On a roll here... They weren't hyphenated either. Z80 and S100.
Give me a Z28 anyday. On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:45 AM Wayne Bickerdike <[email protected]> wrote: > Even IBM are confusing: > > IBM 1401: The Mainframe > > https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/mainframe/ > > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:41 AM Wayne Bickerdike <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> "If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's >> not a mainframe, nor is the 1401." >> >> I'll pick nits. Altos was not S100 bus.Cromemco was. Next? >> >> I was in short pants when 1401 was a mainframe. Long pants with Z80. So >> my memory is hazy. Just remember older peers talking about 1401 autocoder. >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you want to pick nits, read "Z-80" as "S-100 PC using a Z-80"; it's >>> not a mainframe, nor is the 1401. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on >>> behalf of Wayne Bickerdike <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:20 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >>> tank >>> >>> Z80 was a processor. How could it possibly crop up in a discussion about >>> what constitutes a mainframe? >>> >>> The Altos 8000 was Z80 based as was the North Star Horizon and the >>> Cromemco >>> System 3. I worked with these in the 70's to *escape* from the mainframe, >>> the demise of which was imminent. LOL. >>> >>> Anything you can carry to the boot (trunk) of your car cannot be a >>> mainframe:) >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; >>> > >>> > Substantial? Look at Figure 1 in >>> > >>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zGfHVf_OSYTQR-iZeSwUT8hxfRxttRuC64KrmAu3AhbMnt6LyyW-Hp7yUNcU7paWuZbaHN-dbxbJnuJHOx9LIqoVZWk7vzR-Zf_OX4a-ClGtjfSbOPIVMFxIYkYFtcTq3wcZWdiCj-mXgIPGWhxl28vAMZ1aONn5mbNieTKHYzw1k0c2PV0LwDte-VgAq97Jx2hDglzP552wj1RSpk5G_qZ_RDsEi7dChi57va08L87z1kDPeqAKuNsBN2Q7B6n_eifj13cYJcD8Yt0Kvnqcp-EOUAILLbudkLUwdnk4-_f08qEDAsB2PwtlvypFOcQPHqfJ0Xr4VAHmbroBTURny__aAFNQh_eMyKMzSVkqdPg3lYYZ6mCOVtUUmQe7i0Z4HxuWC0BQn26sEcrnl20BORwkDAq-Yvee0rnuF4AyYxT2sKH_bL1pTZCR5VLHMUzp/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F1401%2FA24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf >>> > . >>> > >>> > > it appears to have the only >>> > >>> > If a Z-80 had been the only computer mentioned, would you have called >>> it a >>> > mainframe? >>> > >>> > > Other members of the same general family like IBM 1410 were certainly >>> > regarded as a mainframe. >>> > >>> > >>> > The 7010 was certainly called a mainframe, and possibly the 1410, but >>> > never the 1440 or 1460. >>> > >>> > > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army >>> 1969-1971 >>> > > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of >>> "The >>> > > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came >>> down >>> > > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a >>> > > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company >>> > > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, >>> > >>> > More likely a UNIVAC 1005. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> > >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on >>> behalf >>> > of Joel C. Ewing <[email protected]> >>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:56 PM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: Re: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >>> tank >>> > >>> > Well, ... the IBM 1401 was built in a substantial frame; and in the >>> > context cited it appears to have the only (hence surely the "main") >>> > computer present. Other members of the same general family like IBM >>> > 1410 were certainly regarded as a mainframe. I'm pretty sure any >>> > computer large enough to require one or more dedicated frames was >>> > called a "mainframe" in those days. When mini-computers first came >>> out, >>> > they weren't considered mainframes because they were typically only the >>> > size of a single rack and could even be carried. >>> > >>> > With a recent MS in Comp Sci, I found myself in the U.S. Army >>> 1969-1971 >>> > (started in Infantry but ended up as head Company Clerk at HHC of "The >>> > Old Guard" at Ft Myer VA). I remember reading some memo that came down >>> > from above the Battalion suggesting the possibility of using a >>> > punched-card-based system for maintaining and producing our Company >>> > Roster. That might have involved an IBM 1401, but my impression at the >>> > time was that the functions they were describing could easily have been >>> > done with just unit-record equipment. Nothing ever came of it while I >>> > was there. It would have saved us the periodic tedium of one or more >>> > man-hours of manually typing up a new roster in which few names >>> changed, >>> > but given that our time was cheap and available, there would have been >>> > no way to cost-justify using a process that would save our time but >>> slow >>> > down the overall process by requiring outside resources. Clearly, at >>> > that time, punched card decks were one of the databases used for >>> > tracking military personnel. >>> > Joel C. Ewing >>> > >>> > On 12/26/18 2:42 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> > > What is he smoking? Since when was the 1401 a mainframe? >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> > > >>> > > ________________________________________ >>> > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on >>> > behalf of Mark Regan <[email protected]> >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 8:28 AM >>> > > To: [email protected] >>> > > Subject: How about a little Christmas fudge? | Computerworld Shark >>> tank >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iMlW_GZ2Scqioa5F4rqymcywO0OTBLBFOtYPuQZZF6F73Kv0x_B9nU3SOTiheXf32DsESHEBSvbzXuJ78Z2XaRKtXr7A2GITbjxnEDGjBqcDiOzF9WOIQCYJIH89nABmY7xso9DckpD3Q10YPvrxhvPVeFvR6IYMhBl0Po4k4-03fXnkJSammKYm3lrjMJyX4f-lcp9YlEt59dyzYTF_at6wT-i9VPdyfHx5DVlOyFFEzAQxZe-ifUcS7uOAE70lUB6w6ZfwDLRp9vhqQVEaCVSjXFSY0F4a2YhM92FII0XRqIAu4y7yW4Iop4TXQVM-iMQuqleDME3jgueepL3jXWQ797SaO4hRpNph47Gl9FOTKIqwIXeAe2DNqPGTQMlRexhctM6zHXZYT2EbywHPaw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3330396%2Fapplication-development%2Fsituation-normal-all-fudged-up.html >>> > > >>> > > ... >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Joel C. Ewing >>> > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>> > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>> > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>> > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wayne V. Bickerdike >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>> >> >> >> -- >> Wayne V. Bickerdike >> >> > > -- > Wayne V. Bickerdike > > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
