> Mainframes? The 8100 was a series of small machines that grew out of
> the 3790. They were no more mainframes than their competitor, the S/1.
> Perhaps you are thinking of DPPX/370, which ran on the 9370.
It is debatable (although maybe we shouldn't here!) - 8100 was a DPD
product, not GSD like
In
,
on 09/06/2012
at 08:07 PM, William Donzelli said:
>the 8100 series (the mainframes
Mainframes? The 8100 was a series of small machines that grew out of
the 3790. They were no more mainframes than their competitor, the S/1.
Perhaps you are thinking of DPPX/370, which ran on the 9370.
--
y hole).
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#72 zEC12, and previous generations,
"why?" type question - GPU computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#74 zEC12, and previous generations,
"why?" type question - GPU computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2
> 360s, 370s, etc ... have been microcode implemented on variety of other
> kinds of engines. circa 1980 there was an effort to replace the wide
> variety of internet microprocessors used for controllers, low&mid range
> 370s, the planned as/400 replacement for s/38, etc ... all with 801/risc
> Ili
e recipe a
> bit. But history didn't happen that way.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#72 zEC12, and previous generations,
"why?" type question - GPU computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#74 zEC12, and previous generations,
"why?" type question - GP
n/2012l.html#72 zEC12, and previous generations,
"why?" type question - GPU computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#74 zEC12, and previous generations,
"why?" type question - GPU computing
between xt/at/370 and p370/p390 was a74 (7437) done in POK by the same
group t
In
,
on 09/06/2012
at 01:58 AM, George Henke said:
>I believe IBM produced a pc with a 370 to run VM on a PC.
XT/370 and AT/370 used a 68000 with custom microcode and a second
68000 with standard microcode. The software for it was VM/PC.
Note that the later P/370 and R/370 cards implemented
gahe...@gmail.com (George Henke) writes:
> I believe IBM produced a pc with a 370 to run VM on a PC. Merrill Lynch
> had one. Somewhere in the late 80's I believe.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#72 zEC12, and previous generations,
"why?" type question - GPU co
previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU
computing.
AT/370.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Leopold Strauss <
leopold.stra...@isis-papyrus.com> wrote:
> Yes.
>
> It was a microprogrammed motorola-68000-chip, which was used. Name was
> similar to PC/370,
AT/370.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Leopold Strauss <
leopold.stra...@isis-papyrus.com> wrote:
> Yes.
>
> It was a microprogrammed motorola-68000-chip, which was used. Name was
> similar to PC/370, but I am not sure about that.
> Many years ago the company, where I was employeed at that tim,
- Original Message
From: zMan
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Wed, September 5, 2012 5:17:37 PM
Subject: Re: zEC12, and previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU
computing.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <
shmuel+...@patriot.net> wro
Yes.
It was a microprogrammed motorola-68000-chip, which was used. Name was
similar to PC/370, but I am not sure about that.
Many years ago the company, where I was employeed at that tim, had one
for short for testing-purposes. Ibelieve to remember, it was the time,
where 3033-systems came up
I believe IBM produced a pc with a 370 to run VM on a PC. Merrill Lynch
had one. Somewhere in the late 80's I believe.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Timothy Sipples1 wrote:
> Yes, there are organizations that use zEnterprise servers for "heavy
> numeric computation." Like decimal floating po
Yes, there are organizations that use zEnterprise servers for "heavy
numeric computation." Like decimal floating point. Cryptography is another
excellent example. And you can buy optional CryptoExpress adapters if you
want to augment the excellent capabilities found in every machine. You can
also b
t...@harminc.net (Tony Harminc) writes:
> There *was* a single-chip 370 produced by someone in the late 70s - a
> "168i". I think it was a university or research institute, but not
> IBM. I'm not finding anything on Google with a casual search, but
> things like this are easily overwhelmed.
SLAC d
On 5 September 2012 17:17, zMan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> wrote:
>
>> The z architecture is fine for numeric computations. The problem is
>> that the implementation is competing with processors manufactured in
>> bulk. If IBM could sell millions of z box
t;>Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:07 PM
>>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>>Subject: Re: zEC12, and previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU
>>computing.
>>> On 9/5/2012 at 12:45 PM, "McKown, John"
>>> wrote:
>>> I gue
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <
shmuel+...@patriot.net> wrote:
> In ,
> on 09/05/2012
>at 11:45 AM, "McKown, John" said:
>
> >If it is because the z architecture is "not good" at numeric
> >computation,
>
> The z architecture is fine for numeric computations. The pr
In ,
on 09/05/2012
at 11:45 AM, "McKown, John" said:
>If it is because the z architecture is "not good" at numeric
>computation,
The z architecture is fine for numeric computations. The problem is
that the implementation is competing with processors manufactured in
bulk. If IBM could sell mil
>>> On 9/5/2012 at 12:45 PM, "McKown, John"
>>> wrote:
> I guess that I should preface this with another question. Does anybody use a
> z for heavy numeric computation anymore? Or has that all gone to Intel and
> Power boxes? Why is that? If it is because the z architecture is "not good"
> at
I guess that I should preface this with another question. Does anybody use a z
for heavy numeric computation anymore? Or has that all gone to Intel and Power
boxes? Why is that? If it is because the z architecture is "not good" at
numeric computation, I have a question. The internals of the z ha
21 matches
Mail list logo
