On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 04:54:13 +0100, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >You may recall I also offered a photograph with my previous post[1]. The >Model 20 looked about as I remembered it - although I had to imagine the >covers on. However, what was claimed to be the 2560 I wasn't really so sure >about. Mention of stacker numbers up to 5 just reinforced this since I was >sure there should have been more than the 2 shown in the photograph. Chris, I think that really is a 2560. I can see 2 1/2 stackers. There could easily be a couple more. The edge of the CPU is blocking too much to be sure. The clincher would be an angle that shows the back. If the back is open, and an operator or CE is clearing a jam, it's a 2560. Ok. I'l be fair for once. The MFCM had some real design problems, but it was also a very hard worker. In the late 60s I was an operator at an IBM Datyacenter (later, split into Datacenter and Business Systems Center). There was a lot of card-oriented work that went into running the Datacenter and BSC (time cards for clocking on and off the machines, etc.), and a lot of those cards went through the MFCM. That included bent cards, patched cards, etc. When it worked, it worked very well and did the work in one maching that typically had been done by 3 or 4 different machines. But card jams were a real pain to clear. >... >This is still vaguely relevant since the most mysterious part of this >program was how it behaved when driving the card reader - which was >surely a 2560. <g> The reader ran fast, probably rated speed, ... I don't know what the 2560's rated speed was, but I don't think anybody would have called it "fast". The Mod 20 could also have a 2501 attached. THAT was fast. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
