Sender: marc@dumbcat.snafu.org Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Mainframes suck? (was Re: Possibly OT: Disney Computing) References: <36376186.3813768328@news.supernews.com> From: Marco S Hyman Date: 28 Oct 1998 18:03:41 -0800 Message-ID: Organization: S.N.A.F.U. (www.snafu.org) X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.94.187.130 X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 909626621 29767 marc@204.94.187.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!212.63.192.161.MISMATCH!newshub.bart.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed.nyu.edu!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.slip.net!news1.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Neil Franklin writes: > I remember the exhibit to have been sponsored by Univac. But what > machines they were I have no clue (I was an microcomputer nerd in > those days, mainframes suck, you know :-)) In the late 70's I couldn't see why anybody would be happy with small (read: toy) computers. Didn't realize til many years later that my friends with the toys didn't have the keys to the machine room. I did. And it was mine to play with however I liked at 2:00 in the morning! So I guess mainframes only sucked if you didn't have the keys! // marc ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Mainframes suck? (was Re: Possibly OT: Disney Computing) Date: 31 Oct 1998 19:02:11 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 60 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <36376186.3813768328@news.supernews.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Marco S Hyman writes: > > Neil Franklin writes: > > > I remember the exhibit to have been sponsored by Univac. But what > > machines they were I have no clue (I was an microcomputer nerd in > > those days, mainframes suck, you know :-)) > > In the late 70's I couldn't see why anybody would be happy with small > (read: toy) computers. Not knowing what is there to be had... In the early 80s (when I started) it was sort of an "we have graphics on the TV and they only have them long printouts" sort of thing. We had the raw smell of individual bits being cooked. Of course we only saw the user level output of mainframes, from engineer fathers who ran some boring Fortran stuff and then brought the old printouts home for drawing paper. That they also had display systems was simply unknown. And all the internal complexity of an multiuser system to play with was simply beond immagination (the micros had none :-)). They just looked like big outdated boxes doing less than the new stuff could do for us teenagers :-) > Didn't realize til many years later that my > friends with the toys didn't have the keys to the machine room. Today I have them. And the root passwords. And the real big fun. I am reformed :-) > I did. In the meantime I know the feeling (Sun and SGI Servers, not IBMs). > And it was mine to play with however I liked at 2:00 in > the morning! No 24h running then? That makes it a really nice toy :-) > So I guess mainframes only sucked if you didn't have the keys! Or more general, didn't have a clue what you were missing. -- home: neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ work: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Microsoft is Software Communism, Fight for GNU Freedom! ###### From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Mainframes suck? (was Re: Possibly OT: Disney Computing) Date: 31 Oct 1998 18:00:24 -0800 Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <36376186.3813768328@news.supernews.com> Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler NNTP-Posting-Host: lynn-18.garlic.com X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.44/Emacs 20.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!mtu.ru!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!bulb.garlic.com!not-for-mail Many/most of the mainframes provided "batch" oriented services. Many/most of the open systems have tended towards interactive/online services. This has resulted in different implicit paradigm approach between batch and interactive/online paradigms. For one thing ... interactive/online paradigms have tended to display messages to the user when something happens (paradigm assumes that there is somebody present); in the same situations batch paradigms tended to provide lots & lots of traps ... but if a trap hasn't been specified by the application program ... control will transfer to a system default handler. Interactive/online paradigms tend to have better human engineering factors. The interesting thing is that the batch paradigm descendents tend to be better suited for deploying business critical, industrial strength web servers (allows better automation of exception conditions when the web servers don't have somebody constantly seated at the system). -- -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com, finger for pgp key http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/