RE: ISO: Honeywell DPS-6 things

2017-01-18 Thread oharamj
Wow.  GCOS-6 and GCOS-8 … that takes me back.  Great systems.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Zane Healy
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:31 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: ISO: Honeywell DPS-6 things


> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Josh Dersch  wrote:
> 
> So I have this DPS-6 taking up space in my basement right now and I thought
> I'd put out a call again to see if anyone has anything at all related to
> it.  I'd like to get the system running but I'm missing:
> 
> - Mass storage controllers (of any type -- floppy, tape, hard drive)
> - GCOS 6 operating system media (in any format, any version, etc.)
> 
> If anyone has any hardware lying around, or GCOS 6 media (or knows anyone
> who might), drop me a line.
> 
> Alternately, if there's anyone out there who has a need for a DPS-6 parts
> machine, let me know...
> 
> Thanks as always!
> - Josh

I’ve only known of one other person with a DPS-6, and that was (is?) Sellam.  
The hardware is virtually unobtainable, and sadly, I think GCOS or any other 
software might even be more difficult to obtain.  I really wish someone could 
turn up a 25+ year old copy of GCOS-8, and get it running on an emulator, but 
don’t see that happening either.  I know that the DPS-6 has been emulated for 
production systems.  A lifetime ago I worked on both DPS-6 and DPS-8 systems 
running GCOS-6 and GCOS-8.

Last I checked, Group Bull was still selling GCOS-8 systems, running on Itanium.

Zane





RE: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

2017-01-23 Thread oharamj
Oh, no.  Of course not.  Perish the thought.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Toby Thain
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:45 PM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

On 2017-01-23 5:16 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 01/23/2017 11:00 AM, Steven Maresca wrote:
>> Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a
>> colleague, regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java middleware,
>> ultimately feeding a modern webapp stack:
>> http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/
>
> The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal machine
> really bear that title?
>
> The USAF used 7080s well into the 1980s--another decimal system.  One of
> the the reasons for doing so was a system implemented in 7080 COBOL with
> miles and miles of undocumented Autocoder patches.No one person had
> a full grasp of the resulting system and its nuances.

Thank God this could not happen today!
--T

>
> --Chuck
>
>




RE: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

2017-01-25 Thread oharamj
I dunno – there’s something about the sheep welcoming the 7070 that struck me 
funny.  

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:01 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

On 01/25/2017 02:07 PM, Eric Smith wrote:

> The 7070 was announced in Sept. 1958, but did not ship until April
> 1960.

According to IBM's DPD Chronology  for 1959:

"On August 3, DPD introduces the IBM Datacenter -- facilities in which
customers rent the use of IBM 7070 systems by the hour and supply their
own programmers and operators. DPD foresees a nationwide network of 25
to 30 Datacenters in major cities, with the first three located in New
York City, Chicago and Los Angeles. "

> The first IBM computing device to use transistors and no vacuum tubes
> was the 608 calculator, shipped in December 1957.  IBM's first
> transistorized computers were the 7090 (36-bit scientific,
> transistorized version of 709) shipped in November 1959, and the
> 1401, shipped in early 1960, before the 7070.

As a matter of fact, here's a 7070 on its way to an installation in
Naples in 1959:

https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV2070.html

And I *did* specify computer, not calculator with regard to transistors.

So who you gonna believe--a photo taken in 1959 or some guy writing 27
years later saying it didn't exist?  Perhaps they've got the 7070
confused with the 7074.

--Chuck