🚀 go-pugleaf

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 9:18:29 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
>> rnet...@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-4, han...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> >> IBM's calculator series were in the 600s, so I would guess that 7 was
>> >> the next available series.
>> >> 
>> >> IBM planned to have the subsequent computers in the 800 or 8000
>> >> series, but this was cancelled and replaced by S/360.
>> >> 
>> >> I don't know where the "14" came from for the 1401 series.
>> >
>> > The 14 came from the fact that the origial model, sold as an
>> > "elecronically programmable tabulator", had 1400 postions of internal
>> > storage.
>> >
>> > Bob Netzlof
>> 
>> Never heard that before but that sounds plausible.
>> 
>> Leaving the mystery of how they chose:
>> 
>> 1401
>> 1410
>> 1460
>> 1440
>> 
>> I've always assumed model numbers and names are chosen by the
>> sales force and their reasoning is something like "that sounds nice".
>
> In addition to the 1410, there was also the 7010.
> https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/dpd50/dpd50_chronology2.html
>
> I don't have my IBM Early Computers history handy, but I believe
> it said the 14xx series was actually an outgrowth of several
> different development efforts, for example, a super-tabulator
> for European service and something called the "Wooden Wheel".
> IBM eventually re-oriented those efforts into a common 
> stored-program computer product line.
>
> The book talks a little about the development history of the
> other models.  I think at least one model, and maybe several,
> were actually intended to be something else, and IBM had them
> change their architecture to 14xx compatible. 
>
> As mentioned, the 1410 was "sort of" 1401 compatible, while the
> 1460 was compatible.  I'm not sure of the differences of the 1410
> and 1460--that is, why a customer would buy one over the other--
> but I suspect that came out of the differing background.  The
> unity of S/360 was supposed to eliminate that kind of confusion.

As mentioned elsewhere, the 1410 could use 5 characters for addressing
supporting a lot more storage.

> Some of the other 14xx models were higher end, but one was a
> low-end.  I think the low-end model didn't sell too well because
> it was too costly for the low performance.
>
> As we know, Haanstra was not a supporter of S/360 and actually
> quietly built a 'super' 1401 using new components.  IBM was
> not pleased by this effort and he was punished for it.
>
> As Campbell-Kelly explains in their book, the beauty of the 
> IBM 1401 was not in its electronics (not a big deal) but rather
> the 1403 printer, which gave high quality at a significantly
> faster rate.  As mentioned, I remain amazed that for _years_,
> customers tolerated wavy lines of other mainframe line printers,
> even slow ones.

Just to defend the slower IBM 1443 common on the 1440, it produced
pretty high quality output.

-- 
Dan Espen