t...@vse2pdf.com (Tony Thigpen) writes:
> The 4300 did not come out of Endicott. It was developed in Germany, in
> the same lab that developes DOS/VSE.
As an undergraduate I do lots of work on cp67 (including to run in
256kbyte machine). The morph of cp67 to vm370, did a lot of
simplification of
other trivia
in the wake of FS and mad rush ... 303x was kicked off ... as mentioned
3033 was 168 logic remapped to 20% faster chips ... that happened to
have ten times more circuits per chip. Using original 168 logic, 3033
would have been only 20% faster than 168 (aka 3.6mips). However, some
In <87egefr5wr@garlic.com>, on 12/21/2015
at 10:52 AM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler said:
>It showed 4341 was faster than 158&3031
Doesn't that depend on whether your benchmark is packed decimal or
gloating poin arithmetic?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
On 20 Dec 2015 18:15:48 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <3555618195553184.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
>12/20/2015
> at 07:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin
><000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> said:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
jcew...@acm.org (Joel C. Ewing) writes:
> No (about the "free", not about the "dead for decades"), DOS/VS was the
> last really free base (last version Release 34?). Perhaps technically
> DOS/VSE was "free", as there didn't appear to be a monthly licensing
> charge for DOS/VSE itself
> Endicott did something similar for e-architecture (4331 & 4341)
> tailoredfor vs1
The 4300 did not come out of Endicott. It was developed in Germany, in
the same lab that developes DOS/VSE.
Tony Thigpen
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote on 12/21/2015 03:05 AM:
jcew...@acm.org (Joel C. Ewing)
No wonder they didn't break.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
>> Endicott did something similar for e-architecture (4331 & 4341)
>> tailoredfor vs1
>
> The 4300 did not come out of Endicott. It was developed in Germany, in the
> same lab that developes
Not only the 4300, but also the MP3000, which also did not break. :-)
Tony Thigpen
Mike Schwab wrote on 12/21/2015 10:36 AM:
No wonder they didn't break.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
Endicott did something similar for e-architecture (4331 & 4341)
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>>one example explicitly named being VSE/Power versus Power/VS.
>
>POWER was an addon.
>
Is VSE without POWER almost, but not quite, entirely unlike OS without JES?
-- gil
In <3555618195553184.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
12/20/2015
at 07:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> said:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >
>>>one example explicitly named being VSE/Power versus Power/VS.
In <56773a22.1090...@acm.org>, on 12/20/2015
at 05:30 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" said:
>but the ComputerWorld article I referenced said that with DOS/VSE
>users started to pay for components that used to be free with IBM
>DOS/VS,
And you believed them because?
>one example
On 12/20/2015 08:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:11:27 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
one example explicitly named being VSE/Power versus Power/VS.
POWER was an addon.
Is VSE without POWER almost, but not quite, entirely unlike OS without JES?
-- gil
On 12/20/2015 03:36 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> In <56771642.3000...@acm.org>, on 12/20/2015
>at 02:57 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" said:
>
>> No (about the "free", not about the "dead for decades"), DOS/VS was
>> the last really free base (last version Release 34?).
In <56771642.3000...@acm.org>, on 12/20/2015
at 02:57 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" said:
>No (about the "free", not about the "dead for decades"), DOS/VS was
>the last really free base (last version Release 34?). Perhaps
>technically DOS/VSE was "free", as there didn't appear to be
On 12/19/2015 07:48 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> In , on 12/18/2015
>at 08:31 PM, Clark Morris said:
>
>> Are there any current IBM references to DOS/VSE?
> DOS/VSE is the old free base, and has been dead for
Yeah, except PC DOS is more like DPS on a S/360-20. DOS on a S/360-30 was more
advanced than PC DOS.
Sent from iPhone - small keyboard fat fingers - expect spellinf errots.
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
>
> But if the comment was made by someone whose
But if the comment was made by someone whose education is limited to
Intel, he probably is convinced IBM mainframe DOS is equivalent to PC DOS.
Joel C. Ewing
On 12/18/2015 06:31 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2015 09:44:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
>> Nice, maybe
In , on 12/18/2015
at 08:31 PM, Clark Morris said:
>Are there any current IBM references to DOS/VSE?
DOS/VSE is the old free base, and has been dead for decades. There are
probably lots of references to the current
On 18 Dec 2015 09:44:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>Nice, maybe someone should introduce them to the Mainframe Basics Redbook.
>
>
>On Friday, December 18, 2015 12:42 PM, Walter Davies
> wrote:
>
>
> Our board of supervisors like to say the
There are a bunch of us z/VSE customers. Many on bare iron. Many on z/VM.
Tony Thigpen
Clark Morris wrote on 12/18/2015 07:31 PM:
On 18 Dec 2015 09:44:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Nice, maybe someone should introduce them to the Mainframe Basics Redbook.
On Friday,
20 matches
Mail list logo