🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> 
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> All the rest other than OS were mistakes. IBM was unable to get
>>>>>> even PCP to fit on the smallest machines, so DOS, TOS, BOS were written as
>>>>>> "temporary" systems which became permanent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes.  I never entirely understood the difference between BOS and DOS.
>>>>> I realize that BOS could run in 8K and DOS needed 16K, but what else
>>>>> did BOS leave out?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know that much about BOS either. I used to think it was a subset of
>>>> OS, but Bitsavers has some manuals and it appears it was a subset of DOS.
>>>> I'll have to read the manuals. I would assume it at least left out
>>>> multiprogramming. I think BOS could be run from cards.
>>> 
>>> I think the IBM S/360 history says BOS was intended as an 
>>> emergency operating system rushed out so the users would have
>>> something to use quickly.  It could also be used in very small
>>> systems--I believe S/360 was originally offered in only 8k (later
>>> raised to 16k).  DOS was also an emergency development, but
>>> DOS managed to be permanent.
>> 
>> An 8K S/360 would have been useless, OTOH,
>> lots of 8K 1401s worked very well.
>> 
>> IBM managed to design something so complex
>> that it needed an OS, and IBM couldn't shoehorn
>> the OS into 8K, let alone any applications.
>> 
>> An existing 8K 1401 shop would need a S330/30
>> with 64K.  Lots of places tried 32K, that never
>> worked well.
>
> Most of my early career was developing software for customers with 32K
> 360/30s, and that seemed to work out quite well. Obviously basic batch
> applications: personnel, payroll, accounts receivable/payable, inventory,
> etc.

As soon as you wanted to try an online application or a spooler,
you had issues.   Large COBOL applications could easily blow
the 32K limit.  I saw more than one COBOL application with overlays.
Internal sorts would be a problem.

-- 
Dan Espen