Robert Crawford asked:
>Was the 2260 keyboard the one with two, count 'em, two PF keys?
.which reminds me of my favorite bit of IBM trivia: What IBM device had exactly
*13* PF keys?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
The 2260 had no function keys.
The 3270 was available with half a dozen keyboard arrangements, with no, five
or 12 function keys.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
480 characters? Sounds like Twitter.
Was the 2260 keyboard the one with two, count 'em, two PF keys?
Robert Crawford
Abstract Evolutions LLC
(210) 913-3822
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
billogden
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 11:16 AM
To:
>From:Seymour J Metz
>Yep, "Model 1 displays 480 characters (12 rows of 40 characters)."
>Did you have keyboard issues?
My memory of those ancient history days (early 70s) simply fails too much. I
seem to remember "something" simple we did with the keyboard, but the
details have vanished.
Hah! That's just what I say about Windows WordPad; it does most of what I
need (until my writing gets a lot fancier; for serious documentation I use a
markup language) without weighing me down with too much bloatware.
I may be the only use in the country that uses WordPad much, though.
---
Bob
Yep, "Model 1 displays 480 characters (12 rows of 40 characters)."
Did you have keyboard issues?
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
billogden
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 10:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXT] Ars
Comment for Seymour:
> By the time the 370/148 came out 3270s were old hat.
Not in all parts of the world!
>3270-1? Did you mean 3277-1? I never saw one in the flesh, and it was way
too small.
Sorry, I used the "generic" 3270 instead of the specific "3277". Yes, the
model 1 had a very small
I think we had two 3279-3B’s in our branch. The rest were 3278’s.
Recall IBM had gone to PROFS-based email at that point (mid 1980’s) so
terminals were something everybody in the branch needed.
Cheers, Martin
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Jay
Maynard
Date: Thursday, 27
When I got into systems work in 1982, I was at an engineering shop. All of
the terminals were 3278-2s aside from a few leftover 3277-2s. There was
exactly one 3279-S3G, in the general manager's office so he could do GDDM
charts.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 11:02 AM Colin Paice wrote:
> In the days
In the days when 3270-2 was the best available, and 3279s with colour were
just announced, a team from a bank came round to see these new machines.
One of the executives asked "why do we need colour?" The reply from a
quick thinking developer was "so you can display overdrawn accounts in
red!" -
? By the time the 370/148 came out 3270s were old hat.
3270-1? Did you mean 3277-1? I never saw one in the flesh, and it was way to
small.
OS/VS1 did have some things that MVS did not
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM
Long ago and far away I helped an IBM customer set up his new 148 VS1
machine to use CICS. At that time it had the macro interface, but as an
assembly programmer that was good for me. 3270s were very new at the time
and controlling the screen appearance was important. The customer was an
Electric
IMS/DB vs most other databases?
Having worked with IMS/DB and DC and CICS with a variety of DBMS, I'd
venture that CICS offers way more flexibility. For example, I've worked in
CICS shops with ADABAS, DATACOM, TOTAL, DB2, not to mention that many of
the 4GL products were tailored to work in a
This product is strictly for maintaining the old macro programs. It works well
and silently in the background, allowing us to keep running macro level code.
The only problems we had have been at upgrade time. When we went to CICS 5.3
and again to 5.6, we had to have MacKinney refit MLI to
Oh man, I feel your pain.
I looked at the FAQ for the product. Does MacKinney provide means to update
the programs or does the customer have to keep the old macro level translator
around?
Robert Crawford
Abstract Evolutions LLC
(210) 913-3822
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
"potential"? :-)
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Crawford Robert C (Contractor)
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 9:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] Ars Technica: The IBM mainframe: How it runs
and why it
Macro code was deprecated with CICS 1.5 in the early 80s, though it stayed
around for many years after that.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 9:39 AM Pommier, Rex
wrote:
> And then there's this handy little tool from MacKinney systems called MLI
> that allows macro level code to still run in 2023! Was
I don't remember the specific date. I think CICS 3.2.1 was the last release
that supported it.
Fortunately, we only had to run CICS 3.2.1 and CICS 3.3 in parallel for a few
months. I'm glad our application guys didn't know about MLI. It sounds like a
transition tool that has the potential
And then there's this handy little tool from MacKinney systems called MLI that
allows macro level code to still run in 2023! Was macro code deprecated around
1988?
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Crawford Robert C (Contractor)
Sent:
That's good to know. I always assumed CICS had a storage manager because it
was faster than GETMAIN/FREEMAIN.
I remember the old macro interface and it was a mess, especially with
application programs addressing system control blocks directly. Not to mention
how weird macro code looked in
CICS was "common code" between VS1 and DOS/VS(E) DOS/VS (I used to build it
for CICS development), with AIF.. ANOP statements around VS1/DOS specific
code. DOS/VS did not have the same facilities as VS1, so CICS had to be
written to the lowest level of code.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 14:45,
Yes, CICS has problems with shared memory which it mitigates through storage
protection and transaction isolation. IMS MPR's are not entirely immune from
this either as a bad array index or funky pointer can wipe out acres of storage
and leave a region inoperative. I saw some MPR loops that
Lionel wrote:
> IMS can process 21,000 transactions per second (over 1 billion per day) using
> IMS data sharing and shared queues.
> A single IMS has processed over 6000 transactions per second over a single
> TCP/IP connection.
It doesn't stop there ;) A few years ago they cranked up 1 IMS
Yes there are a few sites running IMS/DC (aka DC/CTL) with DB2 as the (sole)
database manager.The ones I know of have rewritten their applications to use
DB2 instead of DLI.Cheers,Andrew
Original message From: David Spiegel
<0468385049d1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
I worked in several shops that had both IMS and CICS. I was always a CICS
guy, and know essentially nothing about IMS/DC or IMS/TM...and always
wondered why a shop would run both transaction processors.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 1:11 PM Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
> For history see
>
1968 it became available.
https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/deepak-kohli/2022/06/03/ims-speed-storage
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, July 25, 2023, 2:09 PM, rpinion865
<042a019916dd-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
I'm probably wrong.
For history see
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos-basic-skills?topic=now-history-ims-beginnings-nasa
and https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=377307=2
>From the 2nd link:
IMS is still a viable, even unmatched, platform to implement very large online
transaction processing (OLTP)
I'm probably wrong. But I thought IMS was developed for NASA during the Gemini
and Apollo time frame.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, July 25th, 2023 at 2:05 PM, Schmitt, Michael
wrote:
> No, I don’t know of an IMS/TM + DB2 system.
>
>
No, I don’t know of an IMS/TM + DB2 system.
But then the CICS systems I work with are also not using DB2. They use VSAM!
And even for IMS/DB, my gut feel is there are a lot more CICS + IMS/DB
installations than IMS/TM + IMS/DB.
Also, CICS is from ~1966, IMS/DC (later renamed to IMS/TM in IMS
Hi Michael,
I have yet to see a site running IMS/DC and not run IMS/DB.
Have you actually seen this?
BTW, the article had more than one technical error. For example, a JCL
Step name with 9 characters.
Regards,
David
On 2023-07-25 13:16, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
The Ars Technica article was
The Ars Technica article was discussing CICS as an application server. I was
comparing CICS as an application server to IMS/TM as an application server. The
DBMS is a different issue; there's no reason why IMS/TM must be used with
IMS/DB. You can use IMS/TM with DB2.
The point I was trying to
Both CICS and IMS were originally written in the 1960s.
What is your point?
--
Tom Marchant
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:36:54 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
>IMS was written in the 1960s for NASA Apollo parts management.
--
For
Hi Michael,
You said: "...CICS is to IMS as Windows 3.1 is to Windows 10. ..."
You're comparing apples and oranges.
(CICS has no native Database portion.)
BTW, a lot of the banks, insurance companies etc. are running CICS+DB2.
The majority of IMS users need it to support 40+ year old application
We used IMS at Packard Electric for parts management.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, July 25, 2023, 12:37 PM, Mike Schwab
wrote:
IMS was written in the 1960s for NASA Apollo parts management.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023, 08:14 Crawford Robert C (Contractor) <
IMS was written in the 1960s for NASA Apollo parts management.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023, 08:14 Crawford Robert C (Contractor) <
04e08f385650-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, I worked in a shop that had both and I can tell you CICS is way
> more flexible, modern and performed
Yes, the article has some truly amazing fact™s. But CICS does have the ability
to run a transactions in an isolated subtask.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 10:37 AM
To:
So CICS is no longer doing cooperative multitasking within each AOR, and thus
requiring CICS versions of OS commands to prevent wait states from freezing the
entire AOR? A CICS program can do direct GETMAINs, LOADS, abends, rather than
use CICS commands? CICS no longer requires special versions
Sorry, I worked in a shop that had both and I can tell you CICS is way more
flexible, modern and performed better.
I will give you this: IMS is a great piece of 90's technology.
Robert Crawford
Abstract Evolutions LLC
(210) 913-3822
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
38 matches
Mail list logo
