPS on a S/360-20. DOS on a S/360-30 was more advanced than PC DOS. Sent from iPhone - small keyboard fat fingers - expect spellinf errots. > On Dec 19, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > But if the comment was made by someone whose

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

But if the comment was made by someone whose education is limited to Intel, he probably is convinced IBM mainframe DOS is equivalent to PC DOS. Joel C. Ewing On 12/18/2015 06:31 PM, Clark Morris wrote: > On 18 Dec 2015 09:44:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > >> Nice, maybe

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

In , on 12/18/2015 at 08:31 PM, Clark Morris said: >Are there any current IBM references to DOS/VSE? DOS/VSE is the old free base, and has been dead for decades. There are probably lots of references to the current

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Obviously misinformed! - -teD -   Original Message   From: Mike Schwab Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 05:21 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: slight reprieve on the z. They are running the LAST IMS MAINFRAME in North America in 2003? Why does IBM

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Cute. The problem is there's nobody there to call bull$h!t or do a fact check. We see this sort of testimony here as well often implying that we are still running an antiquated s/360 that absolutely nobody knows anything about anymore. -- Donald Grinsell State of Montana 406-444-2983

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

it is all about the agenda they are driving. Or the agenda of the subordinate preparing the talking points. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Walter Davies wrote: > Our board of supervisors like to say the mainframe is running on DOS. One > is an ex intel management

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Nice, maybe someone should introduce them to the Mainframe Basics Redbook. On Friday, December 18, 2015 12:42 PM, Walter Davies wrote: Our board of supervisors like to say the mainframe is running on DOS. One is an ex intel management employee. On Fri, Dec

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Our board of supervisors like to say the mainframe is running on DOS. One is an ex intel management employee. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Grinsell, Don wrote: > Cute. The problem is there's nobody there to call bull$h!t or do a fact > check. We see this sort of

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

"My mind is made up -- don't confuse me with facts." Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of william janulin Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: slight repriev

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > "My mind is made up -- don't confuse me with facts." > ​When I got my first job, that was the basic reason. The director of I.T. decided to convert from DOS/VS to OS/VS1 because he was "ashamed" to admit to other

DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On 18 Dec 2015 09:44:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Nice, maybe someone should introduce them to the Mainframe Basics Redbook. > > >On Friday, December 18, 2015 12:42 PM, Walter Davies > wrote: > > > Our board of supervisors like to say the

Re: DOS descendant still lives was Re: slight reprieve on the z.

There are a bunch of us z/VSE customers. Many on bare iron. Many on z/VM. Tony Thigpen Clark Morris wrote on 12/18/2015 07:31 PM: On 18 Dec 2015 09:44:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Nice, maybe someone should introduce them to the Mainframe Basics Redbook. On Friday,

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Just a question Has the customer done any full load testing on the new systems? It reminds me of an incident that happened several years ago. Ken On 12/17/2015 9:29 AM, John McKown wrote: OK, it's not a pardon. The execution is still scheduled. But thanks to cost of the Microfocus

slight reprieve on the z.

OK, it's not a pardon. The execution is still scheduled. But thanks to cost of the Microfocus environment, it has now been decided that the z will be kept (greatly reduced in MSU & usage) until 4Q2016 instead of 2Q2016. This likely means that my boss & I will most likely be kept. The two people in

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

> it has now been decided that the z will be kept (greatly reduced in MSU & > usage) until 4Q2016 Circa 1999 I exchanged emails with someone on this list who was in the 12th year of a five year migration off the mainframe. Y2K extended the migration even farther. Hopefully you will have

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Ken Hume wrote: > Just a question > > Has the customer done any full load testing on the new systems? > ​Well, "phase 1" (new business?) is 98%? complete and acceptable to the end users. The 2% is some "old" business which is complicated

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

Of Bob Shannon Sent: December 17, 2015 09:11 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: slight reprieve on the z. it has now been decided that the z will be kept (greatly reduced in MSU & usage) until 4Q2016 Circa 1999 I exchanged emails with someone on this list who was in the 12th year

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

: slight reprieve on the z. > it has now been decided that the z will be kept (greatly reduced in > MSU & usage) until 4Q2016 Circa 1999 I exchanged emails with someone on this list who was in the 12th year of a five year migration off the mainframe. Y2K extended the migration ev

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

There was another one but can't find it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eJb3Ee8Xmc In a message dated 12/17/2015 6:06:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, gary.ja...@telus.com writes: I just have to share this classic from 2003.

Re: slight reprieve on the z.

w.youtube.com/watch?v=tKgl6e31R50 > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Bob Shannon > Sent: December 17, 2015 09:11 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: slight reprieve on the z. > >&