atex system in Houston

[Wayne S]

Atex, now Newscycle, also had a Classified Advertising system out at that time. I remember reading a article somewhere saying that Atex was going to use the J11 for that system.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 13, 2019, at 06:41, Toby Thain via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 2019-03-13 9:31 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 PM, Fritz Mueller via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hmmm, are these the atex racks seen lurking in the background of that recent storage space trawl down near Houston?
>>> 
>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-DEC-PDP-11-34-Minicomputer-With-Kennedy-Tape-Drive-J11-CPU-2-Terminals/123688125244
>> 
>> Interesting.  Atex is, or was at one time anyway, a manufacturer of typesetting systems for newspapers.  DEC was also in that business with Typeset-11 (TMS-11) but Atex was more successful, certainly for smaller newspapers because it used less expensive PDP11 models.
>> 
> 
> Funny, I always associated it with big papers (I think the NYT used it?)
> 
> 
> 
>> The "multi-processor bus" thing is curious.  And I wonder what the terminals are like.  If they are typesetting terminals, I think they support some sort of WYSIWYG editing setup -- that too was a competitive advantage vs. the "mark-up" approach (sort of like Runoff on steroids) that Typeset-11 offered.  Looking at the keyboards would give a clue.
> 
> Pretty sure Atex was pre-wysiwyg. This article may provide some context
> on that:
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/17/business/can-atex-keep-its-proprietary-place-in-the-newsroom.html
> 
> &
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=IAGotP-IDocC&lpg=PA1827&ots=jEwR7s7dWM&dq=atex%20customers%201970s&pg=PA1827#v=onepage&q=atex%20customers%201970s&f=false
> 
> 
> 
> --Toby
> 
> 
>> 
>> The "11-34 minicomputer... J-11 CPU" description is a bit strange.  Possibly a dual CPU setup with one of each?  But that seems strange because those two are from different generations, and interfacing them together would be tricky and not all that useful.
>> 
>>    paul
>> 
>> 
>