 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So the concept of a filesystem storing named files already existed at
> this time?
Generally, yes. But you usually wound up pre-allocating files, and they were
contiguous on disk.
> Interesting. So the system actually "knows" where each field of a record
> is then?
Records were fixed size, so it was trivial to calculate.
>> 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.
>
> Really? I didn't think anybody had mainframes any more... just big
> server farms.
The people who want to do lots of I/O have machines where instead of GPUs
they have IOPs. A 800,000 line phone switch, for example, is pretty much
all IOP, with something like a 68000 running the actual switching part.
Of course, what one might call a "PC" nowadays has a terabyte of RAM and 96
quad-core processor chips, so the lines blur.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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...
It's more fun to spell the first word wrong. "Idnetification Division." Then
you get at least two error lines on each input line, or three if it's
actually a top-level statement.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>> The first computer I ever saw was in 1997 at Glasgow University. It
>> was an analogue machine that used valves.
>
> 1997? o_O
just in time for the first version of GHC... :-)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>> 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?
Large datasets then were also very tiny compared to large datasets of
today. :)
>> 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.
see the revolution that were programs like ed (and its successor vi) in
bringing flexible terminal text editing rather than wasting tons of
paper... :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clarence1898 escreveu:
> All company information is kept on mainframe disks and maintained by mainframe
> programs. All customer information, product information, personnel information,
> sales information etc. This company started in the early 1900s selling its
> merchandise from a store. Then expanding sales to mail order catalog, then via
> telemarketing, and now by internet. The web front-end is handled by a small
> server farm, but all back-end work is done on our mainframe.
in other words: mainframes were never supercomputers. They were
commerce-oriented machines rather than scientific number-crunchers.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> in other words: mainframes were never supercomputers. They were
> commerce-oriented machines rather than scientific number-crunchers.
Some were. Of course, "supercomputer" at the time had somewhat different
connotations. But the mainframe I learned on had the optional "business
unit" (i.e., support for COBOL instructions like BCD and block move) and the
"scientific unit" (i.e., floating point hardware). You maxed that sucker out
with four CPUs all with floating point hardware, and you could (and did)
calculate orbits to the moon and such. It was a Sigma-9 Scientific Data
Processor (aka Xerox-650 aka Honeywell <mumble>).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 6:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>>> The first computer I ever saw was in 1997 at Glasgow University. It
>>> was an analogue machine that used valves.
>>
>> 1997? o_O
>
> just in time for the first version of GHC... :-)
>
I thought that Andrew was the only one allowed to mention the "H" word. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 4:44 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> As I recall about 60 characters per second. The tape was paper, was 8
>> holes
>> wide, and easily broken or scrunched.
>
> Mmm, that's fairly fast for an optical system.
Was it optical? I seem to remember it was mechanical with spring loaded
teeth.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 1997? o_O
>
> just in time for the first version of GHC... :-)
Actually about ten years *after* the first version of GHC.
Yes, I realise that sounds utterly absurd...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So the concept of a filesystem storing named files already existed at
>> this time?
>
> Generally, yes. But you usually wound up pre-allocating files, and they
> were contiguous on disk.
OK.
Files only on disk? Or on tape too? (From what I've seen, punch cards
didn't have this level of abstraction. It wouldn't be terribly necessary
I guess...)
>> Interesting. So the system actually "knows" where each field of a
>> record is then?
>
> Records were fixed size, so it was trivial to calculate.
OK. But does the system know where the *fields* in a record are? Or just
what size the records are?
>> Really? I didn't think anybody had mainframes any more... just big
>> server farms.
>
> The people who want to do lots of I/O have machines where instead of
> GPUs they have IOPs. A 800,000 line phone switch, for example, is
> pretty much all IOP, with something like a 68000 running the actual
> switching part.
>
> Of course, what one might call a "PC" nowadays has a terabyte of RAM and
> 96 quad-core processor chips, so the lines blur.
Yeah, I think the term "mainframe" is probably obsolete now. There are
probably more exact ways to describe what type of computer you mean.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
