In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/17/2005
at 11:59 AM, Kirk Talman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I suspect you meant to type 360/44, one of those lovely marketing
>machines.
Yes.
>It was a crippled 360/65 with instructions removed.
No. It was hard-wired, and far smaller than a 2065.
>and the outboard channels.
No.
>It is also a stretch to call the 360/91 (only 5 made) part of the
>line as it was not microcoded,
Neither was the 360/75; there's nothing in the architecure that
required "micorcoding". That was always strictly an implementation
issue.
>And the 360/195 and 360/85 were just prototypes for the 370/195 and
>370/165 respectively, if the old little grey cells are not failing
>me.
It is certainly the case that the logic of the 370/165 and the 370/195
were based on those of the 360/85[1] and 360/195; I have no
information as to whether that was planned or a last-minute decision.
[1] Including the squirrelly console, compatible with nothing else[2].
[2] Until Amdahl did a compatible console for the 470/6[3].
[3] Stillborn; replaced by the 470V/6.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
