[email protected] (Ed Gould) writes: > Lynn: > > Somewhere in the mid to late 70's I was given access to a MVS system > that ran somew where in IBM (possibly west coast but who knew or > cared). The purpose of the access was to see if TSO session manager > gave us hardcopy for TSO. We had quite a bill from some ts vendor > (sorry do not remember the name) that basically supported hardcopy > terminals. My mine is fuzzy but I know the 2741 was "probably" the > only real device that IBM supported as a hardcopy device. Once I > showed them that they could use TSO session manager for hardcopy they > changed their story and all of a sudden needed some type of graphics > for hardcopy and I had to say "NO" we can't do that. Their need was > probably valid but I could not promise something like graphics > hardcopy. I am talking high quality stuff not GDDM stuff. That was the > final blow and a few years later they shut us down. > > If I remember correctly TSO session manager was either writen at > Boeing by IBM or by Boeing people. I first heard about it at SHARE and > unfortunetly at that time it was not cheap (couple hundred a month I > think) so we could not afford to buy it and test it out so IBM let me > have access to some system that ran it. It was a sort of a pain as I > had to walk over to IBM in Chicago which at that time was a solid 6 > blocks away. But the fun more than made up for any inconvenience.
??? re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#62 When will MVS be able to use cheap dasd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#65 When will MVS be able to use cheap dasd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#75 When will MVS be able to use cheap dasd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#3 When will MVS be able to use cheap dasd vast majority of internal systems were virtual machine (much for interactive and personal computing ... although some also had "guest" operating system) ... and the majority of the systems on the internal network were virtual machine ... i.e. internal network was larger than arpanet/internet from just about the beginning until possibly late '85 or early '86. misc. past posts mentioning internal network http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet there was virtual device support for virtual 3270s ... which also could run over network. the person that had developed one of the major internal email clients ... also developed a scripting facility for virtual 3270s (well before PCs and things like HLLAPI). A 0.0x something version of the email client was picked up by the PROFS group with some menu stuff around it ... and showed up in product at customer shops. Later when the author contacted the PROFS group and offerred a much updated & enhanced version ... they claimed they weren't using his email client (they had given awards in the group for its development) and then tried to get him fired. The whole thing went quiet after he pointed out that every PROFS message in the world had his initials included in an internal, non-displayed field. some old scripts ... including being able autologon, search and save & process output from the RETAIN system http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#35 Newbie TOPS-10 7.03 question BUCKET -- Automatic PUT Bucket Retriever: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#36 Newbie TOPS-10 7.03 question A lot of the 43xx machines went in for a form of distributed computing ... and resulted in large upsurge in the number of systems on the internal network in the late 70s and early 80s. In the mid-80s ... that mid-range, distributed market was starting to shift to workstations and large PCs (both internally and with customers) ... which was major reason why arpanet/internet passed internal network in number of nodes. The communication division 3270 termainal emulation on PCs contributed significantly to early uptake of PCs (customer could get a PC for about the same price as 3270 and in single desktop footprint do both host 3270 terminal and some amount of local computing; 3270s were already justified so there wasn't any additional $$$ justification required to switch to PC). the mid-80s, PC and workstations were getting sophisticated enough that they were becoming there own network nodes as part of distributed computing ... except with heavy mainframe datacenters (both internally and with customers) ... but the communication division was attempting to staunchly preserve their terminal emulation install base. While on the internet ... more&more of these workstations and PCs were becoming network nodes ... on the internal network, they were still restricted to only doing terminal emulation. misc. past posts mentioning terminal emulation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal As a result of the terminal emulation limitations for growing distributed computing sophistication ... lots of data was leaking out of the datacenter onto more distributed-computing friendly platforms. This was also what prompted a senior disk engineer in the late 80s to open a talk at the annual, world-wide communication division internal conference with a statement that the communication division was going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. The disk division had repeatedly attempted to bring out products that were significantly more distributed-computing friendly only to be blocked by the communication division (who owned strategic responsibility for everything that crossed the walls of the datacenter). This shows up with SAA in the late 80s. We had come up with 3-tier network architecture (with mainframe datacenter integral part of the distributed environment) and was out pitching to customer executives ... and taking significant barbs from the communication division and the SAA crowd (although over the years, I had developed a pretty good working relationship with the person promoted to be responsible SAA ... and had large corner office on top floor in somers). misc. past posts mentioning 3-tier architecture http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#3tier a simple example of the orientation was that the advanced workstation division had shipped the PC/RT with 16bit AT-bus and had developed their own 4mbit token-ring card. For the RS6000, things moved to microchannel and AWD was told that they had to (only) use PS2 adapter cards. The PS2 microchannel 16mbit T/R card was designed/developed for the 300+ stations on lan segment doing terminal emulation ... and as a result the PS2 microchannel 16mbit T/R card had lower per card thruput than the PC/RT 4mbit T/R card (there was joke that if the RS6000 was only to use PS2 adapter cards, it wouldn't run any faster than a PS2). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
