🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 

:-)

-- 
Pete