🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-03-24, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Wang was famous this side of the pond with an ad that said something
like, "Join the Wangkers"

the system puzzled me because, although many companies had Wang
systems, there was very little information (books) about it.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man