🚀 go-pugleaf

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:09:19 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 7:09:04 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>>> Wang VS was a great system.
>>> The OS was nothing like anything from IBM.
>>> I was working on it for a while before I stumbled onto one of the
>>> Wang's IBM-isms.  Even then, a little of IBM, a lot of great Wang stuff.
>>> 
>>> So, I'm editing a COBOL program and the editor allows me to run
>>> a test.  I think I've submitted a job and that's it, but a message
>>> comes back to my screen telling me I have a S0C7 (IBM speak for invalid
>>> data).  Unlike anything from IBM,
>>> it shows me the send and receive fields and their contents.
>>> Also, it lets me type new data into either or both fields.  Or it offers
>>> to take me to the offending line in the COBOL program.
>>> 
>>> Of course all you get from IBM, is watch the job until it ends, then
>>> read a huge dump.
>>> Using Wang VS made it so clear how bad IBM software was.
>>
>>The latest IBM mainframe COBOL has improved somewhat on debugging
>>aids in case of an abend.
>>
>>
>>> The Wang hardware was a bit different too.
>>> Their systems spanned a huge range of power.
>>> The VS 5 was a $12,000 system.  Way lower priced
>>> than anything in the IBM mainframe lineup.
>>> When I connected from home using a Wang terminal the OS
>>> loaded a micro-program into my terminal.  I think it did that
>>> with all it's peripherals.  Seemed like a good idea to me.
>>> The host really did control it's devices.
>>
>>What happened to the Wang Company?
>
> The short version is An Wang put his kid in charge, the kid screwed
> up, then An Wang died.

Those Wang green screen terminals acted as word processors too.
(Part of the microcode the host downloaded.)
I remember hearing that Wang was going to work out how to
integrate their stuff with PCs.  Never happened.

-- 
Dan Espen