15 Mar
1998
15 Mar
'98
11:11 a.m.
MS bashing in a MODERN context is off-topic, yes, but saying how
BASIC for the Altair was bloated certainly is the best of both worlds
IMHO. But to go even further back, was there any IBM-bashing before
the 80's?
I'd like to see less Microsoft bashing in my inbox;
I'm on this list
for
the discussion of classic computers, NOT the benefits
of Linux vs
Windows,
NOR the arguments about HTML. If the FAQ/guidelines
for the mailing
list
say NO HTML, thats all there need be said... "read
the FAQ". Please,
lets
cut down the traffic on these subjects and get back to
the things we
all
enjoy discussing!!!
A
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
15 Mar
15 Mar
12:38 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19980315/14beadf1/at…
10:13 p.m.
At 11:38 PM 3/15/98 +0000, you wrote:
The IBM midrange and mainframe stuff I've worked on (S/36, AS/400, MVS,
etc.) has always been _very_ proprietary. It's taken me three years just to
learn the name of the IBM manual that describes the inwards of the file
system on the System/36.
Is it this dearth of technical information that accounts for the lack of
interest in collecting old IBM?
--
David Wollmann |
dwollmann(a)ibmhelp.com | Support for legacy IBM products.
DST ibmhelp.com Technical Support | Data, document and file conversion for
IBM http://www.ibmhelp.com/ | legacy file and media formats.
IMHO. But to
go even further back, was there any IBM-bashing before
the 80's?
Well, according to the Jargon File (aka The Hacker's Dictionary), IBM
minis and mainframes were not liked by hackers (who prefered DEC, etc),
not only because they were generally programmed in things like Cobol, but
also because technical info was next-to-impossible to obtain. It was
difficult to do neat things with them.
I don't know if that counts as IBM bashing or not.
-tony
16 Mar
16 Mar
8:43 a.m.
New subject: Old IBM's...
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1071 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19980316/dbb8ebe1/at…
2:44 p.m.
New subject: Old IBM's...
Ditto! But I have more to say below.
In my case, it's not the dearth of
technical information that makes me
not collect old IBMs; it's the over-abundance in my area of old IBMs to
collect. There's no CHALLENGE in it! I could fill my entire house with
just the equipment I get offered on a monthly basis! I do have a few
of the original PC, XT and AT with various hard to find options...which I
acquired entirely against my will as a prerequisite to acquiring some
S100 hardware I really DID want. As for mainframe type gear...I simply
have no affection for it whatsoever! I did my first for-pay programming
on PDPs, did my initial hacking on Commodores, Apples and CP/M machines,
moved later into Vaxen and started getting into the more...er...esoteric
machines like S100 boxes and older PDP hardware when I had enough
technical experience to have a clue what I was doing. IBM mainframes
simply represent no emotions for me of any kind so I don't collect them.
Is it this
dearth of technical information that accounts for the lack of
interest in collecting old IBM?
I don't just collect classics to look nice on the
shelf/floor. I enjoy
understanding how they work, how they relate (technically) to other
machines, etc. And I enjoy repairing them to component level. With no
chance of getting schematics or low-level software info, and with a
machine packed full of custom chips that I haven't a hope of finding,
these tasks are going to be impossible.
I DON'T enjoy repairing things without schematics! And I'm still fairly
new to component level repair. But now that I've started doing it,
despite the challenge it represents (or because of it), I've really been
enjoying myself.
[BTW, the problem with the SWTPC was NOT the 7474 oddly enough! I was
heart-broken...oh well at least that chip is now socketed nicely. But,
with the schematics etc, I now will be going MUCH deeper into the machine
to figure out what its problem is and I'm believing in myself enough to
do so.]
With my PDP11/45 (for example), I have the
printset (schematics,
microcode flowcharts, binary dumps of all the roms),
the maintenance
manual (including a cycle-by-cycle description of the microcode), the
user manual (how to program it in machine code) and the bus handbook
(what the Unibus is supposed to do). And that's just for the processor...
That's how it is with the PDP-8i's. I've got everything for them...spare
parts, manuals, printsets, paper tape, 3 machines to build 2 working
machines out of...etc etc etc blah blah blah...so I'm looking forward
GREATLY to getting them up and running again. And, of course, the
stories of PDP-8s being kicked down stairs and still working gives me
hope in general! =-)
I can't think of a good analogy but collecting IBM gear just feels to me
a bit like collecting aircraft without a pilot's license. They're neat
but too hard to get off the ground unless you have the proper background.
Whereas PDP's are at least minimally similar (S100 boxes as well) to what
you EXPECT a computer to act like compared to what you read in books or
may have experienced with more modern machines. They're like collecting
cars...which EVERYONE has had at least SOME experience riding in or
operating.
Anthony Clifton - Wirehead
PS: Not that I don't respect those who do collect IBM hardware. It is
kind of neat but feels generally alien and bizarre. Which only makes me
respect more those who collect it.
3 p.m.
New subject: Old IBM's...
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 4869 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19980317/8d213257/at…
5:22 p.m.
New subject: Old IBM's...
In my case, it's not the dearth of technical
information that makes me
not collect old IBMs; it's the over-abundance in my area of old IBMs to
collect. There's no CHALLENGE in it! I could fill my entire house with
just the equipment I get offered on a monthly basis!
If you say that you are being offered S/360 and 370 stuff (or even S/3), I
am going to have to kill you for turning it down. Then I need to rent a
BIG truck.
Somehow, I think that you probably mean S/3x stuff, whick really is a bit
common.
And whatever you do (or anyone on this list), NEVER turn down the TCMs
(Thermal Conduction Modules - they look like serious integrated circuits
with 1000+ pins) from the 308x and 3090 series machines. They are
apparently in VERY short supply.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
12:01 p.m.
The IBM midrange and mainframe stuff I've worked
on (S/36, AS/400, MVS,
etc.) has always been _very_ proprietary. It's taken me three years just to
learn the name of the IBM manual that describes the inwards of the file
system on the System/36.
Is it this dearth of technical information that accounts for the lack of
interest in collecting old IBM?
Yes. That and the general unhackability of the minis. And that most people
hate them. And that most universities had DECs and such in their CS
departments. And the weird parts.
But wait...
Their is documentation for the older systems out there - it just needs to
be discovered or released. I think that RCS/RIs S/34 has a full set,
including useful things like scope diagrams and schematics. The only thing
that is a real problem is that you really can not copy and redistribute
the information - it is still IBMs. It only takes one discovered copy to
get the information potentially out, but that last bit is no fun.
I think also that many people really think that the old IBMs are junk.
They really are not. I just purchased (finally found, really) a copy of
*IBM's System/360 and Early 370 Computers*, and a casual quick read
revealed that the S/360 really were very advanced machines, many of
inovations are commonplace today. Other systems, like some of the minis,
have bizarre architectures that, once inside, are fascinating. A lack of
decent development tools, however, is a real crutch. C for the S/3x line
(even Small-C) would be great.
As for weird parts...well, they are still weird parts. Because of them, I
try to purchase any non-PC board that has IBM chips that I see. I do think
that one could piggyback a small SMT board on top of the older SLTs
without a problem.
Anyway, send me your old IBMs, size it not a problem (while I gaze at the
photo of the multiprocessing S/370 installation).
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
17 Mar
17 Mar
1:08 a.m.
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980316174734.26350I-
100000(a)titan.purch.ans.net>gt;, William Donzelli <william(a)ans.net> writes
I think also that many people really think that the old
IBMs are junk.
They really are not. I just purchased (finally found, really) a copy of
*IBM's System/360 and Early 370 Computers*, and a casual quick read
revealed that the S/360 really were very advanced machines, many of
inovations are commonplace today.
This is a good point. Ever since I had my little
360/30 I've had a soft
spot for IBM for this very reason. Many of the features we take for
granted were introduced with the S/360, or at least came together into a
single product line. I know that IBM were/are regarded as something of
a dinosaur, but they have always been very innovative without ignoring
commercial realities.
Maybe that's why they're still around. No company does anyone any
favours by developing the best computer in the world and then going bust
(except maybe those here benefit :-)
--
Lawrence Wilkinson ljw(a)formula1.demon.co.uk
The GirlFrendo homepage: http://www.formula1.demon.co.uk/girlfrendo/
"You've got the brains, or so you say, maybe you see things another
way"-bis
9625
days inactive
9627
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
dwollmann＠ibmhelp.com -
ljw＠formula1.demon.co.uk -
maxeskin＠hotmail.com -
william＠ans.net -
wirehead＠retrocomputing.com