Greg wrote:
Used a 101 in '56-'57 at Science Research Associates,


I had the opportunity to go fix a 101 in Spanish Town Jamaica (typebar emitter
dirty).
I think that and a keypunch was the whole data processing department in 1967.
I was on my way to Gitmo to fix three 056s and an 047 when the Jamaica branch
manager grabbed me.
Was ADP above Servmart then, down by the piers?
Joe
ADP GTMO Sept 73-75

In article , says...
No one, well almost no one, uses 72-80 until they do 5A. when you
punched your own every 'saved' stroke helped.

No, no. Column 80 was reserved for the "C" you punched before you
turned the card around. That, and using a different color stripe for
each revision, allowed you to backtrack :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Robert Bonomi wrote:

(Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)

On the unit we had about 50% of the time it was a sorter. The other 50% it
was a shredder.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

In article ,
Nova wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:

(Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)

On the unit we had about 50% of the time it was a sorter. The other 50% it
was a shredder.

Well, there was the day I put a several-hundred card deck into the card reader
on the RJE station, hit the 'load' button, watched the cards go _into_ the
machine, and *NOTHING* come out.

Now, the path through the machine, from the input hopper, to the output
stacker was only about _four_ cards long.

The "impossible" had just happened.


I go report the matter to the computer operations staff, in the next room,
and the supervisor comes over (disbelivingly, I might add) to check out
the situation. (they knew me, *knew* I didn't 'make things up', but *this*
story _did_ stretch their credulity.)

He goes around to the back of the machine, opens it up, and breaks up,
laughing.The *entire* innards of the machine (*several* cubic feet) is
absolutely filled with crumpled up punch-cards. _MY_ job deck.

Apparently, the last 'pressure plate' covering the card path, had come up,
and as the cards 'shot' down the reader channel, they just flew up, past the
end of the channel, rather than being stopped at the end and pulled sideways
into the output hopper.

"Cards, Cards, *everywhere*, and not a byte to save."

I could (and *DID*) laugh about it at the time, because: (a) this happened
_after_ the cards went past the 'read' station in the machine, (b) the job
I was submitting was one that copied the data from the input cards to a
'permanent' disk file on the mainframe, and, most importantly, (c) that job
had run _successfully_.

In article ,
says...
(Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)

On the unit we had about 50% of the time it was a sorter. The other 50% it
was a shredder.

One of the first times I could have used the ROTFLMAO tag was when our
IBM CE got his tie caught in a running 083. Had his face almost down on
the glass by the time he got it stopped :-). And the tie was a total
loss.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article ,
Norman D. Crow wrote:
Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @ same
price.

9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600 on
a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls, they
were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had to
slow down a tiny bit.

9600 baud is almost _ten_thousand_ words per minute.

Postulating that the mux _uplink_ was at 9600, and supporting 32 terminals,
They _each_ would have had to be typing at close to 300 words/minute to over-
load the link. color me *very* skeptical.

Now, if it was a 64-terminal mux, on a 9.6k uplink, that's getting closer to
'believable'.

In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Dreamweaver gives an estimated load time for your pages but I test them
anyway with my auxilary dial up line that Roadrunner provides. I've found
the times in Dreamweaver quite accurate. My goal is to keep all load times
in the 15 to 25 second range for a 56k connection.



A few pieces of advice:

1) Make sure any 'home'-type page(s) load _fast_. i.e., about 25Kbyte
*max*. 'Instant gratification' _is_ important for retaining the first-
time vistor.
2) Anything 'big' (i.e., over 25-50k) put a parenthetical after the link
that gives the approx. 'size' (in kbytes) of the page data. This is
called 'managing expectations' -- when people _know_ 'in advance' how
long they'll have to wait they tend to be much more tolerant of delays.
*AND*, those who know that they don't have the patience won't even _try_
the page.
3) consider putting up 'parallel' pages for low-speed, and high-speed,
access. If you're careful to make all the links on the page 'relative',
you can accomplish this by changing _only_ the 'base' tag at the top
of the page.
4) You can get amazing savings by reducing the number of 'colors' used in
an image. and JPGs are not always smaller than GIFs -- especially where
"thumbnails" are concerned. A *sixteen* color GIF may be entirely
adequate for a 'preview' shot.
5) consider using "frames". to allow _selective_re-drawing_ of *partial*
page content.



One other consideration is the _outbound_ bandwidth from your weh-server.
If you're running it at the end of a DSL/cable connection, the 'upload'
speed limits of that connection can become a real problem. Especially if
multiple people hit the site at 'more-or-less' the same time.

If you've got a link with a 384K 'upload' speed, then *six* simultaneous
requests for a circa 150kbyte ("20 seconds at 56k") page will result in
20-second 'load' times for _all_ the viewers. EVEN those with _multi-megabit_
'download' capabilities.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman D. Crow wrote:
Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @
same
price.

9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600
on
a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls,
they
were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had
to
slow down a tiny bit.

9600 baud is almost _ten_thousand_ words per minute.

Postulating that the mux _uplink_ was at 9600, and supporting 32
terminals,
They _each_ would have had to be typing at close to 300 words/minute to
over-
load the link. color me *very* skeptical.

Now, if it was a 64-terminal mux, on a 9.6k uplink, that's getting closer
to
'believable'.

Color me red! Maybe they were 1200. I do know the girls running entry could
over-run and lose data(usually fast numeric entry, then *return* or *enter*
to skip to next field). Each terminal had it's own line to a "modem" in the
MX'er, the MX was running straight on a common trunk into the processor, an
NCR Century 200, which at that time was our top of the line.

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.

4800 full duplex leased lines were very popular in the mid 80s. It was the
upgrade to 2400.

Charlie Self wrote:

Screw Roanoke, though it can be a problem--I came around and out 460 into
Bedford itself today, and you may be right about the number of lights.

Up 581/220 to 24. Stay on 24 until you get to 43 and turn right. I'm not

I'll have to remember that. Back roads are good. I tend to forget I can
run back roads in the little thing with only four wheels. (Back roads are
not so good in the big thing with 14 wheels.)

Ah well. Some day you'll come get that fence. Before I cut it down and
install it on a bandsaw.



I do want to come up and let my boy see a real shop too. One Of These
Days(tm)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

snippage
"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.
snippage
DSL at home, wideband wireless at the office.
Tom

Thomas Bunetta wrote:

DSL at home, wideband wireless at the office.
Tom

Cable at home but I'm lucky to get 19K on dial up at work and I work for AT&...
SB... one of the major phone companies.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Nova wrote:
I work for AT&...
SB... one of the major phone companies.

Me too.

How you lookin' for post merger?

I'll probably be doing something else. G

Barry

B a r r y wrote:

Nova wrote:
I work for AT&...
SB... one of the major phone companies.

Me too.

How you lookin' for post merger?

I'll probably be doing something else. G

Barry

I decided to hang on for a while longer and try and make there life as
miserable as they've made mine the last... oh 20 years.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Nova wrote:

I decided to hang on for a while longer and try and make there life as
miserable as they've made mine the last... oh 20 years.


'Sounds like location changes, everything else doesn't. G

Barry