3 Mar
2009
3 Mar
'09
8:03 p.m.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:41:14 -0800 Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> said:
> From: CSquared
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:53 PM
> I also seem to recall that Univac or some other
computer manufacturer
> actually used a 90 (?) column card for even better packing density.
> I'll leave that improved calculation to someone who actually remembers
> how many columns those cards were blessed with.
Univac 90-column cards are Hollerith cards just like
the "IBM" cards.
They consist of upper and lower groups of 45 columns of 6 round punches
(instead of the rectangular punches favoured by IBM).
Interesting. I don't know how I remembered the 90 columns as I never
worked with a Univac computer - only IBM's and various minis which mostly
didn't even have punched card readers at all. I'm not real sure I've
ever even seen one of the Univac punched cards. Your description
of the hole grouping sounds like maybe they encoded characters as
6-bit codes vs. the "12-1 is an A", "12-2 is a B" scheme used by IBM.
I'm not real sure that's even correct either - it's been a right good while.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
--
My email address is csquared3 at tx dot rr dot com
4 Mar
4 Mar
3:41 a.m.
CSquared wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:41:14 -0800 Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> said:
It doesn't present the full encoding but there is a picture and some more info here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/cards.html
The labelling on the card suggests the numeric digits were punched in biquinary
format. I'm going to guess that that goes back to the origins of that card type
when only numeric data where utilised, and that alpha & punctuation were added
later, using the remaining 6-bit binary patterns.
> From: CSquared
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:53 PM
> I also seem to recall that Univac or some
other computer manufacturer
> actually used a 90 (?) column card for even better packing density.
> I'll leave that improved calculation to someone who actually remembers
> how many columns those cards were blessed with.
Univac 90-column cards are Hollerith cards just
like the "IBM" cards.
They consist of upper and lower groups of 45 columns of 6 round punches
(instead of the rectangular punches favoured by IBM).
Interesting. I don't know how I remembered the 90 columns as I never
worked with a Univac computer - only IBM's and various minis which mostly
didn't even have punched card readers at all. I'm not real sure I've
ever even seen one of the Univac punched cards. Your description
of the hole grouping sounds like maybe they encoded characters as
6-bit codes vs. the "12-1 is an A", "12-2 is a B" scheme used by
IBM.
I'm not real sure that's even correct either - it's been a right good while.
1:49 p.m.
On 3 Mar 2009 at 19:03, CSquared wrote:
Interesting. I don't know how I remembered the 90
columns as I never
worked with a Univac computer - only IBM's and various minis which mostly
didn't even have punched card readers at all. I'm not real sure I've
ever even seen one of the Univac punched cards. Your description
of the hole grouping sounds like maybe they encoded characters as
6-bit codes vs. the "12-1 is an A", "12-2 is a B" scheme used by
IBM.
I'm not real sure that's even correct either - it's been a right good while.
I remember the 90 column Univac format, but also remember that Univac
at a very early date also offered 80 column compatibility. Sometimes
that meant selling a completely different computer system, not just
peripherals (e.g. the SS 80 vs. the SS 90 systems).
I haven't been following this thread very closely, but I trust
someone has mentioned the 96 column System/3 mini-card:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/codes/96col.html
Holds more characters, but less data than a standard 80 column card.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:58 p.m.
On 4 Mar 2009 at 14:24, William Donzelli wrote:
Trick question! The IBM interpreters (552,557) could print only 60
columns across a card, because of the width of the characters. So if
you were doing all 80 columns, you got two rows of characters. Some
cards were printed with either a single 60 column legend across the
top or with 60/20 columns in 2 rows. Locating the actual column when
looking at the interpreter output without one of the 60 column
printed legends was "interesting".
In fact, you could program the interpreter to put the columns
anywhere you wanted on the card--I think the 557 (which I used) could
do 25 rows per card.
There was at least one pre-war interpreter that would print only 45
columns.
Cheers,
Chuck
Holds more
characters, but less data than a standard 80 column card.
Who used a 60 column format? I have a standard sized IBM punch card
with the usual printing for 80 columns, but also for 60 columns. ??? 
3:15 p.m.
Trick question! ?The IBM interpreters (552,557) could
print only 60
columns across a card, because of the width of the characters. ?So if
you were doing all 80 columns, you got two rows of characters. ?Some
cards were printed with either a single 60 column legend across the
top or with 60/20 columns in 2 rows. ?Locating the actual column when
looking at the interpreter output without one of the 60 column
printed legends was "interesting".
Ah yes, I forgot that 557s could not do all 80 columns. Considering I
have two of those things you would think I would know...
--
Will
3:52 p.m.
> Holds more characters, but less data than a
standard 80 column card.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, William Donzelli wrote:
Who used a 60 column format? I have a standard sized
IBM punch card
with the usual printing for 80 columns, but also for 60 columns. ???
The IBM interpreter, for printing on already punched cards, did not
attempt to print 80 column! Its input was 80 column cards; its output was
the same cards, with up to 60 columns of printing.
4:07 p.m.
On 4 Mar 2009 at 12:52, Fred Cisin wrote:
The IBM interpreter, for printing on already punched
cards, did not
attempt to print 80 column! Its input was 80 column cards; its output was
the same cards, with up to 60 columns of printing.
A 557 could do 80 columns in 2 rows (usually 60/20, but that was
programmable). Another "interesting" feature was that the character
set was very limited. Learning to read a 557 interpreted program
deck with non alphameric characters was an acquired skill.
Cheers,
Chuck
5:24 p.m.
Ever see a COBOL Interpreter?
If the college admins haven't destroyed all of my storage yet, . . .
I have/had? a 557 plug-board specifically set up for optimal
interpretation of COBOL source code. It is labelled, "COBOL Interpreter".
How many people remember what it took to get true 80 column interpreting
onto a deck of punched cards?
5:51 p.m.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Paul Koning wrote:
Close.
But you don't really want to have to punch a new deck.
>>>> "Fred" == Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> writes:
Fred> How many people remember what it took to get true 80 column
Fred> interpreting onto a deck of punched cards?
An 026 or 029 keypunch... :-)
7:35 p.m.
New subject: Punched cards
On 4 Mar 2009 at 14:51, Fred Cisin wrote:
Close.
But you don't really want to have to punch a new deck.
Depends on what options your 029 had installed (those function
switches above the keyboard). Some models allowed you to use them as
an interpreter.
A deadly-slow and noisy process, but better than nothing. The 557
could do, IIRC, something like 100 cpm, which was almost enough to
endure the funky 60-column output.
What I don't recall is if the 029 interpret feature could work under
control of a drum card. You could simply interpret the sequence
columns and get an 80-80 list on the 407, then later match them up.
The point of duping a deck was to add sequence numbers, no? Stick
your original deck in the 519 set up for sequence punching and then
interpret the result.
That way, you didn't feel too bad when the cart carrying the trays
that made up your Pride and Joy hit one of those filler strips in the
raised floor and spilled them all over the place.
Cheers,
Chuck
8:20 p.m.
New subject: Punched cards
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Depends on what options your 029 had installed (those
function
switches above the keyboard). Some models allowed you to use them as
an interpreter.
Right
That option was not very common.
The point of duping a deck was to add sequence
numbers, no? Stick
your original deck in the 519 set up for sequence punching and then
interpret the result.
Duping decks was also necessary for backup, and after a while for wear.
Depending on what you were doing, there WERE plenty of times when punched
cards would be the OUTPUT for a job.
That way, you didn't feel too bad when the cart
carrying the trays
that made up your Pride and Joy hit one of those filler strips in the
raised floor and spilled them all over the place.
"The card reader jammed pretty badly, here's what's left of your deck."
8:40 p.m.
New subject: Punched cards
On 4 Mar 2009 at 17:20, Fred Cisin wrote:
I liked keeping things on a friendly basis with operators. My output
went mostly to tape if not printed. The operators that I knew hated
the punch and often wouldn't even check to see if any output had
stacked up.
The point of
duping a deck was to add sequence numbers, no? Stick
your original deck in the 519 set up for sequence punching and then
interpret the result.
Duping decks was also necessary for backup, and after a while for wear.
Depending on what you were doing, there WERE plenty of times when punched
cards would be the OUTPUT for a job. "The card reader jammed pretty badly, here's
what's left of your deck."
The CDC 405 (1200 cpm) when it jammed, produced the most delightful
accordion-pleated cards. A joy to origamists everywhere.
Cheers,
Chuck
7:47 p.m.
On 4 Mar 2009 at 14:24, Fred Cisin wrote:
How many people remember what it took to get true 80
column interpreting
onto a deck of punched cards?
Depends on what you mean by "true". The whole character set? And
*whose* whole character set? I don't remember much IBM unit record
equipment set up to print CDC Display Code.
Punching EBCDIC on an 024 was a real adventure...
Cheers,
Chuck
7:32 p.m.
I haven't been following this thread very closely,
but I trust
someone has mentioned the 96 column System/3 mini-card:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/codes/96col.html
Holds more characters, but less data than a standard 80 column card.
That was the one roughly the size of a 3.5" floppy, wasn't it? I worked at a
place once that used those...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
8:47 p.m.
On 4 Mar 2009 at 19:32, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Yep, about that size. What made no sense to me is that each column
is BA8421 - 6 bits. This long after IBM had settled on 8-bit EBCDIC.
Most installations had standardized on the 80 column card, so it
didn't make much of a splash unless you were a System/3 installation.
Cheers,
Chuck
I haven't
been following this thread very closely, but I trust
someone has mentioned the 96 column System/3 mini-card:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/codes/96col.html
Holds more characters, but less data than a standard 80 column card.
That was the one roughly the size of a 3.5" floppy, wasn't it? I worked at a
place once that used those... 
8:57 p.m.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yep, about that size. What made no sense to me is
that each column
is BA8421 - 6 bits. This long after IBM had settled on 8-bit EBCDIC.
Most installations had standardized on the 80 column card, so it
didn't make much of a splash unless you were a System/3 installation.
Here's what the keypunch looked like for these little guys:
http://rlfranz.net/AmericanDistilling_DataProcessing/Images/Keypunch.jpg
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
11:18 p.m.
Is ANY of this discussion actually about buying paper tape? (other than
the first 3 messages)
Jim
Mike Loewen wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yep, about that size. What made no sense to me
is that each column
is BA8421 - 6 bits. This long after IBM had settled on 8-bit EBCDIC.
Most installations had standardized on the 80 column card, so it
didn't make much of a splash unless you were a System/3 installation.
Here's what the keypunch looked like for these little guys:
http://rlfranz.net/AmericanDistilling_DataProcessing/Images/Keypunch.jpg
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
11:39 p.m.
New subject: Punched cards, was: 1" paper tape buy ?
On 4 Mar 2009 at 23:18, Jim Scheef wrote:
Is ANY of this discussion actually about buying paper
tape? (other than
the first 3 messages)
Jim
Of course not. However, take a look at:
http://marketplace.vintage-computer.com/index.php
There a fellow selling some MITS paper tape programs. No bids yet,
so you might be able to make a deal.
Cheers,
Chuck
5 Mar
5 Mar
7:54 a.m.
On Wednesday (03/04/2009 at 11:18PM -0500), Jim Scheef wrote:
Is ANY of this discussion actually about buying paper
tape? (other than
the first 3 messages)
I think three messages...
I was wondering if anyone was able to actually get 1" tape from WNC?
When I talked to them about a month ago, they had none and did not expect
to have stock until at least April.
Did that timeline change?
Chris
6 Mar
6 Mar
1:53 a.m.
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 06:54:58 -0600
From: chrise at pobox.com
To: cctech at classiccmp.org
CC: General at sepia.pobox.com; On-Topic at dewey.classiccmp.org; cctalk at
classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: 1" paper tape buy ?
On Wednesday (03/04/2009 at 11:18PM -0500), Jim Scheef wrote:
Hi Chris,
I received an answer from WNC after a question about the shipping costs.
I wanted to buy a quart package (7 rolls) and some 10 4" blue containers.
However, the shipping calculator on their site indicated a shipping cost
which was way too much (shipping to The Netherlands).
They would look into it ... that was 3 weeks ago, and I never heard back.
But there is also good news!
Herbert pointed me to ebay item #230099227038. This guy, Jeff, lists
1" paper rolls for just $4 per box. And in a box are 7 rolls!
That is a bargain, and I bought 2 boxes. Shipping costst are $101.50, but
still 14 rolls for $110 is cheap. I am keeping 2 rolls, the others go to
other listmembers in the UK and Sweden.
So, if somebody needs 1" paper tape, go for #230099227038 :-)
When I bought the 2 boxes he still had 39 left ...
Question.
If somebody orders at WNC, I am interested in buying 8 to 10 R30 blue
containers at $3.05 each.
thanks,
- Henk.
Is ANY of this discussion actually about buying
paper tape? (other than
the first 3 messages)
I think three messages...
I was wondering if anyone was able to actually get 1" tape from WNC?
When I talked to them about a month ago, they had none and did not expect
to have stock until at least April.
Did that timeline change?
Chris 
11:09 a.m.
>>>> "Henk" == Henk Gooijen
<henk.gooijen at hotmail.com> writes:
Henk> I received an answer from WNC after a question about the
Henk> shipping costs. I wanted to buy a quart package (7 rolls) and
Henk> some 10 4" blue containers. However, the shipping calculator
Henk> on their site indicated a shipping cost which was way too much
Henk> (shipping to The Netherlands). They would look into it
Henk> ... that was 3 weeks ago, and I never heard back.
Henk> But there is also good news! Herbert pointed me to ebay item
Henk> #230099227038. This guy, Jeff, lists 1" paper rolls for just $4
Henk> per box. And in a box are 7 rolls! That is a bargain, and I
Henk> bought 2 boxes. Shipping costst are $101.50, ...
I recently needed to ship a 5 pound box from the US to Holland, so I
did some checking. UPS and FedEx and their competition all wanted
over $100 for that, cheapest rate.
So I checked the post office. USPS would do the same for about $30,
"priority mail". The big difference is that you don't get package
tracking. But it still goes by air as far as I can tell. It seems
that the old cheap "surface mail" across the ocean no longer exists.
So next time you need a cross-ocean shipment, check the post office,
they are likely to be the best answer.
paul
12:03 p.m.
So I checked the post office. ?USPS would do the same
for about $30,
"priority mail". ?The big difference is that you don't get package
tracking.
You can tell if a package at least was received by the foreign post office.
?But it still goes by air as far as I can tell. ?It
seems
that the old cheap "surface mail" across the ocean no longer exists.
It went away nearly two years ago. Nearly nobody used it anymore, so
USPS dropped it.
--
Will
12:38 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
went away nearly two years ago. Nearly nobody used it
anymore, so
> USPS dropped it.
No wonder I have been stuck in this crate for over two years ... I am running
out twinkies too! Changes label .... Ship to the USA ...
Other countries may still ship that way to the USA.
2:35 p.m.
So I checked the post office. =A0USPS would do
the same for about $30,
"priority mail". =A0The big difference is that you don't get package
tracking.
You can tell if a package at least was received by the foreign post offic=
e.
4:52 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Waht didn'w work was the 'email updates'
thing. I entered my e-mail
address and heard nothing until after the parcel had arrived, when I got
a list of tiems and dates for the above statuses. Now, I don't nned to
know how the parcel got to me, I need to know what's gone wrong if it
doesn't arrive...
Or in my case ... the mail notice gets updated *after* the mailman
arives at your door.
-tony
7 Mar
7 Mar
2:08 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Precisely. When I checked my mail on the evening of the day that the
parcel had been delivered, I found a message from USPS giving the details
of the deliverey including 'Delivered at $time on $date'. You know, I
actually knew that :-)
-tony
Waht didn'w work was the 'email
updates' thing. I entered my e-mail
address and heard nothing until after the parcel had arrived, when I got
a list of tiems and dates for the above statuses. Now, I don't nned to
know how the parcel got to me, I need to know what's gone wrong if it
doesn't arrive...
Or in my case ... the mail notice gets updated *after* the mailman
arives at your door.
4 Mar
4 Mar
5:39 p.m.
New subject: Punched cards (Was: 1" paper tape buy ?
Does anybody object to changing the subject line?
My father used to claim that the only reason for existence of the
round-hole, 90, 96 column cards was that IBM patented the particular
rectangular shape of their holes.
He also claimed that IBM patented the whole idea of using a brass roller
for card reading, and that that ALMOST worked to cripple the rest of the
industry, until somebody finally got photocell card reading working.
9:18 p.m.
New subject: Punched cards (Was: 1" paper tape buy ?
My father used to claim that the only reason for
existence of the
round-hole, 90, 96 column cards was that IBM patented the particular
rectangular shape of their holes.
He also claimed that IBM patented the whole idea of using a brass
roller
for card reading, and that that ALMOST worked to cripple the rest of
the
industry, until somebody finally got photocell card reading working.
I wonder. The original Hollerith cards had round holes. And patents
were good for 17 years, so even if square holes were patented that
wouldn't necessarily explain round holes (depending on when). Pointers
to patents would be helpful here...
paul
5617
days inactive
5620
days old
30 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrise＠pobox.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
csquared3＠tx.rr.com -
henk.gooijen＠hotmail.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
mloewen＠cpumagic.scol.pa.us -
Paul_Koning＠Dell.com -
rtellason＠verizon.net -
scheefj＠netscape.net -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com