In <[email protected]>, on 08/27/2012
at 05:36 PM, CM Poncelet <[email protected]> said:
>Well ... subject to interpretation. For example, DOS was a lot closer
>to the *original* (pre-ESA) ISPF than Microsoft Windows ever was
Neither looked anything like ISPF, or even like the original SPF.
>The purpose of ESA was to allow IBM to take control of MVS systems
>and prevent sysprogs from 'zapping out' their inefficencies in
>order to improve performance.
OCO started well before ESA. I've never seen any evidence that the
purpose for ESA was anything other than VSCR.
>But, sure, ISPF was/is a great improvement on native TSO editing
>etc. ('edlin' was it, or am I losing track?
You're losing track; EDLIN was a PC editor.
>However, I would most strongly advise you to *avoid* choosing the
>easy options (mouse-pushing, Ctrl+Alt+Delete etc.) as offered in
>Windows - and be, instead, familiar with reading (and, if possible,
>with writing) machine code.
What do you have against assemblers?
>you realize that Intel processors soon run out of available OP
>codes. So the next Intel 'solution' is to produce dual-core and now,
>I believe, quad-core processors.
Multi-core chips have nothing to do with running out of opcodes.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
