On 6/5/2006 at 3:51 PM Billy Pettit wrote:
Billy: I don't place the model 821. There was an
841 that might be what
you remember. It had the drives two high in an expandable rack. You kept
bolting chassis together and then put end panels on it. It was hydraulic
too. And leaked like a sieve. The beauty of the two high is that if the
top drive leaked, it would drip on the bottom drive and take it out also.
Two for the price of one! Had big ten high platter removeable disk stacks
and was used on the 3000 systems with a controller called the 3234.
I'm not surprised that you never ran into an 821. For an RFQ, we needed
someting that held more than an 808, and heard that a double-capacity model
was in the works called the 821. So we bid them and got a few to run our
benchmarks. From 10 feet away, you couldn't tell them from 808s. They
were much less reliable than the 808; data errors were very common.
Eventually we amended the bid to substitute a mess of the then brand-new
844s--which had their own set of problems. I recall an operator starting
out with one bad pack, and through swapping packs on drives, killing
something like 13 drives and nine packs in the space of an hour. AFAIK, we
had all of the 821s ever built in SSD and all of them met the sledgehammer
by 1973 or so (that's another story that would make some people sick--how
CDC disposed of equipment.).
It also used a paper tape reader for format control.
This nasty little
kludge used a sprocket drive on early 512s. When it tore the paper tape,
usually late at night, it would high speed slew paper through the printer,
jam the output stacker, and sometimes break the hammers.
...or if someone forgot to punch ALL channels in the control tape and then
some idiot issued a skip to a hole-less channel....
I had a friend who observed the development of the 512. He said initially
the thing was supposed to be a chain printer, but apparently they couldn't
make a type chain that would hold together for more than a few minutes.
The 501 printer was a pretty good workhorse and actually produced pretty
decent output if run at the low speed setting--which no one ever did.
There was another little drum printer used with the Intercom terminals that
wasn't too bad; I don't recall the model number, though.
Cheers,
Chuck