2 Aug
2019
2 Aug
'19
12:40 p.m.
Anyone have one of these? I'd like to find a system, but images of
the OS media would be interesting.
Regards,
Kevin
2 Aug
2 Aug
1:26 p.m.
I have what appears to be a nice one?I just haven?t had time to do anything with it yet.
It does have 2 discs (I think one is 40MB and the other is 300MB). There is a big label
on the system that says ?DEV?T TOOLS?
so I?m hopeful that there?s some interesting SW on it.
TTFN - Guy
On Aug 2, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Kevin Bowling via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Anyone have one of these? I'd like to find a system, but images of
the OS media would be interesting.
Regards,
Kevin
7:32 p.m.
I have a pair, plus parts.
The hardware is excellent. They have fairly fast processors, and the
I/O capacity is great. Reliability is typical IBM.
The OS sucks balls. All the balls.
Commercially, they were not a success, despite being IBM's first
"open" system, in that they invited third party developers. It seems
like every S/1 I have ever seen has some CDC DNA in it, for some
reason. They ended up successful within IBM, once they found out they
were better comms boxes than the real mainframe boxes (3725, for
example). Some S/1s were built specifically for comms use on
mainframes (7171).
--
Will
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:41 PM Kevin Bowling via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Anyone have one of these? I'd like to find a system, but images of
the OS media would be interesting.
Regards,
Kevin
8:04 p.m.
Was IBM Series/1 for process control?Ed#
writes:In a message dated 8/2/2019 6:18:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at
classiccmp.org?
On 08/02/2019 02:40 PM, Kevin Bowling via cctalk wrote:
I have some bits of several Series/1 systems, but no
complete system at all.
Jon
Anyone have one of these?? I'd like to find a
system, but images of
the OS media would be interesting.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
8:37 p.m.
ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote:
Was IBM Series/1 for process control?Ed#
writes:In a message dated 8/2/2019 6:18:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at
classiccmp.org
On 08/02/2019 02:40 PM, Kevin Bowling via cctalk wrote:
Given the little literature I've seen on the subject, and also the
amount of real-time control computers that I've seen in labs being
dismantled... I'd say that it was probably a late IBM response to PDP-11
and HP 21xx and 1xxx process control computers.? But I did not
experience that era (I'm talking only about stuff that I've seen tossed
out), so I am probably clueless.
carlos.
Anyone have one of these?? I'd like to find a
system, but images of
the OS media would be interesting.
I have some bits of several Series/1 systems,
but no
complete system at all.
Jon
8:49 p.m.
Given the little literature I've seen on the
subject, and also the
amount of real-time control computers that I've seen in labs being
dismantled... I'd say that it was probably a late IBM response to PDP-11
and HP 21xx and 1xxx process control computers.
That would be correct - and is even shown in the period advertisements
from IBM. In keeping with the DEC philosophy, the S/1
was a very open
system,and in the mid 1970s, IBM tried to cultivate a sea of third
party vendors, as there was for other minicomputer makers at the time.
Some ventured in, but the third party market really never grew much.
The S/1 was not IBMs first minicomputer by any metric. In process
control, for example, the System/7 predated the Series/I, and the 1800
family before that, and the 1710 before that. A System/360 could also
do realtime process control using something called a 1070, but very
few were used this way.
--
Will
3 Aug
3 Aug
10:26 a.m.
On 08/02/2019 09:32 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote:
I have a pair, plus parts.
The hardware is excellent. They have fairly fast processors, and the
I/O capacity is great. Reliability is typical IBM.
The OS sucks balls. All the balls.
Commercially, they were not a success, despite being IBM's first
"open" system, in that they invited third party developers. It seems
like every S/1 I have ever seen has some CDC DNA in it, for some
reason. They ended up successful within IBM, once they found out they
were better comms boxes than the real mainframe boxes (3725, for
example). Some S/1s were built specifically for comms use on
mainframes (7171).
Yes, we used some Series/1 machines at Washington University
for async dialup and local terminal use. They had a channel
interface, and this worked WAY better than even the Memorex
1270, which still hit the system with a huge amount of
interrupts.
We also got a disk development lab donated from IBM that was
all run by S/1 systems. They scrapped those and a bunch of
the SLT/MST interface gear, and replaced it with modern stuff.
Jon
10:29 a.m.
On 08/02/2019 10:04 PM, ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote:
Was IBM Series/1 for process control?Ed#
I don't think it was necessarily DESIGNED for process
control, it was a decent 16-bit mini.
But, it did get USED a lot for that application. They were
also used as interfaces from the IBM channel architecture to
serial ports, where the 360/370's were hurt very badly by
interrupt load.
Jon
11:37 a.m.
I'm pretty sure it was intended as a PLC or more precisely a PDP11
competitor as others stated. I am reading an excellent book "The
Small Computer Concept" which kind of awe inspiring lays out the need
for the Series/1, the ISA, and monitor functions in 400 pages.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:29 AM Jon Elson via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 08/02/2019 10:04 PM, ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote:
Was IBM Series/1 for process control?Ed#
I don't think it was necessarily DESIGNED for process
control, it was a decent 16-bit mini.
But, it did get USED a lot for that application. They were
also used as interfaces from the IBM channel architecture to
serial ports, where the 360/370's were hurt very badly by
interrupt load.
Jon
1751
days inactive
1752
days old
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ce.murillosanchez＠gmail.com -
couryhouse＠aol.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
kevin.bowling＠kev009.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com