On 11/15/2017 10:11 PM, Brian L. Stuart via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, 11/15/17, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
PDP-5 and LINC certainly fit that requirement.
Funny the LINC should come up tonight. Earlier this evening
I went to a talk given by Mary Allen Wilkes who was the
developer of the syste
On Wed, 11/15/17, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> PDP-5 and LINC certainly fit that requirement.
Funny the LINC should come up tonight. Earlier this evening
I went to a talk given by Mary Allen Wilkes who was the
developer of the system software for the LINC. She had one
in her parents' house a
On 11/15/2017 02:12 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote:
While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending
on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were
designed to be used at a much more personal le
On 11/15/2017 01:13 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business.
Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous
for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers in
On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote:
> While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending
> on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were
> designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale
> mainframe machines ho
From: Rick Bensene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:59 AM
Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote:
>> Yes, 1968-1973 had time-sharing for personal computing, but not "personal
>> computers"
> While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending on who
> is using the term, these machines, and
On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote:
> While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending
> on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were
> designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale
> mainframe machines house
Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote:
>Yes, 1968-1973 had time-sharing for personal computing, but not
"personal computers"
We tend to forget about earlier "personal" computers...machines that
were generally designed for one individual to be able to sit down and
use interactively. That isn't to say that said in
On 11/15/2017 11:18 AM, Alan Perry via cctalk wrote:
> Burroughs
> UNIVAC
> NCR
> CDC
> Honeywell
Ah, so post-Snow White.
--Chuck
On 11/15/17 11:13 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business.
Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous
for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers in
On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business.
> Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous
> for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers in various forms -
> aerospace, minicomputer, indust
On 11/15/2017 09:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
but because of Honeywell's incompetence at the computer business.
(That incompetence eventually resulted in a decision - probably correct from
the _business_ point of view, given said incompetence - to get out of the
computer business.)
M
> From: Ben Franchuk
> Multics never really made it out of the lab.
This 'bogo-meme' (to use a word I coined) is, well, totally flat wrong.
Multics was a reasonably successful product for Honeywell from the end of
1972 (when the H6180 was introduced) to around 1987 (when they stopped
sel
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:58 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 11/14/2017 11:20 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in
>> architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably
>> strike the average reader of tod
On 11/14/2017 8:37 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ben via cctalk wrote:
Computer Science seems to be mostly developed in the 1968 - 1973 time
frame by average people with access with a (personal) computer with
about 32K of memory.
We could use some clarification of your
On 11/14/2017 09:10 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
I think the 360 marked the change from hardware-driven
development to
software-driven. The 'arcane' architectures would have
maximised
performance for a given amount of hardware, and
programmers were
relatively cheap. But the 360 reversed that, ha
On 11/14/2017 11:20 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in
architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably
strike the average reader of today as being arcane, what with
sign-magnitude representation, subtractive index
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ben via cctalk wrote:
Computer Science seems to be mostly developed in the 1968 - 1973 time
frame by average people with access with a (personal) computer with
about 32K of memory.
We could use some clarification of your terminology.
Because MOST people do not consider any
I think the 360 marked the change from hardware-driven development to
software-driven. The 'arcane' architectures would have maximised
performance for a given amount of hardware, and programmers were
relatively cheap. But the 360 reversed that, hardware was now cheap
and didn't need to work at 1
On 14/11/17 18:20, Chuck Guzis via cctech wrote:
It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in
architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably
strike the average reader of today as being arcane, what with
sign-magnitude representation, subtractive index regi
It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in
architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably
strike the average reader of today as being arcane, what with
sign-magnitude representation, subtractive index registers and so on.
The 7080, probably even more so.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Al Kossow via cctech <
cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/14/17 6:16 AM, william degnan via cctalk wrote:
> > Following top post of this reply...
> >
> > There is a doc called 709-7090 General Information Manual D22-6508,
> which I
> > don't see in bitsaver
On 11/14/17 6:16 AM, william degnan via cctalk wrote:
> Following top post of this reply...
>
> There is a doc called 709-7090 General Information Manual D22-6508, which I
> don't see in bitsavers (I don't have).
we have it
http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102663993
I'll see
age-
> From: cctech [mailto:cctech-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Camiel
> Vanderhoeven via cctech
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:01 AM
> To: Noel Chiappa; cctech; cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computer
>> Wonderful document. Thank you IBM Customer Engineering!
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: cctech [mailto:cctech-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Camiel
>> Vanderhoeven via cctech
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:01 AM
>> To: Noel Chiappa
IBM's early 'scientific' computers
Have you really looked at everything that is on Bitsavers? It¹s much more
than just the engineering manuals. If I may offer a suggestion, have a
look at this document and see if it fits your needs:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7
Have you really looked at everything that is on Bitsavers? It¹s much more
than just the engineering manuals. If I may offer a suggestion, have a
look at this document and see if it fits your needs:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7090/ce/223-6895-1_7090_CE_Reference_Syste
m_Fundamentals_7100_7151
On 11/13/2017 09:32 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
Please, everyone, I do actually know of BitSavers; you don't need to point me
at it.
When I said:
>> I could look at the engineering manuals, but I was hoping for something
>> in between them and Bashe et al.
I assumed everyone w
Please, everyone, I do actually know of BitSavers; you don't need to point me
at it.
When I said:
>> I could look at the engineering manuals, but I was hoping for something
>> in between them and Bashe et al.
I assumed everyone would understand that by "engineering manuals", I was
meanin
On 11/13/2017 01:23 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
So, I was trying to find info about the early IBM 709/7090/7094 computers, but
when I went to what is supposedly the authoritative work on these computers
(among others):
Charles J. Bashe, Lyle R. Johnson, John H. Palmer, Emerson W. Pugh,
What are you looking for ?
Have you checked bitsavers
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7090/
and the subdirectory
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7090/ce/
for the 7094 there is even more detail
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7094/ce/
-pete
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Noel Chiappa
31 matches
Mail list logo
