Wonderful document. Thank you IBM Customer Engineering! -----Original Message----- From: cctech [mailto:cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Camiel Vanderhoeven via cctech Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:01 AM To: Noel Chiappa; cctech; cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers Have you really looked at everything that is on Bitsavers? It?s 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_System _Fundamentals_7100_7151_7606_Sep61.pdf Camiel On 11/14/17, 4:32 AM, "cctech on behalf of Noel Chiappa via cctech" <cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org on behalf of cctech at classiccmp.org> wrote: something

Speaking of "Computer Structures Reading and Examples" by Bell and Newell, chapter 41 has a section about the 7094 I, II. Start from page 515 to read about the 701-7094 II sequence/evolution Bill On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:16 AM, william degnan <billdegnan at gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Al Kossow via cctech < cctech at classiccmp.org> wrote: Here is the manual Noel wants, under a different name than the IBM part number - problem solved. http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/7090/22-6528-4_7090Manual.pdf Bill

On 14/11/17 18:20, Chuck Guzis via cctech 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, hardware was now cheap and didn't need to work at 100% efficiency, but software development was expensive so writing and re-writing needed to be minimised. Which is why it's still around today, even if the name has changed. -- Lawrence Wilkinson lawrence at ljw.me.uk The IBM 360/30 pagehttp://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ben via cctalk wrote: We could use some clarification of your terminology. Because MOST people do not consider any of the computers in 1968 - 1973 to be "personal" computers. Although the 4004 was announced in November 1971, commercial availability of kits, etc. such as Altair, Imsai, wasn't until 1975. An individual TERMINAL connecting to a computer, perhaps, but computers owned by an individual were rare. Admittedly, in 1962, Mauchly predicted "personal computer", and in 1968, HP referred to the 9100A as a "personal computer". Having heard discussion of 4004 and predictions, in 1972, I left aerospace (which had not completely recovered from a collapse), declaring that I would get back into computers as soon as "tabletop computers" became practical and available to me. (I did not foresee them being called "personal computers"). I intently watched the early S100 machines, but didn't get back into computers until TRS80/Apple/PET. The first one that I owned was a TRS80 for $400 (I supplied my own monitor and cassetter). (4K Level I, which I brought up to 16K, and paid for Level II upgrade. Then Expansion Interface and Serial Port ("Radio-Shack 232"), supplying my own drives, RAM, printer, etc. Yes, 1968-1973 had time-sharing for personal computing, but not "personal computers" -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote: "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 individual "owned" the computer, nor did many of these end up originally purchased by individuals for personal use. However, many of them did end up in people's homes as "personal computers" after they aged enough that they were no longer commercially viable and were inexpensive enough for an enthusiast to purchase or even get for free..mainly the machines from the 1950's and early 1960's that, by the late 1960's and early 1970's were completely obsolete. There were a number of small, generally single-user computer systems built even in the 1950's. Examples: - Royal McBee/Librascope/General Precision LGP-30 (1956) -- Tube-based machine with magnetic drum memory and Friden Flexowriter - Bendix G-15 (1956) - Tube based, drum memory, IBM I/O typewriter, punched tape reader. Numerous periperhals - Monroe Monrobot III/V (~1958-1961) -- Desk-sized CPU, drum memory, decimal math, and punched tape programming - IBM 650 Autopoint (1957) -- Tube logic, magnetic drum storage, paper tape programming, decimal math - Autonetics Recomp II (1958) -- Mini-refrigerator-sized, desk-side CPU, IBM typewriter, paper tape, IBM I/O Typewriter - Clary DE-60 (1960) -- Transistor-based, drum memory, decimal math, diode-ROM-based add-on math(Trig, etc.), small numeric printer - IBM 1130 (1965) -- Transistor-based(SLT), core memory, cartridge hard-disk, IBM I/O Typewriter, numerous peripherals - DEC PDP-8 (1965) -- Transistor based 12-bit CPU, core memory, teletype I/O, numerous peripherals - Data General Nova (1969) -- IC-based 16-bit CPU, core memory, teletype I/O, numerous peripherals - Wang 2200 (1973) -- IC-based(TTL) deskside CPU, BASIC built-in, cassette tape, solid state memory, CRT display - HP 9830 (1972) -- IC-based desktop, BASIC built-in, cassette tape, solid state memory, LED alphanumeric display, many peripherals These are just a few examples of computers (or in some of the earlier cases, highly programmable calculators) built before and during the '68-73 timeframe that were designed with the intent of an individual interacting directly with the machine. Most ran off of standard residential/office power, required no special air-conditioning, and were simple enough that only a moderate amount of training was required to allow someone to make use of the machines. 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 "special" people were allowed anywhere near them. -Rick --- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com

On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: Chuck responded: Indeed, a notable omission from my list. The PB 250 definitely is in that class of machine, and the unique part about it is that its main memory and register storage was made of recirculating delay lines. This made the machine somewhat slow, but in most cases, a bit faster than most of the tube-based machines with magnetic drum memories. The delay lines could be a little temperamental, but were less expensive than magnetic drums, making the machine a pretty good value for the time. It was fully-transistorized, and had a Friden Flexowriter for I/O. The machine had interfacing capabilities that allowed a number of various I/O devices to be connected to it. The PB 250 benefitted from the design genius of Stanley Frankel, the Manhattan Project nuclear physicist that went into computing after his A-bomb development work had finished. Frankel assisted with many of the design aspects of the PB 250, as well as doing the complete logic design of the LGP-30, which was based on a small machine he built on his own known as MINAC. He also did the design of the SCM/Marchant Cogito 240 & 240SR electronic calculators, as well as the brilliantly-designed, microcoded Diehl Combitron electronic calculator. -Rick --- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com

From: Rick Bensene Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:59 AM Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This, like "Multics never got out of the lab", is a bogo-meme. (Thanks, Neil!) People did not *need* to get near the mainframes in order to do their jobs, unlike the jobs for which the small systems (and you forgot the PDP-11 in your list) were created. Most programming on mainframes was special purpose, batch oriented, data processing connected to accounting systems (GL/AP/AR/PR), and a lot of the rest was high intensity engineering (where at this level even physics is engineering) which needed lots of data handling for short runs. In the latter environment, time sharing was a big win, because multiple people had access to the system for their work, without needing a bunch of underpowered systems assigned to individuals. I grew up in the mainframe world.[1] I liked the idea of timesharing, but it was not important to my job until the administrative DEC-20 was hooked up to the Amdahl v7 via the HASP/RJE front end package for the -20. Suddenly, the EMACS editor which was a toy for me until then because a way to generate JCL and PL/I for the mainframe where my responsibilities lay. I did not need to visit the computer room (several miles away) to do my job. Later, I became a systems programmer on those mainframes, and had physical access to the computers--but not because I was doing anything physical to the hardware. I realize that most people here have an ongoing love affair with small systems. I just want to point out that there were other ways to accomplish some really interesting hacks. Rich [1] My first use of a minicomputer (a PDP-11 of small size, running RT-11) came in grad school, 10 years after I first started programming, in a linguistics class on "Production of Speech": We turned the -11 into a speech synthesizer, for which it was perfectly suited. Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer Living Computers: Museum + Labs 2245 1st Avenue S Seattle, WA 98134 mailto:RichA at LivingComputers.org http://www.LivingComputers.org/

On 11/14/2017 11:20 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Pretty much all computers of that early-60's vintage, where a maze of logic was used to decode instructions, and everything was done with discrete transistors and diodes, had quirky arcane instruction sets. Some of this was due to the prevailing thought on instruction sets, but part of it was done to save a few transistors here and there, and to heck with the side effects. Most of these computers had very few registers, or put the "registers" in fixed core locations, due to the cost of a flip-flop. The 709x series was certainly like that. Hard to BELIEVE, with 55,000 transistors! Well, microcode freed them from a lot of these constraints, instead of vastly convoluted decode and sequencing logic, the instruction set became just another computer program. If you compare the amount of logic in a 7094 and a 360/50, the 360 looks like a SIMPLE machine in comparison. I don't know how many transistors there were in a 360/50, but I'm guessing less than 20,000, maybe as little as 12,000. Even then, what they used for a FF (they called them D-latches) took 2.5 SLT modules each. Certainly, going from SMS to SLT, the machine got considerably smaller, but it seems that they got a lot simpler in architecture, as well. But, another current in computer architecture was to regularize the instruction set, what later came to be called orthogonality. The 360 certainly took that to heart. Also, getting rid of all those special purpose registers. The 709x and their ilk had accumulators, multiplier/quotient registers, index registers and all sorts of other things. The 360 just had "registers"! I think a major reason for this current was to make compiler writing simpler. But, it made life easier for the assembly language programmer, as well. Jon