someone smarter than Dave Cutler
in [Device Drivers]
|
From: Patrick Scheible on 1 Apr 2010 21:50 Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: > Patrick Scheible wrote: > > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> writes: > > > >> Mark Crispin wrote: > >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jim Stewart posted: > >>>> Anyone that takes the time to leaf through some > >>>> Datamation magazines of that era would be lucky > >>>> to find any reference to PDP-10's. > >>> Using Datamation as an historical reference is like using the National > >>> Enquirier. > >> ROTFLMAO. Much better answer than the one I just wrote. > > > > The National Enquirer just makes stuff up for (dubious) entertainment > > value. Datamation didn't. Datamation just concentrated on the > > corporate data processing market, where IBM did indeed dominate. But > > the academic and research markets were a lot more fun and interesting, > > and they were dominated by PDP-10s. > > > > -- Patrick > > Didn't Xerox Data Systems (nee Scientific Data Systems) have any > sort of impact on academic and research markets??? ISTM that Xerox > fumbled this market too, but there were a lot of systems out there > before Xerox gave up. I don't have firm numbers. There were a few on the Arpanet map previously referenced, but only a few. -- Patrick
From: Patrick Scheible on 1 Apr 2010 21:55 scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Lawrence Statton/XE1-N1GAK <yankeeinexile(a)gmail.com> writes: > >In article <w19tn.962024$L8.407411(a)news.usenetserver.com>, > > scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > >> Mark Crispin <mrc(a)panda.com> writes: > >> > > >> >Columbia was also a big DEC-20 shop starting in the mid 1970s. > >> > > >> >Clearly the IBM gear did not address all their computing needs. > >> > > >> > >> The second doesn't follow from the first. > >> > > > >Well, in a tautological way, it does. > > > >P: Columbia bought computers other than IBM > >Q: IBM Gear did not address all of Columbia's computing needs > > > >That IBM gear COULD not have addressed their needs cannot be inferred. > > > >Another thing that can't be inferred is WHY did IBM gear not address all > >of their needs. > > > >One possible interpretation, perhaps that favored by MRC is "IBM Gear > >was so bletcherous and cretinous that it could not have possibly met > >their needs" > > > >Another interpretation is "Columbia's computing needs include exposure > >to non-IBM kit" > > > >Yet another is: "The PDP-10 Architecture was so clearly and obviously > >winning that not having it around was inconceivable", or, less spun > >"There were things afoot in the PDP-10 community that Columbia had to be > >a part of" > > > >A combination of the second and third seem (in my arrogant opinion) the > >most salient. > > A fourth is 'DEC gave us a good deal' and 'IBM didn't'. Aren't affordable computers among Columbia's needs? I suspect the truth is more like, Columbia needed a system that was good at timesharing, user-friendly for undergrads and novice computer users, and DEC-20s were the obvious choice. -- Patrick
From: Pat Farrell on 1 Apr 2010 22:00 Charles Richmond wrote: > How can a university with a business school *not* have an IBM 370 or > clone back in the 1970's??? That is the computer that the COBOL > programmers would be *most* likely to use out in the business world. I'm baffled by this statement. Folks getting a Business degree are not likely to be programming in any language. Sure, lots of business used Cobol, that is one of the reasons Cobol was designed. I see no connection between business degrees and the details of how the business programs were implemented. That was left to the geeks while the business majors became a "Master of The Universe" -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/
From: Gene Wirchenko on 2 Apr 2010 00:20 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:35:17 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc(a)panda.com> wrote: [snip] >I still cringe at the memory of an IBM 360/67 running OS/360+HASP; and >with Call-OS (shudder!), APL\360, ATS, and CourseWriter as timesharing >systems each doing (SHUDDER!!) PSW stealiing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please define this term. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 2 Apr 2010 01:16
Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: > > Didn't Xerox Data Systems (nee Scientific Data Systems) have any sort > of impact on academic and research markets??? ISTM that Xerox fumbled > this market too, but there were a lot of systems out there before > Xerox gave up. Ah, when I first got my "Drivers License" at the UW Teaching Lab (1978?) there was still a Sigma 5 there. The local pronunciation of "!" was "Bang". Moments after learning that a job on the machine started with !JOB, a very innocent-looking young lady in the class with me asked if the command to initiate time-sharing was !GANG. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) |