On Oct 17, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >[1] The 360/20 and 360/40 were not really part of the line.
<sproing> I knew about the /20 not really being a 360, but why not the /40? Unlike the /20, it implemented all of the required parts of the architecture, didn't it? Are you, perhaps, referring to the /44, which had some unusual features but would at least run 360 code (as long as you didn't need the commercial instruction set)? -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.cx http://www.tronguy.net (Yes, that's me!) http://jmaynard.livejournal.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
