🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-03-24 01:36, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:36:27 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 
>> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 2:24:46 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>>> DisplayWrite was their attempt to recreate that experience for a PC. 
>>> It was pretty klunky, and having what was usually a crappy keyboard 
>>> and a monochrome monitor (CGA for WP would rot your eyeballs out) that 
>>> couldn't handle the symbol characters didn't help. IBM obviously 
>>> didn't know what to do when they no longer had control over the 
>>> hardware. WordPerfect did things much better (aside from the tendency 
>>> to assign functions to F, shift-F, ^F, and alt-F keys in what seemed 
>>> to be random order).
>>
>> IBM had multiple word processing products, and there were 
>> many others, too.
>>
>> We used IBM's Assistant Series.  I don't think they were as popular,
>> but IMHO they were very good.  "Writing Assistant" was a powerful
>> but easy to use tool.
>>
>> IMHO, the original IBM PC was too underpowered to properly support
>> word processing, or indeed, much else.  The 286 onward was a lot
>> faster and thus easier to use.  A lot of early programs obviously
>> worked on the original PC, even with just floppies, but they ran
>> slowly.
> 
> The machine was not too slow.  It worked fine with Word Perfect,
> Multimate, and Word.  It didn't work very well with Wordstar because
> the developers did a half-assed job of porting it.

Are you sure you used those on an original IBM PC at 4Mhz?
I think they appeared much later.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On 24/03/2018 07:14, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
> Are you sure you used those on an original IBM PC at 4Mhz?
> I think they appeared much later.

ISTR that the original IBM PC was 8088 based, the
8 bit bus version of the 8086?

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:14:19 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2018-03-24 01:36, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:36:27 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 2:24:46 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>> DisplayWrite was their attempt to recreate that experience for a PC. 
>>>> It was pretty klunky, and having what was usually a crappy keyboard 
>>>> and a monochrome monitor (CGA for WP would rot your eyeballs out) that 
>>>> couldn't handle the symbol characters didn't help. IBM obviously 
>>>> didn't know what to do when they no longer had control over the 
>>>> hardware. WordPerfect did things much better (aside from the tendency 
>>>> to assign functions to F, shift-F, ^F, and alt-F keys in what seemed 
>>>> to be random order).
>>>
>>> IBM had multiple word processing products, and there were 
>>> many others, too.
>>>
>>> We used IBM's Assistant Series.  I don't think they were as popular,
>>> but IMHO they were very good.  "Writing Assistant" was a powerful
>>> but easy to use tool.
>>>
>>> IMHO, the original IBM PC was too underpowered to properly support
>>> word processing, or indeed, much else.  The 286 onward was a lot
>>> faster and thus easier to use.  A lot of early programs obviously
>>> worked on the original PC, even with just floppies, but they ran
>>> slowly.
>> 
>> The machine was not too slow.  It worked fine with Word Perfect,
>> Multimate, and Word.  It didn't work very well with Wordstar because
>> the developers did a half-assed job of porting it.
>
>Are you sure you used those on an original IBM PC at 4Mhz?
>I think they appeared much later.

Yes, I am sure.

Multimate shipped in 1982--it was developed under a contract from
Connecticut Mutual however the contract allowed the developer to
market the product to others.  The first time I encountered it it was
running on an IBM PC--I remember that it was a PC and not even an XT
because we had to boot from a diskette in order to access the hard
disk and I later upgraded one of the machines to a 286 motherboard
that was unique because it supported the 5-slot PC case.  Note that
the upgrade was to get quicker response time for flight mechanics
calculations, not because there was any issue with the word
processing.

When we got our first laser printer, Multimate was slow to support it,
so we went to Wordstar on those same machines, and it was godawful
slow--we replaced it with Word which had full support for that printer
and worked fine.  That would have been in 1983 or 1984.

A friend of mine ran a rent-an-office service providing typing and
answering services.  I supported her systems, which were IBM PCs
networked to a Novell server running on an XT.  She was using Word
Perfect, which was developed in 1979 to run on a Data General computer
and was ported to the PC in 1982.  She was very happy with it.

All of these released _before_ the AT.

I don't know why you think that word processing needs any great deal
of computer power--Wordstar ran fine on my 8-bit CP/M machine, better
than it did on the PC.

Yes, running at 4.77 MHz. However, calling the 8088 the "8-bit version 
of the 8086" is potentially confusing.

It had an 8-bit external data bus, but it still had the same registers 
and instruction set as the 8086; it was still a 16-bit microprocessor.

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Yes, running at 4.77 MHz. However, calling the 8088 the "8-bit version 
> of the 8086" is potentially confusing.
> 
> It had an 8-bit external data bus, but it still had the same registers 
> and instruction set as the 8086; it was still a 16-bit microprocessor.
> 

I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed up,
since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know you
could get CP/M-86 (and UCSD Pascal) for the Displaywriter.

-- 
Pete

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:14:44 -0700
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed up,
> since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know you

	Intel numbers made little sense viz:

4004	4 bit processor
4040	Improved 4 bit processor
8008	8 bit processor
8080	Improved 8 bit processor - so for so good
8085	8 bit processor with more bits integrated
8086	16 bit processor
8087	FP coprocessor for 8086
8088	8086 with an 8 bit bus - hmm getting messy add a digit!
80186	16 bit processor with more bits integrated
80286	16 bit processor with protected mode
80287	FP coprocessor for 80286
80386	32 bit processor - not 80388!
80387	FP coprocessor for 80386
80386SX	80386 with 16 bit bus
80486	Improved 32 bit processor
80486SX	80486 without FP

	After this they went for names.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 10:00:07 AM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 
> 4004	4 bit processor
> 4040	Improved 4 bit processor
> 8008	8 bit processor
> 8080	Improved 8 bit processor - so for so good
> 8085	8 bit processor with more bits integrated
> 8086	16 bit processor
> 8087	FP coprocessor for 8086
> 8088	8086 with an 8 bit bus - hmm getting messy add a digit!

  8089  I/O processor for 8086
-- 
roger ivie
roger...@gmail.com

On 3/24/2018 11:14 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Yes, running at 4.77 MHz. However, calling the 8088 the "8-bit version
>> of the 8086" is potentially confusing.
>>
>> It had an 8-bit external data bus, but it still had the same registers
>> and instruction set as the 8086; it was still a 16-bit microprocessor.
>>
> 
> I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed up,
> since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know you
> could get CP/M-86 (and UCSD Pascal) for the Displaywriter.
> 
The D'wr did use an 8086. I wanted to say it was 1MHz or 2MHz, but it 
looks like the original 8086 could do 5MHz. We used CP/M-86 and 
Supercalc to run spreadsheets that were too big for an Osborne, but 
performance was sluggish compared to the Oz.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:52:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:14:44 -0700 Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed up,
>> since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know
>> you
> 
> 	Intel numbers made little sense viz:
> 
> 4004	4 bit processor 4040	Improved 4 bit processor 8008	8 bit 
processor
> 8080	Improved 8 bit processor - so for so good 8085	8 bit processor 
with
> more bits integrated 8086	16 bit processor 8087	FP coprocessor 
for 8086
> 8088	8086 with an 8 bit bus - hmm getting messy add a digit!
> 80186	16 bit processor with more bits integrated 80286	16 bit 
processor
> with protected mode 80287	FP coprocessor for 80286 80386	32 bit
> processor - not 80388!
> 80387	FP coprocessor for 80386 80386SX	80386 with 16 bit bus 
80486
> Improved 32 bit processor 80486SX	80486 without FP
> 
> 	After this they went for names.

For completeness...
80188 - 80186 with 8 bit external bus





-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 24/03/2018 12:30, J. Clarke wrote:
{snip}

> I don't know why you think that word processing needs any great deal
> of computer power--Wordstar ran fine on my 8-bit CP/M machine, better
> than it did on the PC.

There was a big increase in word processing speed when PCs had 
sufficient ram to keep the spelling checker's dictionary in store.

On 24/03/2018 16:52, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:14:44 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed up,
>> since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know you
> 
> 	Intel numbers made little sense viz:
> 
> 4004	4 bit processor
> 4040	Improved 4 bit processor
> 8008	8 bit processor
> 8080	Improved 8 bit processor - so for so good
> 8085	8 bit processor with more bits integrated
> 8086	16 bit processor
> 8087	FP coprocessor for 8086
> 8088	8086 with an 8 bit bus - hmm getting messy add a digit!
> 80186	16 bit processor with more bits integrated
> 80286	16 bit processor with protected mode
> 80287	FP coprocessor for 80286
> 80386	32 bit processor - not 80388!
> 80387	FP coprocessor for 80386
> 80386SX	80386 with 16 bit bus
> 80486	Improved 32 bit processor
> 80486SX	80486 without FP
> 
> 	After this they went for names.
> 

There is an urban legend that the 4004 is named after the
creation of the Earth on some date in October at 10AM,
according to the certifiable loonies who are religionists.

On 24/03/2018 18:57, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:52:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:14:44 -0700 Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed up,
>>> since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know
>>> you
>>
>> 	Intel numbers made little sense viz:
>>
>> 4004	4 bit processor 4040	Improved 4 bit processor 8008	8 bit
> processor
>> 8080	Improved 8 bit processor - so for so good 8085	8 bit processor
> with
>> more bits integrated 8086	16 bit processor 8087	FP coprocessor
> for 8086
>> 8088	8086 with an 8 bit bus - hmm getting messy add a digit!
>> 80186	16 bit processor with more bits integrated 80286	16 bit
> processor
>> with protected mode 80287	FP coprocessor for 80286 80386	32 bit
>> processor - not 80388!
>> 80387	FP coprocessor for 80386 80386SX	80386 with 16 bit bus
> 80486
>> Improved 32 bit processor 80486SX	80486 without FP
>>
>> 	After this they went for names.
> 
> For completeness...
> 80188 - 80186 with 8 bit external bus

For completeness...
80188 and 80186 were special purpose processors with integrated I/O
for use in embedded applications. I used them in a PABX design.

On 3/24/2018 2:31 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 24/03/2018 12:30, J. Clarke wrote:
> {snip}
> 
>> I don't know why you think that word processing needs any great deal
>> of computer power--Wordstar ran fine on my 8-bit CP/M machine, better
>> than it did on the PC.
> 
> There was a big increase in word processing speed when PCs had 
> sufficient ram to keep the spelling checker's dictionary in store.

I see WP from the viewpoint of the typist or secretary, not an author. 
Spell checks were typically done in a second pass AFTER the document 
was typed. That's much faster than fixing words as you type (real 
typists wouldn't make typos very often). Real-time spell checking 
doesn't add anything when the typist isn't looking at the screen while 
she's working. You look at the copy stand. Anything that makes you 
take your eyes off of the copy stand or your hands off of the keyboard 
breaks the rhythm and slows you down. Not only do they break the 
rhythm, but then afterward you have to find the place in the hard copy 
where you were looking before, or you're liable to type the same 
paragraph a second time without realizing it. Take you hand off the 
keyboard, and if it doesn't return to the home position when you 
replace it, you're liable to type a paragraph or more of gibberish 
before you notice.

If you're not a touch typist (i.e. type slowly and with many errors) 
or you're composing what you're writing as you type, you'll be going 
slow no matter what you do. Real-time spell checking is helpful there, 
but neither of those is what the employer would have been looking for 
if they advertised for a "word processor".

On 2018-03-25, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 3/24/2018 2:31 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 24/03/2018 12:30, J. Clarke wrote:
>> {snip}
>> 
>>> I don't know why you think that word processing needs any great deal
>>> of computer power--Wordstar ran fine on my 8-bit CP/M machine, better
>>> than it did on the PC.
>> 
>> There was a big increase in word processing speed when PCs had 
>> sufficient ram to keep the spelling checker's dictionary in store.
>
> I see WP from the viewpoint of the typist or secretary, not an author. 
> Spell checks were typically done in a second pass AFTER the document 
> was typed. That's much faster than fixing words as you type (real 
> typists wouldn't make typos very often). Real-time spell checking 
> doesn't add anything when the typist isn't looking at the screen while 
> she's working. You look at the copy stand. Anything that makes you 
> take your eyes off of the copy stand or your hands off of the keyboard 
> breaks the rhythm and slows you down. Not only do they break the 
> rhythm, but then afterward you have to find the place in the hard copy 
> where you were looking before, or you're liable to type the same 
> paragraph a second time without realizing it. Take you hand off the 
> keyboard, and if it doesn't return to the home position when you 
> replace it, you're liable to type a paragraph or more of gibberish 
> before you notice.
>
> If you're not a touch typist (i.e. type slowly and with many errors) 
> or you're composing what you're writing as you type, you'll be going 
> slow no matter what you do. Real-time spell checking is helpful there, 
> but neither of those is what the employer would have been looking for 
> if they advertised for a "word processor".

I agree, or should that be "me too"


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 3/24/2018 1:57 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:52:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:14:44 -0700 Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed up,
>>> since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know
>>> you
>>
>> 	Intel numbers made little sense viz:
>>
>> 4004	4 bit processor 4040	Improved 4 bit processor 8008	8 bit
> processor
>> 8080	Improved 8 bit processor - so for so good 8085	8 bit processor
> with
>> more bits integrated 8086	16 bit processor 8087	FP coprocessor
> for 8086
>> 8088	8086 with an 8 bit bus - hmm getting messy add a digit!
>> 80186	16 bit processor with more bits integrated 80286	16 bit
> processor
>> with protected mode 80287	FP coprocessor for 80286 80386	32 bit
>> processor - not 80388!
>> 80387	FP coprocessor for 80386 80386SX	80386 with 16 bit bus
> 80486
>> Improved 32 bit processor 80486SX	80486 without FP
>>
>> 	After this they went for names.
> 
> For completeness...
> 80188 - 80186 with 8 bit external bus
> 

Radio Shack actually built a computer around the 80186, bu it was *not* 
IBM compatible...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_2000



-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:10:01 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:

> On 3/24/2018 1:57 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:52:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:14:44 -0700 Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the Displaywriter used the 8086. I get the processors mixed
>>>> up,
>>>> since you would expect the 88 to be an improvement on the 86. I know
>>>> you
>>>
>>> 	Intel numbers made little sense viz:
>>>
>>> 4004	4 bit processor 4040	Improved 4 bit processor 8008	8 
bit
>> processor
>>> 8080	Improved 8 bit processor - so for so good 8085	8 bit 
processor
>> with
>>> more bits integrated 8086	16 bit processor 8087	FP coprocessor
>> for 8086
>>> 8088	8086 with an 8 bit bus - hmm getting messy add a digit!
>>> 80186	16 bit processor with more bits integrated 80286	
16 bit
>> processor
>>> with protected mode 80287	FP coprocessor for 80286 80386	32 bit
>>> processor - not 80388!
>>> 80387	FP coprocessor for 80386 80386SX	80386 with 16 bit 
bus
>> 80486
>>> Improved 32 bit processor 80486SX	80486 without FP
>>>
>>> 	After this they went for names.
>> 
>> For completeness...
>> 80188 - 80186 with 8 bit external bus
>> 
>> 
> Radio Shack actually built a computer around the 80186, bu it was *not*
> IBM compatible...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_2000

If it used the 80186, it couldn't be. Some significant differences 
including the use of the last few bytes of the address space, used in the 
8086/88 by the ROM.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 2018-03-24 16:56, Quadibloc wrote:
> Yes, running at 4.77 MHz. However, calling the 8088 the "8-bit version 
> of the 8086" is potentially confusing.
> 
> It had an 8-bit external data bus, but it still had the same registers 
> and instruction set as the 8086; it was still a 16-bit microprocessor.

Yes, the bus was multiplexed.

They used a similar trick with the 80386SX, IIRC: 32 bit inside, 16 bit bus.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-03-25 12:20, Huge wrote:
> On 2018-03-25, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 3/24/2018 1:57 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
> 
> [27 lines snipped]
> 
>>> For completeness...
>>> 80188 - 80186 with 8 bit external bus
>>>
>>
>> Radio Shack actually built a computer around the 80186, bu it was *not* 
>> IBM compatible...
> 
> I thought the Amstrad PC1512 was a 80186. (The first computer I ever bought.)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC1512
> 
> Now that's interesting, since the Wikipedia article says it was an 8086,
> but I'm sure it was a 80186. Anyone know for sure?

8086 for sure. I bought the internal manual. It run faster in tests than
IBM PC clones with same or a bit higher clock frequency.

There were around tests that measured "compatibility" with the original
IB PC design, and also speed.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-03-24 13:30, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:14:19 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-03-24 01:36, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:36:27 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 2:24:46 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DisplayWrite was their attempt to recreate that experience for a PC. 
>>>>> It was pretty klunky, and having what was usually a crappy keyboard 
>>>>> and a monochrome monitor (CGA for WP would rot your eyeballs out) that 
>>>>> couldn't handle the symbol characters didn't help. IBM obviously 
>>>>> didn't know what to do when they no longer had control over the 
>>>>> hardware. WordPerfect did things much better (aside from the tendency 
>>>>> to assign functions to F, shift-F, ^F, and alt-F keys in what seemed 
>>>>> to be random order).
>>>>
>>>> IBM had multiple word processing products, and there were 
>>>> many others, too.
>>>>
>>>> We used IBM's Assistant Series.  I don't think they were as popular,
>>>> but IMHO they were very good.  "Writing Assistant" was a powerful
>>>> but easy to use tool.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the original IBM PC was too underpowered to properly support
>>>> word processing, or indeed, much else.  The 286 onward was a lot
>>>> faster and thus easier to use.  A lot of early programs obviously
>>>> worked on the original PC, even with just floppies, but they ran
>>>> slowly.
>>>
>>> The machine was not too slow.  It worked fine with Word Perfect,
>>> Multimate, and Word.  It didn't work very well with Wordstar because
>>> the developers did a half-assed job of porting it.
>>
>> Are you sure you used those on an original IBM PC at 4Mhz?
>> I think they appeared much later.
> 
> Yes, I am sure.
> 
> Multimate shipped in 1982--it was developed under a contract from
> Connecticut Mutual however the contract allowed the developer to
> market the product to others.  The first time I encountered it it was
> running on an IBM PC--I remember that it was a PC and not even an XT
> because we had to boot from a diskette in order to access the hard
> disk and I later upgraded one of the machines to a 286 motherboard
> that was unique because it supported the 5-slot PC case.  Note that
> the upgrade was to get quicker response time for flight mechanics
> calculations, not because there was any issue with the word
> processing.
> 
> When we got our first laser printer, Multimate was slow to support it,
> so we went to Wordstar on those same machines, and it was godawful
> slow--we replaced it with Word which had full support for that printer
> and worked fine.  That would have been in 1983 or 1984.
> 
> A friend of mine ran a rent-an-office service providing typing and
> answering services.  I supported her systems, which were IBM PCs
> networked to a Novell server running on an XT.  She was using Word
> Perfect, which was developed in 1979 to run on a Data General computer
> and was ported to the PC in 1982.  She was very happy with it.
> 
> All of these released _before_ the AT.
> 
> I don't know why you think that word processing needs any great deal
> of computer power--Wordstar ran fine on my 8-bit CP/M machine, better
> than it did on the PC.

I have no issue with Wordstar, I used it at the time on my Amstrad 1512,
but I don't remember Word nor WordPerfect. Maybe they simply were not
popular here: I started using WP with version 5 around 1990.

I think I remember trying other word processors and dropping them at the
time, not up to the task. They could perhaps be early versions of Word
or WP.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On 25/03/2018 13:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2018-03-24 16:56, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Yes, running at 4.77 MHz. However, calling the 8088 the "8-bit version
>> of the 8086" is potentially confusing.
>>
>> It had an 8-bit external data bus, but it still had the same registers
>> and instruction set as the 8086; it was still a 16-bit microprocessor.
> 
> Yes, the bus was multiplexed.
> 
> They used a similar trick with the 80386SX, IIRC: 32 bit inside, 16 bit bus.
> 

And how well off we low level aficionados felt with the 386SX!

Even more so with the 64 bit processors now that segments are
dispensed with leaving us only with the more traditional
(Manchester Atlas??) paging.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:46:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2018-03-25 12:20, Huge wrote:
>> On 2018-03-25, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2018 1:57 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> 
>> [27 lines snipped]
>> 
>>>> For completeness...
>>>> 80188 - 80186 with 8 bit external bus
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Radio Shack actually built a computer around the 80186, bu it was
>>> *not*
>>> IBM compatible...
>> 
>> I thought the Amstrad PC1512 was a 80186. (The first computer I ever
>> bought.)
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC1512
>> 
>> Now that's interesting, since the Wikipedia article says it was an
>> 8086,
>> but I'm sure it was a 80186. Anyone know for sure?
> 
> 8086 for sure. I bought the internal manual. It run faster in tests than
> IBM PC clones with same or a bit higher clock frequency.
> 
> There were around tests that measured "compatibility" with the original
> IB PC design, and also speed.

It was possible to get a useful performance increase, at low cost, by 
changing the CPU.

NEC V20 instead of 8088, V30 instead of 8086. Main improvements in 
multiply/devide/shift, due to a barrel shifter and stuff. It also had 
some of the 80186 enhanced instructions, although for compatibility they 
were not often used.

And if you dug deep, you could switch it into 8085 mode.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
> It was possible to get a useful performance increase, at low cost, by 
> changing the CPU.
>
> NEC V20 instead of 8088, V30 instead of 8086. Main improvements in 
> multiply/devide/shift, due to a barrel shifter and stuff. It also had 
> some of the 80186 enhanced instructions, although for compatibility they 
> were not often used.
>
> And if you dug deep, you could switch it into 8085 mode.

Hotshot for PCjr had V20 and more/faster memory, old email
with description
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#email860929
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#email861114

in these posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#83 Happy DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#80 IBM PCjr STRIPPED BARE: We tear down the machine Big Blue would rather you forgot

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On 25/03/2018 00:20, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 3/24/2018 2:31 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 24/03/2018 12:30, J. Clarke wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>> I don't know why you think that word processing needs any great deal
>>> of computer power--Wordstar ran fine on my 8-bit CP/M machine, better
>>> than it did on the PC.
>>
>> There was a big increase in word processing speed when PCs had 
>> sufficient ram to keep the spelling checker's dictionary in store.
> 
> I see WP from the viewpoint of the typist or secretary, not an author. 
> Spell checks were typically done in a second pass AFTER the document was 
> typed. That's much faster than fixing words as you type (real typists 
> wouldn't make typos very often). Real-time spell checking doesn't add 
> anything when the typist isn't looking at the screen while she's 
> working. You look at the copy stand. Anything that makes you take your 
> eyes off of the copy stand or your hands off of the keyboard breaks the 
> rhythm and slows you down. Not only do they break the rhythm, but then 
> afterward you have to find the place in the hard copy where you were 
> looking before, or you're liable to type the same paragraph a second 
> time without realizing it. Take you hand off the keyboard, and if it 
> doesn't return to the home position when you replace it, you're liable 
> to type a paragraph or more of gibberish before you notice.
> 
> If you're not a touch typist (i.e. type slowly and with many errors) or 
> you're composing what you're writing as you type, you'll be going slow 
> no matter what you do. Real-time spell checking is helpful there, but 
> neither of those is what the employer would have been looking for if 
> they advertised for a "word processor".

Real time checking of spelling came later. Searching a floppy disc for 
every word is very slow.

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com>, 2018-03-25 03:10 (-0500):

> Radio Shack actually built a computer around the 80186, bu it was
> *not* IBM compatible...

So did the Swedish government for use in schools:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compis
  http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=358
  http://pc-museum.com/030-compis/index.htm

Nice image:

  http://pc-museum.com/030-compis/rcm-030.jpg

It was actually quite nice hardware, but it was rather late: specified
in the early 80s and not actually in schools until perhaps 1985 or -86.
By then CP/M-86 felt really old. Worse, however, was that the computers
were very rarely used, at least in my primary school.

-- 
MC, http://hack.org/mc/

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 8:20:31 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:

> I see WP from the viewpoint of the typist or secretary, not an author. 
> Spell checks were typically done in a second pass AFTER the document 
> was typed. That's much faster than fixing words as you type (real 
> typists wouldn't make typos very often). Real-time spell checking 
> doesn't add anything when the typist isn't looking at the screen while 
> she's working. You look at the copy stand. Anything that makes you 
> take your eyes off of the copy stand or your hands off of the keyboard 
> breaks the rhythm and slows you down. Not only do they break the 
> rhythm, but then afterward you have to find the place in the hard copy 
> where you were looking before, or you're liable to type the same 
> paragraph a second time without realizing it. Take you hand off the 
> keyboard, and if it doesn't return to the home position when you 
> replace it, you're liable to type a paragraph or more of gibberish 
> before you notice.
> 
> If you're not a touch typist (i.e. type slowly and with many errors) 
> or you're composing what you're writing as you type, you'll be going 
> slow no matter what you do. Real-time spell checking is helpful there, 
> but neither of those is what the employer would have been looking for 
> if they advertised for a "word processor".

Some observations...

1) In 1978, most of the white collar workers did NOT know how
to type.  It was corporate policy to send all typing to a secretary
or typist; they didn't want better paid workers wasting their
time typing.  Likewise, programmers were directed to have new
programs sent to keypunch (they were allowed to keypunch a few 
lines of change.)  
  This rule was enforced--I knew how to type, and sometimes would
type up a document and get reprimanded by management.  Indeed, this
would happen even if I was working after hours.  (In certain
places, like a steel mill, it was a serious violation of the
union contract to do someone else's work.)
  In contrast, 30 years later (maybe sooner) most white collar
workers DID know how to type and usually typed their own work.
Secretaries became scarce.

 2) As described above, "touch typing" was more than just knowing
the keyboard--those other aspects, too, led to better
accuracy and speed.  They were taught in typing class.
  To this day, some computer keyboards have a little rise on the
F and J keys to aid the user to find the "home row" for their
fingers.  My Dell and HP keyboards have them.

 3) For myself, using the Teletype in timesharing helped by
typing skills.

 4) For myself, I could not type well on an 029 keypunch machine. 
The letters were in the usual place, but I wasn't used to the
numeric keypad, and special characters--used a lot in programming--
were all over the keyboard.  Further, the keypunch keyboard was
designed for speed and was very sensitive--I think even more
sensitive than a Selectric keyboard.  It seemed very easy to
make typos, which meant duping and redoing the card.  I did
like the IBM 129 since it allowed corrections.




 

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>  2) As described above, "touch typing" was more than just knowing
> the keyboard--those other aspects, too, led to better
> accuracy and speed.  They were taught in typing class.
>   To this day, some computer keyboards have a little rise on the
> F and J keys to aid the user to find the "home row" for their
> fingers.  My Dell and HP keyboards have them.
>
>  3) For myself, using the Teletype in timesharing helped by
> typing skills.

junior high in the 50s, I found an old discarded typewriter and taught
myself how to touch type (got to 50-60 words/min)

later in collete, I didn't notice particular problems with 026, 029,
2741 (80-100 words/min) ... but I found that tty33 ... required
significant more pressure and much more distance ... distance
compareable to discarded typewriter when I was kid ... but more
resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> junior high in the 50s, I found an old discarded typewriter and taught
> myself how to touch type (got to 50-60 words/min)

Today, from time to time I have found perfectly good nice
electric typewriters discarded in the trash, including an
IBM Executive (had no room for it, weighed a ton, had to let
it go).  Soon my Selectric III will join them as I have no room
for it.  Sad, but the world marches on.

Indeed, years ago my employer let me have a no longer wanted
Selectric II correcting dual pitch typewriter for the grand
sum of $1.  I thought it would be a neat thing to have, but
in reality I rarely used it as my word processor did almost
all the things I wanted.


> later in collete, I didn't notice particular problems with 026, 029,
> 2741 (80-100 words/min) ... but I found that tty33 ... required
> significant more pressure and much more distance ... distance
> compareable to discarded typewriter when I was kid ... but more
> resistance.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33

Yes, the TTY 33 felt like a manual, not an electric.  I wonder if
that was intentional to slow fast typists down, though the
machine could handle 10 characters/sec (about 100 words/minute),
which is pretty fast.  

I don't know the internals of the 33.  Older teletypes were
somewhat manual internally, that is, depressing a key lowered
a lever which activated 'code bars' which were notched to generate
the character code.  The model 33 was intended to be a light duty
occasional use machine, not a full time computer terminal, even
though many places used it as such.

Later model Teletypes were better, and competing machines were
better.  I don't know about the model 35--the heavy duty version.

On 2018-03-26, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Yes, the TTY 33 felt like a manual, not an electric.  I wonder if
> that was intentional to slow fast typists down, though the
> machine could handle 10 characters/sec (about 100 words/minute),
> which is pretty fast.  
>
> I don't know the internals of the 33.  Older teletypes were
> somewhat manual internally, that is, depressing a key lowered
> a lever which activated 'code bars' which were notched to generate
> the character code.  The model 33 was intended to be a light duty
> occasional use machine, not a full time computer terminal, even
> though many places used it as such.
>
> Later model Teletypes were better, and competing machines were
> better.  I don't know about the model 35--the heavy duty version.

I think the problem is that fast typists tend to type characters
in bursts.  Even though it averages out to 10 characters per second,
some of those bursts come in considerably faster.  The Teletype
keybaord, on the other hand, wanted a consistent 10 characters
per second; bursts wouldn't work.  In addition, it was hard to
type fast given the long key travel and high pressure required.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 3/26/2018 10:03 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-03-26, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, the TTY 33 felt like a manual, not an electric.  I wonder if
>> that was intentional to slow fast typists down, though the
>> machine could handle 10 characters/sec (about 100 words/minute),
>> which is pretty fast.
>>
>> I don't know the internals of the 33.  Older teletypes were
>> somewhat manual internally, that is, depressing a key lowered
>> a lever which activated 'code bars' which were notched to generate
>> the character code.  The model 33 was intended to be a light duty
>> occasional use machine, not a full time computer terminal, even
>> though many places used it as such.
>>
>> Later model Teletypes were better, and competing machines were
>> better.  I don't know about the model 35--the heavy duty version.
> 
> I think the problem is that fast typists tend to type characters
> in bursts.  Even though it averages out to 10 characters per second,
> some of those bursts come in considerably faster.  The Teletype
> keybaord, on the other hand, wanted a consistent 10 characters
> per second; bursts wouldn't work.  In addition, it was hard to
> type fast given the long key travel and high pressure required.
> 

Typists on manual typewrites... had to type in rhythm.  That was the 
important thing, rather than the speed.  If you got out of rhythm, the 
keys would jam.  Unlike a computer keyboard, when you type "the"... you 
can *not* hit the t-h in rapid succession.  You have to stay in a 
rhythmic pattern.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2018-03-27, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/2018 10:03 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-03-26, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> 
>> keybaord, on the other hand, wanted a consistent 10 characters
>> per second; bursts wouldn't work.  In addition, it was hard to
>> type fast given the long key travel and high pressure required.
>> 
>
> Typists on manual typewrites... had to type in rhythm.  That was the 
> important thing, rather than the speed.  If you got out of rhythm, the 
> keys would jam.  Unlike a computer keyboard, when you type "the"... you 
> can *not* hit the t-h in rapid succession.  You have to stay in a 
> rhythmic pattern.
>

Therefore, the qwerty keyboards was brought in to slow things down?


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 3/27/2018 2:12 AM, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> On 2018-03-27, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 3/26/2018 10:03 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-26, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> keybaord, on the other hand, wanted a consistent 10 characters
>>> per second; bursts wouldn't work.  In addition, it was hard to
>>> type fast given the long key travel and high pressure required.
>>>
>>
>> Typists on manual typewrites... had to type in rhythm.  That was the
>> important thing, rather than the speed.  If you got out of rhythm, the
>> keys would jam.  Unlike a computer keyboard, when you type "the"... you
>> can *not* hit the t-h in rapid succession.  You have to stay in a
>> rhythmic pattern.
>>
> 
> Therefore, the qwerty keyboards was brought in to slow things down?
> 
> 

Stories are many concerning the QWERTY keyboard...

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:01:00 AM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:

> Typists on manual typewrites... had to type in rhythm.  That was the 
> important thing, rather than the speed.  If you got out of rhythm, the 
> keys would jam.  Unlike a computer keyboard, when you type "the"... you 
> can *not* hit the t-h in rapid succession.  You have to stay in a 
> rhythmic pattern.

Another reason to type in rhythm on a manual was to produce an
even copy.  Otherwise, on a manual, some letters would be hit hard
and some hit soft, with the copy looking lousy.  We've all seen
blackened "e" and punched out "o".

This was especially important when typing a mimeograph stencil.

AB Dick Mimeograph ads (first ad explains good stencil cutting, also
has article on Detroit's troubles).
https://books.google.com/books?id=v04EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA14&dq=life%20mimeograph%20typing&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q=life%20mimeograph%20typing&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=9EEEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA14&dq=life%20mimeograph&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ckoEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA10&dq=life%20mimeograph&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false



I'm guessing that in the old days, tabulating machines were
used on occasion to cut a mimeo stencil for things like a
directory or catalog.  I don't know about a computer driven
1403, but probably done there as well, especially back in the
early 1960s.

On our Univac 90/30, we had a film ribbon which we used from
time to time to produce a directory that was photocopied.  But
the printer of the 90/30 was pretty crappy and even with a film
ribbon the output looked lousy, indeed even worse, such as with
only partly formed characters.  Our office had a mag card, and
that should've been used instead to maintain the directory, even
if it meant duplicate typing.

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:51:58 AM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:

> > Therefore, the qwerty keyboards was brought in to slow things down?

> Stories are many concerning the QWERTY keyboard...

In 1956, Western Union evaluated the Dvorak keyboard.  While it
did seem to improve efficiency, conversion and retraining was 
deemed to be impractical.  WUTR article, including layout:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/10-1/p043.htm

On 3/28/2018 4:13 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:01:00 AM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:
> 
>> Typists on manual typewrites... had to type in rhythm.  That was the
>> important thing, rather than the speed.  If you got out of rhythm, the
>> keys would jam.  Unlike a computer keyboard, when you type "the"... you
>> can *not* hit the t-h in rapid succession.  You have to stay in a
>> rhythmic pattern.
> 
> Another reason to type in rhythm on a manual was to produce an
> even copy.  Otherwise, on a manual, some letters would be hit hard
> and some hit soft, with the copy looking lousy.  We've all seen
> blackened "e" and punched out "o".
> 
> This was especially important when typing a mimeograph stencil.

All those. But even when it's all electronic, rhythm is important. It 
helps to prevent pairs of  letters from getting swapped when it's a 
right/left hand pair. And rhythm makes it easier to be fast. If you 
break the rhythm, there's an interval of maybe a line where you're 
getting back into the groove after finding your place in the copy and 
getting your hands back to the home row. I'd liken it to stopping to 
rest if you're running, walking, or riding a bicycle for a long 
distance, the rest is nice but then when you restart the first few 
minutes after are really difficult. This might not apply to writing 
with a keyboard, because then it's the brain flow that's probably the 
limiting factor, not your fingers.

A good typist can carry on a simple conversation while typing 
something else without slowing down. It's different parts of the brain.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I'm guessing that in the old days, tabulating machines were
> used on occasion to cut a mimeo stencil for things like a
> directory or catalog.  I don't know about a computer driven
> 1403, but probably done there as well, especially back in the
> early 1960s.
>
> On our Univac 90/30, we had a film ribbon which we used from
> time to time to produce a directory that was photocopied.  But
> the printer of the 90/30 was pretty crappy and even with a film
> ribbon the output looked lousy, indeed even worse, such as with
> only partly formed characters.  Our office had a mag card, and
> that should've been used instead to maintain the directory, even
> if it meant duplicate typing.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#94 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#100 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#103 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#109 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#1 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#7 Old word processors

CP67 and VM370 were being done in CMS script (originally started out as
CTSS RUNOFF reimplementation) ... for official ibm publication ... some
run off on 2741 using film ribbon and some being run off on 1403N1 with
film ribbon ... used for photo offset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_printing

First major mainstream IBM pub was principles of operation .... where
the architecture "red book" was moved to CMS script ... command line
option would either select printing the full "red book" (with
engineering notes, implementation notes, alternative considerations,
etc) or the princles of operation subset.

GML had been invented at the science center ... and GML tag support was
added to CMS script which started seeing a lot more use in the first
part of 70s ... and then 2nd half of the 70s started seeing lots of 3800
laser printers at internal datacenters (75-76)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3800

then in 79/80, 6670s (ibm copier3 with computer interface) started
showing up in departmental areas (supported fonts for printing text)
... originally for OS/6 ... OPD, replacing mag card selectrics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/6
replaced by displaywriter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Displaywriter_System

then mainframe support was added. san jose research did the
enhancements for sherpa/6670APA (being able to do images). old
email about sherpa
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#email820304

one of the people responsible for sherpa ... worked on including
postscript processing in sherpa ... and then left IBM for adobe.

directory trivia: Friday's after work had discussions what could be done
about middle management and upper executives mostly being computer
illiterate and what might be done to get them to use computers.  we hit
on trying online phone directory ... Jim Gray (before he left research
for tandem) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gray_(computer_scientist)

would spend max. of 2 person weeks developing the lookup program and I
would spend max. of 2 person weeks writing process collecting and
reformating as many company phone directories as possible (one of
problems ran into was lawyers & security people wanted to insist that
while paper directories weren't corporate confidential ... if they were
online, they had to be classified confidential restricted and employees
couldn't have access).

this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.

other trivia: PROFS group had collecting some number of internal
applications (including telephone books) and wrapping MENUs around
them. They had taken very early version of VMSG for the email
client. When the VMSG tried to offer them a much enhanced version, the
PROFS group attempted to get him fired (since they had already claimed
credit for everyting).  Things quieted down when VMSG author
demonstrated that every PROFS email had his initials in non-displayed
field (after that the VMSG author only shared source with me and one
other person).

science center posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
GML/SGML posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#sgml
some CP67/CMS pubs
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/cp67/
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/cms/

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On 3/28/2018 4:20 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:51:58 AM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:
> 
>>> Therefore, the qwerty keyboards was brought in to slow things down?
> 
>> Stories are many concerning the QWERTY keyboard...
> 
> In 1956, Western Union evaluated the Dvorak keyboard.  While it
> did seem to improve efficiency, conversion and retraining was
> deemed to be impractical.  WUTR article, including layout:
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/10-1/p043.htm
> 
> 

There are other skeyboard layouts since Dvorak... that are deemed even 
more efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2018-03-29, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:

> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.

When a PPOE ordered a batch of personal computers, the pattern was
predictable.  The managers got the biggest, most powerful machines
with the largest screens, even though they hardly touched them
(gotta have the status symbol, doncha know).  As a programmer I
got a medium-sized machine.  Our poor data entry clerk, being at
the bottom of the totem pole, got the smallest machine, with a
crappy little screen, even though she was using it more heavily
than anyone.  (She really wasn't treated very nicely.  Several
times she stormed out of the office in tears.  One day she never
came back.  Mind you, given the management invasion in progress
at the time, many of us - in all departments - walked eventually.)

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 2018-03-28, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On our Univac 90/30, we had a film ribbon which we used from
> time to time to produce a directory that was photocopied.  But
> the printer of the 90/30 was pretty crappy and even with a film
> ribbon the output looked lousy, indeed even worse, such as with
> only partly formed characters.  Our office had a mag card, and
> that should've been used instead to maintain the directory, even
> if it meant duplicate typing.

Our 90/30 wrote a tape that we sent to a phototypesetting bureau.
One day we discovered that the bureau had closed down.  However,
we had an old Laserwriter kicking around (God knows where it came
from).  I bought and studied the PostScript manuals, and modified
our program to write PostScript to a disk file.  We downloaded the
file to a personal computer, hung the laser printer on its serialo
port, and presto - camera-ready copy.

There's something about having a COBOL program write PostScript
that appealed to my sense of perversity.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:09:21 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:



> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.

When PCs came out, every manager wanted one for the prestige
of it, and also wanted the better models (faster chip).  The 
people who actually did work got stuck with the lesser models.
So a manager would have a nice AT that never got touched, while
the clerk pounding away all day had the XT.

As to terminals, I think most places started off with a 
terminal room where the terminals were shared among a large
staff of programmers.  Then as the cost dropped, more and
more programmers got them.  For us, it was in 1989 that 
finally every programmer got a terminal.

One welcome terminal feature (I think provided by the controller)
was the ability to get multiple sessions and easily toggle between
them.  This way a programmer could look at his source code and
then the execution on CICS.

(Another welcome feature was software that allowed one to step
through execution of a CICS program, being able to look at results
of each line and of all the fields.  We had both the IBM product
and the one from an independent vendor.)


> other trivia: PROFS group had collecting some number of internal
> applications (including telephone books) and wrapping MENUs around
> them. They had taken very early version of VMSG for the email
> client. When the VMSG tried to offer them a much enhanced version, the
> PROFS group attempted to get him fired (since they had already claimed
> credit for everyting).  Things quieted down when VMSG author
> demonstrated that every PROFS email had his initials in non-displayed
> field (after that the VMSG author only shared source with me and one
> other person).

Our corporate phone book was also on PROFS.  Most useful.

I liked PROFS, and used it until it was unplugged.  Others liked
the PC email packages.

It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
new.  Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs.  The S/360 development had a
lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.

Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
spurs people onward.  Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
liked to purposely shake things up in the company.  Personally,
I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
are best worked out at a low level when possible.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#15 Old word processors

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
> seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
> new.  Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
> Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs.  The S/360 development had a
> lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.

I've told the story before about the Gov. antitrust (turns out one of
the IBM people at the science center had relative that was MIT
economist(?) that was at the trial) ... where various members of the
bunch all testified that by the end of the 50s, all computer companies
knew that the single most important customer requirement was compatible
computer line (beginning of rapid growth in computer use ... so
projecting lots of upgrading) ... and only IBM top executives managed to
enforce it (none of the top executives at bunch managed to force plant
managers for various product lines to toe the line) ... compatible
product line was more important than features for any particular model.

in the wake of failure FS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
there was mad rush to get stuff back into product pipelines,
3033 & 3081 kicked off in parallel
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm
3033 started out 168-3 logic mapped to 20% faster chips.

4341 (endicott) came out in 1979, a little after 3033 (POK) ... but
cluster of 4341s was much cheaper than 3033, much more powerful
aggregate computing, much less aggregate footprint and
environmentals. Head of POK was apparently so threatened that at one
point managed to get allocation for critical 4341 manufacturing
component cut in half.

then there is my oft repeated tale about late 80s, a senior disk
engineer got a talk scheduled at internal, world-wide, annual,
communication group conference ... supposedly on 3174 performance
... however he opened his talk with the statement that the head of the
communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the
disk division. The issue was that the communication group had
stranglehold on datacenters with corporate strategic ownership of
everything that crossed datacenter walls and were fiercely fighting off
distributed computing and client/server, trying to preserve their dumb
terminal paradigm and install base. The disk division was seeing data
fleeing datacenters to more distributed computing friendly platforms
with fall in disk sales. The disk division had come up with a number of
solution to address the opportunity, but they were constantly being
vetoed by the communication group. The mainframe datacenter stranglehold
wasn't just affecting disk sales and a few years later the company goes
into the red.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:09:21 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> this was in period (late 70s/early 80s) where 3270 terminals were part
>> of fall budget cycle and each one required VP-level sign-off. Then there
>> was a rapidly spreading rumor that some of the corporate executive
>> committee members were using email ... and all of a sudden every middle
>> manager in the company had to have 3270 terminal on their desk (even if
>> they never actually used them, spending the day with the vm370 login
>> screen or possibly PROFS menu being burned into screen) ... pre-empting
>> annual 3270 terminal deliveries justified for development projects.
> 
> When PCs came out, every manager wanted one for the prestige
> of it, and also wanted the better models (faster chip).  The 
> people who actually did work got stuck with the lesser models.
> So a manager would have a nice AT that never got touched, while
> the clerk pounding away all day had the XT.
> 
> As to terminals, I think most places started off with a 
> terminal room where the terminals were shared among a large
> staff of programmers.  Then as the cost dropped, more and
> more programmers got them.  For us, it was in 1989 that 
> finally every programmer got a terminal.
> 
> One welcome terminal feature (I think provided by the controller)
> was the ability to get multiple sessions and easily toggle between
> them.  This way a programmer could look at his source code and
> then the execution on CICS.
> 
> (Another welcome feature was software that allowed one to step
> through execution of a CICS program, being able to look at results
> of each line and of all the fields.  We had both the IBM product
> and the one from an independent vendor.)
> 
> 
>> other trivia: PROFS group had collecting some number of internal
>> applications (including telephone books) and wrapping MENUs around
>> them. They had taken very early version of VMSG for the email
>> client. When the VMSG tried to offer them a much enhanced version, the
>> PROFS group attempted to get him fired (since they had already claimed
>> credit for everyting).  Things quieted down when VMSG author
>> demonstrated that every PROFS email had his initials in non-displayed
>> field (after that the VMSG author only shared source with me and one
>> other person).
> 
> Our corporate phone book was also on PROFS.  Most useful.
> 
> I liked PROFS, and used it until it was unplugged.  Others liked
> the PC email packages.
> 
> It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
> seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
> new.  Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
> Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs.  The S/360 development had a
> lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.
> 
> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
> spurs people onward.  Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
> liked to purposely shake things up in the company.  Personally,
> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
> 

That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of lemmings
marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-03-30, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
>> spurs people onward.  Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
>> liked to purposely shake things up in the company.  Personally,
>> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
>> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
>> 
>
> That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of
> lemmings marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.

Unless you're the head lemming with a golden parachute to deploy
as you go over the edge.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>On 2018-03-30, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
>>> spurs people onward.  Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
>>> liked to purposely shake things up in the company.  Personally,
>>> I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
>>> are best worked out at a low level when possible.
>>> 
>>
>> That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of
>> lemmings marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.
>
>Unless you're the head lemming with a golden parachute to deploy
>as you go over the edge.

Actually, a herd of lemmings marching off a cliff is generally a
good thing (for the population of lemmings as a whole :-) albeit
a common misconception.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:09:21 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> other trivia: PROFS group had collecting some number of internal
>> applications (including telephone books) and wrapping MENUs around
>> them. They had taken very early version of VMSG for the email
>> client. When the VMSG tried to offer them a much enhanced version, the
>> PROFS group attempted to get him fired (since they had already claimed
>> credit for everyting).  Things quieted down when VMSG author
>> demonstrated that every PROFS email had his initials in non-displayed
>> field (after that the VMSG author only shared source with me and one
>> other person).
>
> Our corporate phone book was also on PROFS.  Most useful.
>
> I liked PROFS, and used it until it was unplugged.  Others liked
> the PC email packages.

I liked PROFS, a little, but I felt the screens were designed
poorly.

Of course, with ISPF, it's pretty simple to put your own screens
in place of the ones supplied by IBM which is just what I did.
Mainly, I made sure to use all 7 colors available instead of
the 4 colors IBM insisted on using.  Why IBM never adopted the
standard of underlining column headers was mystery to me which
I fixed too.  A bit of reverse image, better compaction of
information and alignment and PROFS looked pretty good.

-- 
Dan Espen

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 8:58:35 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> > It's sad to read of intra-department squabbles at IBM, but it
> > seems from the IBM Early Computer history that this is nothing
> > new.  Back in the early 1950s there was rivalry between the
> > Endicott and Poughkeepsie labs.  The S/360 development had a
> > lot of sharp differences of opinion on the direction to go.
> 
> I've told the story before about the Gov. antitrust (turns out one of
> the IBM people at the science center had relative that was MIT
> economist(?) that was at the trial) ... where various members of the
> bunch all testified that by the end of the 50s, all computer companies
> knew that the single most important customer requirement was compatible
> computer line (beginning of rapid growth in computer use ... so
> projecting lots of upgrading) ... and only IBM top executives managed to
> enforce it (none of the top executives at bunch managed to force plant
> managers for various product lines to toe the line) ... compatible
> product line was more important than features for any particular model.

>From what I've read, creating a compatible product line across
all four modes* in 1960 would require a lot of compromises that
would downgrade performance and increase cost.  In 1960, computer
hardware was still extremely expensive, not that fast, so including
circuits to do unwanted functions was an unnecessary expense.  Indeed,
even in the early days of S/360 and even PC's, floating point was an
optional feature.  The addressing needs on a small machine are different
than a large machine; S/360 base+displacement was a compromise.

* Small business-oriented, large business, small science/engineering,
large sci/eng.  Each type of orientation requires specific hardware.

Anyway, the product managers were expected to develop cost-effective
competitively priced hardware, which countered the goal of 
compatibility.  I can't blame them for being resistant; their
futures were threatened.

Note that the 1410/7010 wasn't exactly compatible with the 1401;
one had to throw a switch to run 1401 programs.

[snip]

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:45:15 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

> > Some CEO's believe conflict in an organization is healthy and
> > spurs people onward.  Watson Jr said in his memoirs that he
> > liked to purposely shake things up in the company.  Personally,
> > I think a company functions better as a united team and conflicting
> > are best worked out at a low level when possible.

> That's best if you're going in the right direction, but a herd of lemmings
> marching in lockstep off a cliff is never a good thing.

Good point.

IMHO, good management is like parenting--you have to find the
optimum balance between too much and too little control.  You want
people to grow and thrive, but, as you said, they do have to be
going in the right direction.

At Los Alamos during WW II, Gen. Groves was fanatic about everyone,
even high scientists, doing only their assigned work and nothing
else.  Part of this was for security, but he felt that any digression
from assigned tasks was an unnecessary waste of time.  Groves was not
popular, and even during wartime, I don't think I'd use his style
of management.  (Despite all his security, there were some critical
leaks, and some badly needed good ideas came from outside the project
thanks to luck, such as the Navy's steam diffusion effort.)

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> Note that the 1410/7010 wasn't exactly compatible with the 1401;
> one had to throw a switch to run 1401 programs.

The only 1410 I programmed was under emulation so by then
the 2 different modes were a software issue.
With the original hardware, I assume, not that big a deal.
You had to press a lot of buttons to run a job anyway.

-- 
Dan Espen

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> From what I've read, creating a compatible product line across
> all four modes* in 1960 would require a lot of compromises that
> would downgrade performance and increase cost.  In 1960, computer
> hardware was still extremely expensive, not that fast, so including
> circuits to do unwanted functions was an unnecessary expense.  Indeed,
> even in the early days of S/360 and even PC's, floating point was an
> optional feature.  The addressing needs on a small machine are different
> than a large machine; S/360 base+displacement was a compromise.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#15 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#16 Old word processors

claim was that in that emerging computing market, compatibility
outweighed model performance advantage.

majority of 360s were microprogrammed ... so it wasn't all those
circuits.

don't know much about 360 microprogramming ... a little more about
115-II/125-II and 138/148. they avg. 10 native instructions for every
(simulated 370).

115/125 was done by boeblingen (germany) ... it was nine-position memory
bus, 115 had all microprocessors the same ... but with different
microcode loads, 370 instruction, controlleres, etc.  125 was the
identical except the processor running 370 instructions was 50% faster
than the others. 115 was about 800kips processor doing 370 at about
80kips (1/10), 125 was about 1.2mips, doing 370 at 120kips. boeblingen
got their hands "slapped" for doing general 9 position memory bus
implementation.

I got sucked into doing design for 5-way 125 smp that had five of the
processors running 370 microcode (that never shipped). some past
posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#bounce
general SMP posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp

about same time, Endicott sucked me into ECPS ... that wanted highest
used 6kbytes of kernel instructions to drop into microcode. following is
study I did ... showing kernel instructions segments sorted by percent
of kernel CPU (6k bytes accounted for 79.55% of kernel CPU execution)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21 370 ECPS VM microcode assist

FS posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

at about same time FS imploded and there was mad rush to get products
back into 370 pipeline ... kick off 3033 and 3081 about the same time
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm

they took 370/158 with integrated channel and removed the 370 microcode
and used 158 engine with just the integrated channel microcode for
external 303x channel director (six channels). A 3031 then was 158
engine with just the 370 microcode and 2nd 158 engine with just the
integrated channel microcode (channel director and a 2-way 3031 smp was
four 158 engines). A 3032 was 168-3 repackaged to use channel
director(s) as external channels (replacing 2860, 2870, 2880). A 3033
then was 168-3 logic remapped to 20% faster chips.

I periodically claimed that father of risc in the mid-70s did risc the
exact opposite of FS (using FS as example of how not to do something).
Circa 1980, 801/risc Iliad was to be the wide variety of internal
microprocessors used in controllers, 370, etc. ... AS/400 followon to
s/36&s/38, 4361&4381 followon toe 4331&4341, etc ... then for various
reasons all these efforts imploded and things returned to standard
customer CISC (and some number of Iliad chip engineers left for risc
projects at other vendors). 801/risc posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801

earlier posts in this thread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#94 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#100 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#103 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#109 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#1 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#7 Old word processors

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2018-03-28, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>> On our Univac 90/30, we had a film ribbon which we used from
>> time to time to produce a directory that was photocopied.  But
>> the printer of the 90/30 was pretty crappy and even with a film
>> ribbon the output looked lousy, indeed even worse, such as with
>> only partly formed characters.  Our office had a mag card, and
>> that should've been used instead to maintain the directory, even
>> if it meant duplicate typing.

>Our 90/30 wrote a tape that we sent to a phototypesetting bureau.
>One day we discovered that the bureau had closed down.  However,
>we had an old Laserwriter kicking around (God knows where it came
>from).  I bought and studied the PostScript manuals, and modified
>our program to write PostScript to a disk file.  We downloaded the
>file to a personal computer, hung the laser printer on its serialo
>port, and presto - camera-ready copy.

>There's something about having a COBOL program write PostScript
>that appealed to my sense of perversity.

About a decade go, I noticed that a customer of mine was about to
start printing forms for a manual stocktake of each of their 5
warehouses so the "production" manager was trying to spend every
spare minute that he didn't have, creating forms for each location
in MicroSnot Word. I couldn't bear to watch the suffering so I
hacked a quick program to generate PCL for each warehouse directly,
with a page for each stock location together with part numbers
(nominally at that location) and empty squares for physical counts.

He'd done half a dozen by hand by the time that I'd tested the
program enough for user exposure. Showed him the menu option in
the ERP system and asked him why he wasn't using that. ;-)

He tried it, specifying a small range of local stock locations and
the main printer started printing out sheets at about one per
second. 

"Low-hanging fruit" harvested.

They'd been doing it the stupid way for more than 10 years. Just
following their documented procedure manuals.
-- 
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
 X   against HTML mail     | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \  and postings          |  --HL Mencken

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:29:39 PM UTC-4, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> hancock4@ writes:
> > From what I've read, creating a compatible product line across
> > all four modes* in 1960 would require a lot of compromises that
> > would downgrade performance and increase cost.  In 1960, computer
> > hardware was still extremely expensive, not that fast, so including
> > circuits to do unwanted functions was an unnecessary expense.  Indeed,
> > even in the early days of S/360 and even PC's, floating point was an
> > optional feature.  The addressing needs on a small machine are different
> > than a large machine; S/360 base+displacement was a compromise.
> 
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#15 Old word processors
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#16 Old word processors
> 
> claim was that in that emerging computing market, compatibility
> outweighed model performance advantage.
> 
> majority of 360s were microprogrammed ... so it wasn't all those
> circuits.

I dare say that if the S/360-30 did not have to be compatible,
it probably could've been a lot cheaper, even with micro-code.

I don't know the innards or functionality of a 1410, but 
according to the bitsavers manuals, it had a lot of extra
features that were optional or not even available on the 1401.
I'm only guessing, but I suspect a 1410 built with SLT chips
would've been quite a machine with excellent performance/cost
and quite popular.

Note that even in the "compatible" S/360 line, they built certain
model 2x that were not fully compatible in order to keep the
price down.  More significantly, the System/3 line and successors,
had to be built with a totally separate incompatible architecture
in order to keep their price down, and that was in 1970.

On the other end of the line, I don't believe today's IBM
super computers are compatible with the S/360 (Z series).
I'm guessing those who seek supercomputers are not planning
to run their payroll or general ledger on them.

Actually, I do wonder what percentage of S/360 customers did
_both_ business and science/engineering programming on their
machines.  I think colleges did a lot of this--the researchers
shared the machine with the business office.  But how common
was it for some modest sized business, with their model 30
or model 40, doing some Fortran alongside their payroll?
It just seemed to me that companies that were doing heavy-duty
research that needed a computer got a PDP dedicated to lab
work; some got an 1130.  (Obviously there were some organizations
that did both, but how many?)





> don't know much about 360 microprogramming ... a little more about
> 115-II/125-II and 138/148. they avg. 10 native instructions for every
> (simulated 370).

This bitsavers document gives a good introduction:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/GF20-0385-0_An_Introduction_to_Microprogramming_Dec71.pdf


[snip]