On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:34:21 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
You didn't have the STC (later STK) ...
Actually, it was never STK during the independent existence of Storage
Technology Corporation. The approved branding was StorageTek, and
employees were instructed that STK was an NYSE
In 6332589144814230.wa.paulgboulderaim@bama.ua.edu, on
11/14/2011
at 09:40 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Actually, it was never STK during the independent existence of
Storage Technology Corporation.
Ah, so! Thanks. I had been told that they changed the name due to a
On January 14 1970, DPD rolls out IBM DATA/360, a new program product
that simulates the functions of the IBM 29 keypunch and IBM 59 verifier to
enter data from an IBM 2260 display station to an IBM 2311 or 2314 direct
access storage device, bypassing punched cards;
we used this w/2270-1 s a
In 4ebd9513.4040...@valley.net, on 11/11/2011
at 04:35 PM, Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net said:
The one that didn't handle wrap-around correctly?
After RA the buffer address was left at the beginning instead of the
documented location.
I fondly recall referring to it as the PIG
In 4ebdb42e.4070...@ync.net, on 11/11/2011
at 05:47 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
IIRC, the 2250 was a vector-graphics tube requiring GAM to fully
exploit.
FSVO. Don't forget GSP and GJP.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
and trusted 3270 is the usual end.
Regards,
Mike Wawiorko
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Chris Mason
Sent: 10 November 2011 19:08
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TSO SCREENSIZE
John
3274
3271
STUPID
From the perspective
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of William Donzelli
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 12:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 3270 archaeology (Was: TSO SCREENSIZE)
I happen to have a GX20-1878-3 (October 1978
memory, just the
CRTs.
Lloyd
- Original Message
From: Ed Gould ps2...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, November 10, 2011 8:55:41 PM
Subject: Re: TSO SCREENSIZE
Rick,
My memory is iffy here as well but I do remember that we had 12 x 80 screens
but
the model number
to run the communications program was cut from the
budget request. The general did not care about the system memory, just the
CRTs.
Lloyd
- Original Message
From: Ed Gould ps2...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, November 10, 2011 8:55:41 PM
Subject: Re: TSO SCREENSIZE
Rick
About the 2250, a link with a photo of the wonder in action:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/2250.html
Regards,
Thomas Berg
_
Thomas Berg Specialist A M SWEDBANK
...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, November 10, 2011 8:55:41 PM
Subject: Re: TSO SCREENSIZE
Rick,
My memory is iffy here as well but I do remember that we had 12 x 80 screens but
the model number was 2260. The screen was incredibly small. This was in the
early 1970's.
Ed
Shmuel,
My memory was faulty. The screen size was not as I stated.as others have
correctly stated the right size.
The army post I was at was doing a development of an online system for a
proposed worldwide army supply system. The displays were either 2260#39;s or
3270-1#39;s the 40 years has
On 11/10/2011 02:58 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
---snip
Remember how old the 3270 architecture is. Wikipedia says about 1972.
Think 1 Mhz 8080 as top of the line micro processor. The original
3277 and its controllers were
On 11/11/2011 1:07 AM, Larry Chenevert wrote:
The channel attached control units for those 3270's were
notorious for generating interface control checks, which the
operating systems of the era (OS/VS1, SVS, and MVS 3.8) were
notorious for responding by entering disabled waits, resulting
in many
m...@mentor-services.com (Mike Myers) writes:
The 2250 was very interesting to me. I took a class on 2250
programming in 1968. I learned that it had both character and graphics
mode. The character mode was of special interest and I developed a
full-screen editor that let the group I was
In 0A25A0D191144ABB8F0649705ADAA187@DJVBN391, on 11/11/2011
at 12:07 AM, Larry Chenevert larrychenev...@verizon.net said:
The channel attached control units for those 3270's were notorious
for generating interface control checks, which the operating systems
of the era (OS/VS1, SVS, and MVS
In
ec49fd6778df264ba80cde73700a2de002fa61a...@mukpbcc1xmb701c.collab.barclayscorp.com,
on 11/11/2011
at 09:21 AM, Mike Wawiorko mike.wawio...@barclays.com said:
Maybe not such a bad design choice?
Perhaps, but you haven't made a case.
How many of us have ever used the various web interfaces
In 1321016908.8332.yahoomai...@web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com, on
11/11/2011
at 05:08 AM, Lloyd Fuller leful...@sbcglobal.net said:
There was also a 2250 in that timeframe,
Considerably more expensive than a 2260. Worth it for graphics, but
not if you just needed text.
--
Shmuel (Seymour
In 4ebd5c40.8090...@valley.net, on 11/11/2011
at 12:32 PM, Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net said:
Only the ATT and one Telex gave us problems
Then you should have ordered from GTE :-(
The worst incident I recall was when the C.E. was asked to plug a
new 3272 as address 0C0, and he
Gerhard,
I agree with you. We had over 1200 3270#39;s locally attached and never had
issues with IBM controllers or devices. Where we did have issues was we had an
OEM channel extender. That gavesusno end of problems. At one time I was
providing the vendor with2 or 3 dumps a day and they
On 11/11/2011 3:34 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
Then you should have ordered from GTE :-(
The one that didn't handle wrap-around correctly?
You didn't have the STC (later STK) tape drives where only every other
jumper position was used but the CE documentation didn't mention the
fact?
The 2260, controlled by a 2848 controller, was a separate family of
displays. We used them at Michigan Tech under a system called RAX.
Rick
-
Ed Gould wrote:
Rick,
My memory is iffy here as well but I do remember that we had 12 x 80 screens but
snip
There was also a 2250 in that timeframe, but I do not remember the size.
We had one of each in Stuttgart, but could not use them because the
request for the extra memory to be able to run the communications
I wonder what the TERMINAL-command is for. When I change SCRSIZE I can see that
something changes but not for the application issuing some TPUTs (I think that
are TPUTs). I traced the data send to the screen and there where only the
typical 2-byte-fields giving the position. And this is shown
Juergen Keller wrote:
I wonder what the TERMINAL-command is for.
The TERMINAL SCRSIZE setting controls how TSO line-mode
terminal housekeeping is performed. Fullscreen applications
are free to use an available screen size different from the
one used by line-mode TSO. Of course, many fullscreen
On 11/10/2011 5:23 AM, Juergen Keller wrote:
Yes we can change the application program but its a very old one and I think
noone will do that. As explained before the same Problem happens with SDSF
nativ under TSO and that is definitely a new application.
New?? Lol! That native 3270 support
Greg Price of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 11/10/2011 08:46:03 AM:
Unless they have fixed it fairly recently, SDSF does not handle large
screen
sizes well (unless running as an ISPF application).
One problem with large screens in SDSF (ISPF) is that the
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:35:18 -0600, John P Kalinich wrote:
Greg Price of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 11/10/2011 08:46:03 AM:
Unless they have fixed it fairly recently, SDSF does not handle large
screen
sizes well (unless running as an ISPF application).
One
Blasphemer!
;-)
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.comwrote:
42 is _not_ the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
-- gil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TSO SCREENSIZE
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:35:18 -0600, John P Kalinich wrote:
Greg
Neither is Unix, nor ACSII
snip
42 is _not_ the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
/snip
-- gil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea00b038bb...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom,
on 11/10/2011
at 11:48 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
Remember how old the 3270 architecture is. Wikipedia says about 1972.
Think 1 Mhz 8080 as top of the line micro processor. The original
3277 and its
John
3274
3271
STUPID
From the perspective of the new millennium. At the time (1970 approximately)
I'm sure it was a sensible design choice.
Chris Mason
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:48:30 -0600, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
...
Remember how old the 3270 architecture is.
In 9616460194674244.wa.juergen.kellerdeutscheboerse@bama.ua.edu,
on 11/10/2011
at 07:23 AM, Juergen Keller juergen.kel...@deutsche-boerse.com
said:
I wonder what the TERMINAL-command is for.
It saves the information for use by VTIOC and applications.
When I change SCRSIZE I can see that
Mason
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TSO SCREENSIZE
John
3274
3271
STUPID
From the perspective of the new millennium. At the time (1970
approximately) I'm sure it was a sensible design choice.
Chris Mason
On Thu, 10 Nov
---snip
Remember how old the 3270 architecture is. Wikipedia says about 1972.
Think 1 Mhz 8080 as top of the line micro processor. The original
3277 and its controllers were STUPID. Rather than put a more powerful
processor
---snip
Remember how old the 3270 architecture is. Wikipedia says about 1972. Think 1 Mhz 8080 as top of the line micro
processor. The original 3277 and its controllers were STUPID. Rather than put a more powerful
-snip-
My phrasing is getting to be very poor. By STUPID, I meant more that the architecture implementation was
primitive compared to today's architecures. Not that the designers or the design was stupid. It just resulted
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:48 AM, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
Remember how old the 3270 architecture is. Wikipedia says about 1972. Think 1
Mhz 8080 as top of the line micro processor. The original 3277 and its
controllers were STUPID. Rather than put a more powerful
On 11/10/2011 4:15 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
And the original IBM 3270 screen size was Model 1, 12 lines by 40
characters. Model 2 (24 * 80) didn't come along until later.
I seem to recall the model 2 to be available at the same time as
the model 1, but that may be due to my dismissing the
To all actually interested in 3270 pre-history
And the original IBM 3270 screen size was Model 1, 12 lines by 40 characters.
Model 2 (24 * 80) didn't come along until later.
It was my possibly faulty recollection that just about all of the first
generation of 3270 equipment was announced -
Rick,
My memory is iffy here as well but I do remember that we had 12 x 80 screens
but the model number was 2260. The screen was incredibly small. This was in the
early 1970#39;s.
Ed
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
In 1320976541.27279.yahoomailmob...@web161405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com, on
11/10/2011
at 05:55 PM, Ed Gould ps2...@yahoo.com said:
My memory is iffy here as well but I do remember that we had 12 x 80
screens but the model number was 2260.
There was a 2260 Model 1[1] and a 2260 Model 2. Both shipped
In
CAJTOO59W20A0m-Gu8nBtudc_h=1ks9hz4gerfvqhrradmqf...@mail.gmail.com,
on 11/10/2011
at 03:15 PM, Mike Schwab mike.a.sch...@gmail.com said:
DR had CP/M 86 for the 8086 but didn't meet with IBM to put it
on the IBM PC,
Because they wouldn't talk to DR without an unacceptable contract.
so
In 4ebc3b0f@ync.net, on 11/10/2011
at 02:58 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
Wasn't there also a 3276,
That came later, along with the 3278 and 3279,
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html
We
In 4ebc3a73.5070...@ync.net, on 11/10/2011
at 02:56 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
While the Windoze-based processors
There are none. The same processors running windoze are capable of
running better operating systems. In fact, IBM announced support for
Linux in a zBX before it
archaeology (Was: TSO SCREENSIZE)
To all actually interested in 3270 pre-history
And the original IBM 3270 screen size was Model 1, 12 lines by 40
characters. Model 2 (24 * 80) didn't come along until later.
It was my possibly faulty recollection that just about all of the first
generation of 3270
I happen to have a GX20-1878-3 (October 1978) 3270 Information Display
System Reference Summary in the top drawer of my desk. It shows the screen
size of a Mod 1 as 12x40, although I never worked with a Mod 1 or ever even
saw one, to my knowledge.
Just about the only place you would be
hello together,
I have a strange problem and maybe someone had the same and had a solution for
this
we got new terminals with bigger sizes and now the users wants to use the new
PCOM-size of 62x160 which is supported I think since PCOM6.0. So a user logon
to TSO with the variable logmode
and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Juergen Keller
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 8:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: TSO SCREENSIZE
hello together,
I have a strange problem
:54
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: TSO SCREENSIZE
hello together,
I have a strange problem and maybe someone had the same and had a solution for
this
we got new terminals with bigger sizes and now the users wants to use the new
PCOM-size of 62x160 which is supported I think since PCOM6.0
about your application or how it is written,
this suggestion may, or may not, apply to your situation.
HTH,
Linda
- Original Message -
From: Juergen Keller juergen.kel...@deutsche-boerse.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 6:53:32 AM
Subject: TSO
In 2925062076757125.wa.juergen.kellerdeutscheboerse@bama.ua.edu,
on 11/04/2011
at 08:53 AM, Juergen Keller juergen.kel...@deutsche-boerse.com
said:
I have a strange problem and maybe someone had the same and had
a solution for this we got new terminals with bigger sizes
and now the
53 matches
Mail list logo
