 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 12:36 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> When I started working in computing in 1969, the Honeywell H416 then
>> later H316
>
> Oh yes - apparently Honeywell used to make computers...
Yes the ones I worked on were for process control and they had core
memory. Ferrite rings threaded with address wires and read write wires,
by hand. The H316 could have 4 K of memory.
> Does the tape have a single row of holes? Or does it have multiple
> parallel rows? How easy is it to tear the stuff?
>
Parallel rows, one traction hole at twice the pitch of the data holes
and seven or eight data holes depending on the parity.
>> After the loader tape was read you then read the program using the
>> paper tape reader. Only then could you enter any data.
>
> From tape or card, presumably?
Yes or from sense switches from the process it controlled.
>
>> In 1976 Burroughs Machines were manufacturing 96 column card readers.
>
> I gather Burroughs got bought to form Unisys?
>
After my time.
>> The first computer I ever saw was in 1997 at Glasgow University. It
>> was an analogue machine that used valves.
>
> 1997? o_O
Oops! 1967 :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/fisk.pdf
Hmm, interesting. Some of the guys I went to uni with learned COBOL. All
they could tell me about it is "if you miss out a dot, you get an error
message 300 lines later". Sounds delightful...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I had always assumed that the first computers were like current
> computers, just using relays or whatever instead of transisters, and
> with vastly inferior specifications.
>
> However, it appears that this isn't the case.
>
> For example, I thought they all used latch circuits for memory, but
> apparently not. There were things like core memory, which I'd never
> heard of. Presumably it's faster and cheaper to make core memory as
> opposed to wiring up thousands of latch circuits?
>
"Core" memory was invented in the late 40s, but didn't come into wide use until
the early 50s. I think the IBM 360s used core memory. The IBM 370s and all
later machines used integrated circuits for memory. We added 1MB of memory to
an IBM 370/168 in the mid 70s. Price? $50000. There were several advantages to
core memory. First its not volatile, you don't loose the contents of memory
when you power off the system. Second its relatively immune to electromagnetic
radiation, so it does not require shielding when used in hostile environements.
Many military aircraft used core memory in their avionics. I think the space
shuttles originally used core memory in their computers.
> Another example. According to legend, there was a time when if you
> wanted to run a program, you used a machine not unlike a typewriter to
> punch holes into a card. You "type in" the program onto punch cards like
> this, and only once the entire program and all its data has been punched
> do you even go near the actual *computer*. You feed the cards into a
> reader. It reads them all, and then spends the next six months running
> the program. Finally, you get a stack of new punched cards representing
> the results.
>
> Does anybody know approximately when this time was?
When I was at university in the mid to late 60s, I took a FORTRAN programming
course. Punch program into cards, place in card tray, come back 4 to 6 hours
later and pick up your card deck and output listing. Fix your typos and bugs
and repeat the above process until the program works. At my first commercial
job, it was similar. Punch you program into cards, place in the card reader,
and wait for the output to appear on the printer. Where I worked cards were used
until the mid 1980s. We had cabinet after cabinet filled with punched card
programs. The fun began after you punched in your 1000 card program and dropped
the deck on the way to the card reader. After you did that a couple of times,
you started adding sequence numbers to the deck.
>
> For that matter, does anybody have a broad timeline of when various
> technologies were in use? What are the dates for things like core
> memory, drum memory, punch cards, magnetic tape, relays, vacuum tubes,
> transistors, ICs, etc?
>
> Was there ever a time when programs were entered into memory via
> switches rather than some other medium?
>
> Was there ever a "punched tape" medium similar to punch cards?
>
Yes. Several different varieties of tape. Different widths, different hole
styles etc. I once had to write a driver for the IBM 1056 paper tape reader on
an IBM 370/158 because IBM did not support that device on that machine. That
was kind of fun to do. That was in the early 70s?
> Similarly, you hear people talk about the VAX, the PDP, the varouis IBM
> mainframes and Cray supercomputers. Does anybody know the timeline for
> these, the technologies used and the basic design and performance details?
>
> (Sure, you can look up individual questions on Wikipedia, but the
> articles tend to contain huge amounts of minute detail about specific
> things. I'm trying to get a general overview of an entire era.)
I think you will have to look it up. There is just too much information to
enter here. I have work exclusively on IBM machines my entire career. So I
can't say anything about other manufacturers. Very briefly IBM 360 series,
transistor circuits, core memory, mid 60s to early 70s. Early IBM 370 series in
the early 70s, integrated circuits, to later 370 series with higher density
circuits in the mid 80s. The 3090 series machines with very high density
circuits until the mid 90s. The s/390 series user cmos technology and were air
cooled. The older machines used bipolar technology and many were water cooled.
Finally the z/series, again cmos technology. Speeds ranged from .2 MIPS for a
360/50, 1 MIP for a 370/158, 15 MIPS for a 3083. The current machines I work
with today, 2 z/9 BC processors are rated at 600 and 335 MIPS.
The top of the line z/10 is almost 30000 MIPS.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Core" memory was invented in the late 40s, but didn't come into wide use until
> the early 50s. I think the IBM 360s used core memory.
How about drum memory? Or the various delay lines?
> The IBM 370s and all later machines used integrated circuits for memory.
As in, whole memory chunks on a single IC? Or just two latches per IC?
Or...?
> We added 1MB of memory to an IBM 370/168 in the mid 70s. Price? $50000.
Ouch! o_O
It still somewhat blows my mind that you could do anything useful with
so little memory. Presumably for processing large datasets, most of the
data at any one time would be in secondary storage?
> There were several advantages to core memory.
Yes, so I see.
> When I was at university in the mid to late 60s, I took a FORTRAN programming
> course. Punch program into cards, place in card tray, come back 4 to 6 hours
> later and pick up your card deck and output listing. Fix your typos and bugs
> and repeat the above process until the program works.
Heh, sounds line fun. According to the account I just read, you actually
put one statement per punch card. Is that right? I always assumed that
each card just held X characters of data, and you type until the card is
full, then move to the next one. I didn't realise there was an actual
"significance" to card bounderies. Or is that just for the benefit of
the humans?
> Where I worked cards were used until the mid 1980s.
Wow. I had no idea it persisted that long. In the mid 1980s, I had a C64
to play with, which stored data on audio tape - for more data than any
stack of punch cards. And I don't think the C64 was even particularly
expensive... (I know of a few people who actually used the C64 for work
purposes, would you believe.)
> The fun began after you punched in your 1000 card program and dropped
> the deck on the way to the card reader. After you did that a couple of times,
> you started adding sequence numbers to the deck.
Hell yeah! ;-)
>> Was there ever a "punched tape" medium similar to punch cards?
>
> Yes. Several different varieties of tape.
OK. I guess each manufacturer probably had their own style.
> I once had to write a driver for the IBM 1056 paper tape reader on
> an IBM 370/158 because IBM did not support that device on that machine. That
> was kind of fun to do. That was in the early 70s?
Hmm, OK.
What sort of access speeds do you get for reading or writing punched
card or tape?
>> Similarly, you hear people talk about the VAX, the PDP, the varouis IBM
>> mainframes and Cray supercomputers. Does anybody know the timeline for
>> these, the technologies used and the basic design and performance details?
>
> I think you will have to look it up. There is just too much information to
> enter here. I have work exclusively on IBM machines my entire career. So I
> can't say anything about other manufacturers.
Fair enough.
> Very briefly IBM 360 series, transistor circuits, core memory,
> mid 60s to early 70s.
As in, discrete transistors on PCBs?
Any ideas on typical memory capacity / clock speed? Data path widths?
> Early IBM 370 series in
> the early 70s, integrated circuits, to later 370 series with higher density
> circuits in the mid 80s.
Are we talking ICs with single logic gates, small logic blocks, or an
entire CPU on a chip?
> The 3090 series machines with very high density
> circuits until the mid 90s.
I had no idea people were still making mainframes in the 90s.
> The s/390 series user cmos technology and were air
> cooled. The older machines used bipolar technology and many were water cooled.
> Finally the z/series, again cmos technology.
Nice consistent naming scheme. Heh. :-/
> Speeds ranged from .2 MIPS for a
> 360/50, 1 MIP for a 370/158, 15 MIPS for a 3083. The current machines I work
> with today, 2 z/9 BC processors are rated at 600 and 335 MIPS.
> The top of the line z/10 is almost 30000 MIPS.
Now if I could figure out what a typical MIPS rating for a normal PC
today is, I'd have something dissimilar to compare it to. :-}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 3:14 PM, Invisible wrote:
> What sort of access speeds do you get for reading or writing punched
> card or tape?
Some of the fast paper tape readers would stream the tape about 15 feet
through the air before it was collected in a large bin. The fun part was
rewinding into a roll.
BTW I forgot. Plain paper tape was easily torn but the tapes used in the
fast readers had a layer of Mylar so they could not be torn, the paper
backing could separate though.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> We added 1MB of memory to an IBM 370/168 in the mid 70s. Price? $50000.
>
> Ouch! o_O
>
> It still somewhat blows my mind that you could do anything useful with so
> little memory.
You could do useful stuff with *far* less.
> Wow. I had no idea it persisted that long. In the mid 1980s, I had a C64
> to play with, which stored data on audio tape - for more data than any
> stack of punch cards. And I don't think the C64 was even particularly
> expensive... (I know of a few people who actually used the C64 for work
> purposes, would you believe.)
I can remember when I was younger (mid 80s) my dad writing a program to
simulate the 2D flow of cylindrical shaped objects into different shaped
channels (with graphics) - that was with 32K of RAM. Useful work (even if
it took about 10 seconds to eventually figure out where each one went!), and
I'm sure there are loads more examples of doing useful stuff with just a few
KB of RAM.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:08:29 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 5/17/2010 2:54 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>
>> Was anybody actually there? Did any of you guys see this happen? What
>> was it like? And did mainframes really come in bright orange cases with
>> inch-square glowy buttons on the front that randomly twinkle?
>>
>>
> ;) I remember as a kid in the 80's walking into an office that had a
> computer room. A real-life room-sized mainframe. One wall had a bank of
> tape machines, the CPU was a box the size of a Smart car sort of in the
> middle of the room, and there was a huge array of disks that took up the
> rest of the room.
>
> All controlled by a tiny terminal in the corner flanked by an 8" floppy
> drive, and a few other binders and such.
>
> It was quite neat to see!
My university had an IBM 4361 mainframe (IIRC), and I can remember in 6th
grade going to a class where I got to play in the server room with some
PDP mainframes (I helped with the backups one day).
My first job out of college had a fairly large AS/400 system (D40? I
think) and an IBM System/34.
The S/34 didn't have very many lights on it, but the AS/400 lit up light
a Christmas tree when we turned the lights off in the bunker that was our
computer room.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> How about drum memory? Or the various delay lines?
>
Don't know, was before my time.
> As in, whole memory chunks on a single IC? Or just two latches per IC?
> Or...?
I don't know very much about the actual electronics. You will have to go to
google or wikipedia for that info. I remember the 3081 had what were called
TCMs. Fully encased, water cooled modules with about a thousand pins on the
back. The CEs had lots of fun replacing them without bending a pin in the
process.
> It still somewhat blows my mind that you could do anything useful with
> so little memory. Presumably for processing large datasets, most of the
> data at any one time would be in secondary storage?
Most really large files were on tape, you just read the data serially.
For highly accessed files, or files that needed random access were kept on disk.
> Heh, sounds line fun. According to the account I just read, you actually
> put one statement per punch card. Is that right? I always assumed that
> each card just held X characters of data, and you type until the card is
> full, then move to the next one. I didn't realise there was an actual
> "significance" to card bounderies. Or is that just for the benefit of
> the humans?
The file system for IBM mainframes are record oriented, not stream.
Files are created with a defined record format and record length.
There is no end of record indicator such as CR or LF as in PC files.
Since cards were 80 columns long, many source files today are also 80 byte
records. The norm was for program source files was column 1 to 72 was data
and column 73 to 80 was sequence numbers. For most COBOL programs the sequence
numbers were in cols 1 to 6.
> What sort of access speeds do you get for reading or writing punched
> card or tape?
As I recall about 60 characters per second. The tape was paper, was 8 holes
wide, and easily broken or scrunched.
> As in, discrete transistors on PCBs?
>
Again, I don't know much about the electronic packaging.
> Any ideas on typical memory capacity / clock speed? Data path widths?
On some of the older machines I worked with:
360/50 128KB
370/158 1MB
370/168 3MB
3033U 4MB
3081Q 8MB
On the latest machine:
z/9 BC S03 - 16GB
> Nice consistent naming scheme. Heh. :-/
You can always depend on IBM to be consistent.
> Now if I could figure out what a typical MIPS rating for a normal PC
> today is, I'd have something dissimilar to compare it to. :-}
It is rather difficult to compare since they have such different architectures.
I doubt that the internal processor speed is that much different than current
PCs, but the i/o bandwidth is much higher in the mainframe.
For example our two machines, which are on the small side for mainframes, are
connected to a disk storage unit containing 15TB of data. There are 4 high
speed fiber optic channels from each processor to this unit. We can easily
sustain i/o rates of over 10000 i/o operations per second, with peaks in the
20000 to 40000 range. It is very rare for any single job to saturate the cpu.
By running many jobs concurrently we make full use of the machine. If I could
port POVRAY to our mainframe, I'm sure it would be slower than most current PCs.
But cpu intensive work is not what the mainframe does best.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Many hundred billion years ago, there existed a bizzare world that most
> of us have only read about in books. Plastics did not yet exist, so
> small children's toys were made of wood or metal, because there was
> literally nothing cheaper.
There were no children many hundred billion years ago.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Many hundred billion years ago, there existed a bizzare world that most
>> of us have only read about in books. Plastics did not yet exist, so
>> small children's toys were made of wood or metal, because there was
>> literally nothing cheaper.
>
> There were no children many hundred billion years ago.
I was waiting for that one... *sigh*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
