The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Stephen Fuld on 16 Mar 2007 11:53 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: snip > But the question here isn't about style but why (or how) > these managers assumed that customers could be dicated to > as if they were subordinates. Come on Barb. You know the answer to that. They assumed that because it was a good assumption because it was quite often true for over the previous three decades! When these managers were coming up, IBM was so dominant that they *could* dictate to customers and most of them would "obey". Note that I am not commenting on the value or goodness of the situation, nor of its applicability to the different environment of the DEC marketplace (where it clearly wasn't nearly as effective), just answering your question. :-) I am making the assumption > that most managers knew that products were being made and > sold to other people. Yes, but in small enough numbers that they could be largely ignored. -- - Stephen Fuld (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
From: Peter Flass on 16 Mar 2007 12:48 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > There were many sane ways to move customers from the one product > line to the other, IF that was a goal. The choice was the most > insane method. This was part of the IBM thinking that was > injected (sorry, Lynn) into middle management. IBM customers > were used to being ordered around "for their own good". Maybe in some respects, but many would say the reason for IBM's success was that it always tried to maintain backwards-compatibility. A program from the earliest 360 days (executable, not just source) will run the same today on the most recent version of the hardware and OS. That's 42 years of compatibility!
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler on 16 Mar 2007 14:47 Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes: > Maybe in some respects, but many would say the reason for IBM's > success was that it always tried to maintain backwards-compatibility. > A program from the earliest 360 days (executable, not just source) > will run the same today on the most recent version of the hardware and > OS. That's 42 years of compatibility! the big new thing in the early to mid 70s was going to be "FS" (future system), it would have been radically more different from 360 than 360 had been what had gone before http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys i've commented several times that when FS was finally killed ... there was big scramble to catch-up for all the years of lost time ... one could claim that POK convincing corporate to kill-off VM ... so that all the VM development people could be moved to POK to help get MVS/XA out the door. some recent comments: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#23 How to write a full-screen Rexx debugger? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#41 IBM S/360 series operating systems history http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#7 IBM S/360 series operating systems history http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#14 more shared segment archeology http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#25 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? I've also commented that it may have not only indirectly contributed to the clone processor business (i.e. distracted the company from bread&butter legacy systems with all attention focused on turning out this fabulous new FS thing) but also possibly directly contributed. I've commented before that at a talk that Amdahl gave in large MIT auditorium in the early 70s ... he was asked how he was able to make the business case for starting a clone processor company .... his comment was something about there already being so much customer application software ... that even if ibm was to totally walk away from 360 (possibly vieled reference to FS), there was enough customer application software to keep him in business thru the end of the century. recent posts mentioning amdahl http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#11 vm/sp1 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#14 vm/sp1 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#38 How many 36-bit Unix ports in the old days? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#44 vm/sp1 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007b.html#1 How many 36-bit Unix ports in the old days? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#3 Has anyone ever used self-modifying microcode? Would it even be useful? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#5 Is computer history taugh now? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#41 IBM S/360 series operating systems history http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#42 FBA rant http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#48 time spent/day on a computer supposedly the justification for FS was all the clone controller and device business ... I had worked on one such when I was an undergraduate in the 60s ... and some article was written blaming us (at least in part) for the clone controller (and clone device) business. misc past post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm but then the sidetrack into Future System project significantly aided the clone processor business. posts with some specific comments http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#36 REAL memory column in SDSF http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#2 IBM sues maker of Intel-based Mainframe clones http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#10 Beyond multicore http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#11 Is computer history taught now? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#12 FBA rant i have vague recollection that so much money and resources went into the failed FS project ... that if it had been any other company .... they would have quickly gone under i've also conjuctured that a lot of 801/risc was apossibly also reaction to FS ... attempting to go to the exact opposite extreme from FS hardware complexity. lots of past 801/risc related posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801
From: krw on 16 Mar 2007 15:27 In article <m37ithqllp.fsf(a)garlic.com>, lynn(a)garlic.com says... > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > > ...and those managers (in the early '90s) were exactly the ones who > > most needed flattening. DEC couldn't have done any worse with the > > entire senior management team. They almost took IBM under. > > re: > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#23 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? > > and you took a lot more heat if you were predicting such stuff in the mid-80s, > a couple past posts Predictions of doom and gloom weren't hard to come by. Akers was running the company into the ground by, among other things, borrowing money to pay the dividends. It wasn't too hard to see where that was going. Oh, and it's easy making such unfavorable statements when you're golden. ;-) > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005j.html#32 IBM Plugs Big Iron to the College Crowd > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#16 Is a Hurricane about to hit IBM ? > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006.html#21 IBM up for grabs? > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006.html#22 IBM up for grabs? > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#17 virtual memory > -- Keith
From: Peter Flass on 16 Mar 2007 16:57
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > > i've also conjuctured that a lot of 801/risc was apossibly also > reaction to FS ... attempting to go to the exact opposite extreme from > FS hardware complexity. lots of past 801/risc related posts > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 > Ironic. Someone, possibly you, mantioned that the AS/400 (iSeries) boxes were a scaled down version of what FS was supposed to be, and now they're running on top of RISC CPUs. |