We had several products from West Palm Beach running under SVS, one of which was Full Screen Editor (FSE); it made life a lot easier in the days when SPF was not yet available.
Their Superset Utilities replaced IBM's COPY, FORMAT, LIST AND MERGE, which IBM never got working right. ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Bill Hitefield <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is the IBM Assembler List still alive - TSO alternatives TONE was a single-address space player too. I converted a shop from VS1 to MVS/370. On the VS1 machine we had TONE (TSO for VS1). It worked fairly well, other than the fact it was a single address space. I do recall when we went live with MVS/370 on our first weekend test, none of the developers wanted to go back to TONE. They really preferred TSO and ISPF to TONE. At a shop I worked at on the Texas Gulf coast we ran VS2 (prior to MVS being an actual product). We were one of the first sites in the are to try SPF (before "I"SPF was a thing). It was a new concept, as everyone was used to ye olde line editor (this was in the 70s). Once you picked up on what SPF was doing, it made work a whole lot easier. Bill Hitefield > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Leonard D Woren > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2023 9:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Is the IBM Assembler List still alive - Dumps - Early days > > Bill Johnson wrote on 9/7/2023 1:05 PM: > > We used to use ROSCOE at a small shop in the 80’s because it used less > resources. I hated it. > > ROSCOE was one of a collection of TSO alternatives, which were all junk. > TONE, > ACEP, Wylbur, maybe more that I don't remember. They all had 1 two-pronged > design goal: except for Wylbur, a PITA in its own category, allow TSO-like > online > use without the perceived overhead of TSO, and also, they would run on systems > other than MVS. > > The reason the resource utilization of all of those was lower than TSO is > that it > took longer for programmers to get their work done, so the resource > utilization > was spread out over more elapsed time, lowering the apparent resources used > in a given elapsed time period, but also lowering productivity. Something > beancounters generally don't factor because they don't understand it. They > liked the fact that a given set of hardware could support 50 (choose your > poison > from above) online users while TSO could support only 25. > > Fortunately, we're way past hardware costing more than people. > > > /Leonard > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to > [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
