🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:42:28 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:
> > 
> >> In article <504928995.556023147.9526...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> Peter Flass  <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> More to the point, the /44 only implemented a subset of the 360's
> >>>> instruction set, so even with different peripherals it couldn't run
> >>>> any other OS.
> >>> 
> >>> I understand there was a later microcode update so it could run OS/360.
> >> 
> >> So the IBM web site says, but I doubt it was very popular.  Why get a
> >> machine with strange realtime peripherals if you want to run OS?
> >> 
> >>>> 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've read the manuals too.  The card version of BOS was called BPS,
> >> and none of BOS, DOS, or TOS, could do multiprogramming until much
> >> later versions of DOS.  It looks to me like the disk management was
> >> even more primitive than DOS, with sets of disk tracks explicitly
> >> assigned to files, and it didn't work with more than 32K which
> >> suggests they used direct addressing and 16 bit adcons.
> > 
> > I implemented a multiprogrammed online system on a very early
> > version of DOS, long before DOS/VS.  I think ATTACH and friends
> > were pretty much there from the beginning.
> 
> DOS used to have a max of three partitions: BG, F1, and F2, with no
> multitasking within a partition, so no ATTACH. 

Originally, on our S/360-40, we just used the background partian
for batch jobs.  Then we added a spooler ("power") to F1.  It
improved our throughput tremendously (we could tell it would do
so since the CPU wait light was almost always on when we ran
most jobs.)  

Then, we put a mini-CICS ("MTCS"?) in F2 and hung a few 3270s
off the machine.  That worked ok, too.  All of this in 192K,
and IIRC, DOS occupied all of 16k.  (Of course, the spooler,
running separately, used its own memory space.)







> 
> > 
> > Never saw BOS put to serious use, I think BOS gave you about a 4K
> > supervisor where DOS would be 10K or so.
> > 
> 
> 6K or 8K. I remember working through the "storage estimates" manual to
> figure out what I could include and what had to be left out. "Let's see,
> this feature requires 32 bytes, can I specify this?"I think 6K was BG only.