IBM System 360 Halve Instructions

  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
originally
implemented.
   To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards.
Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
adding zero.

   The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
much faster than using a divide instruction.

   Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.
0
Reply Robin 2/2/2013 2:30:05 PM

See related articles to this posting


On 2013-02-02 14:30:05 +0000, Robin Vowels said:

> Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
> originally
> implemented.
>    To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards.
> Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
> To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
> subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
> adding zero.
> 
>    The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
> much faster than using a divide instruction.
> 
>    Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
> because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.

Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating square 
roots, I suppose it was thought unimportant, as the successive results 
still had to converge to the true square root, anyway, so that only one 
bit, at most, would be lost in the final result.

-- 
John W Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it 
to Windows?

0
Reply John 2/3/2013 5:25:56 AM

John W Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:

(snip)
>>    Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
>> because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.

> Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating square
> roots, I suppose it was thought unimportant, as the successive results
> still had to converge to the true square root, anyway, so that only one
> bit, at most, would be lost in the final result.

The usual S/360 square root does the last iteration as

   Y2=(Y1-X/Y1)/2+X/Y1

(Well, PL/I (F) does it that way.)

I believe that works fine even if halve doesn't have a guard digit.

More specifically, it does:

         DE    FA,OP00(DR)
         AU    FA,OP00(DR)
         HER   FA,FA               Y1=(Y0+X/Y0)/
         DER   FB,FA
         MVC   OP01(3,DR),ROUND
         AU    FA,OP00(DR)         ROUND OFF X/Y
         SER   FA,FB               Y2=(Y1-X/Y1)/2 + X/Y1 IN ORDER
         HER   FA,FA               TO GUARD LAST DIGIT
         AER   FA,FB

-- glen
0
Reply glen 2/3/2013 9:34:35 AM

On Feb 3, 4:25=A0pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2013-02-02 14:30:05 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>
> > Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
> > originally
> > implemented.
> > =A0 =A0To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards=
..
> > Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
> > To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
> > subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
> > adding zero.
>
> > =A0 =A0The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
> > much faster than using a divide instruction.
>
> > =A0 =A0Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
> > because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.
>
> Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating square
> roots,

One use.
I opened up IBM's Scientific Subroutine package at a random page:
Subroutine MEAT has two divisions by 2.
Elsewhere in the manual I found multiplications by 0.5.

Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.

> I suppose it was thought unimportant, as the successive results
> still had to converge to the true square root, anyway, so that only one
> bit, at most, would be lost in the final result.

One bit doesn't sound like much, but is significant in single
precision, considering that 24 mantissa bits are available,
and that four leading bits would be then zero.

Should the operation following HER be add or subtract, the fact that
the value may not be normalized will cause the loss of up to four
low-order bits when the magnitude of the other operand is such that
its mantissa must be shifted down during pre-normalisation.

I suppose that for single-precision evaluation of a formula,
the result could have been formed in an FPR that is first cleared
with SDR r,r and when the halve operation is carried out,
HDR r,r is used rather than HER.  The result could then be
normalised with some relevant instruction.
0
Reply Robin 2/3/2013 10:54:13 AM

Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:25 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-02-02 14:30:05 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>> 
>>> Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
>>> originally
>>> implemented.
>>>    To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards.
>>> Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
>>> To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
>>> subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
>>> adding zero.
>> 
>>>    The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
>>> much faster than using a divide instruction.
>> 
>>>    Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
>>> because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.
>> 
>> Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating square
>> roots,
> 
> One use.
> I opened up IBM's Scientific Subroutine package at a random page:
> Subroutine MEAT has two divisions by 2.
> Elsewhere in the manual I found multiplications by 0.5.
> 
> Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.

And did any of these compile to Halve instructions on pre-1967 S/360
compilers?

Anyway, it is well known that the original S/360 floating point was not all
it should have been. That’s why the 1967 EC was done, and that’s why the
IEEE designed a whole new floating-point format from scratch.
0
Reply John 2/3/2013 2:16:35 PM

On Feb 4, 1:16=A0am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.neg> wrote:
> Robin Vowels <robin.vow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 4:25 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 2013-02-02 14:30:05 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>
> >>> Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
> >>> originally
> >>> implemented.
> >>> =A0 =A0To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwar=
ds.
> >>> Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
> >>> To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
> >>> subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
> >>> adding zero.
>
> >>> =A0 =A0The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they wer=
e
> >>> much faster than using a divide instruction.
>
> >>> =A0 =A0Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
> >>> because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.
>
> >> Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating square
> >> roots,
>
> > One use.
> > I opened up IBM's Scientific Subroutine package at a random page:
> > Subroutine MEAT has two divisions by 2.
> > Elsewhere in the manual I found multiplications by 0.5.
>
> > Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.
>
> And did any of these compile to Halve instructions on pre-1967 S/360
> compilers?

Whether they did or not is irrelevant.
I dispute your claim that the main use of HxR
was for computing square root.

> Anyway, it is well known that the original S/360 floating point was not a=
ll
> it should have been. That=92s why the 1967 EC was done, and that=92s why =
the
> IEEE designed a whole new floating-point format from scratch.

There were various floating-point hardware implementations in
operation, having different numbers of mantissa bits and exponent
ranges.
0
Reply Robin 2/3/2013 10:55:32 PM

John W Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.neg> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>> Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.
 
> And did any of these compile to Halve instructions on pre-1967 S/360
> compilers?

Does it compile to HALVE on any compiler?
 
> Anyway, it is well known that the original S/360 floating point was not all
> it should have been. That???s why the 1967 EC was done, and that???s why the
> IEEE designed a whole new floating-point format from scratch.

-- glen
0
Reply glen 2/3/2013 11:08:45 PM

On 2013-02-03 22:55:32 +0000, Robin Vowels said:

> On Feb 4, 1:16 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.neg> wrote:
>> Robin Vowels <robin.vow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 4:25 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2013-02-02 14:30:05 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>> 
>>>>> Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
>>>>> originally
>>>>> implemented.
>>>>>    To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards.
>>>>> Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
>>>>> To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
>>>>> subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
>>>>> adding zero.
>> 
>>>>>    The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
>>>>> much faster than using a divide instruction.
>> 
>>>>>    Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
>>>>> because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.
>> 
>>>> Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating square
>>>> roots,
>> 
>>> One use.
>>> I opened up IBM's Scientific Subroutine package at a random page:
>>> Subroutine MEAT has two divisions by 2.
>>> Elsewhere in the manual I found multiplications by 0.5.
>> 
>>> Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.
>> 
>> And did any of these compile to Halve instructions on pre-1967 S/360
>> compilers?
> 
> Whether they did or not is irrelevant.
> I dispute your claim that the main use of HxR
> was for computing square root.

Oh for God's sake, /think/!

>> Anyway, it is well known that the original S/360 floating point was not all
>> it should have been. That’s why the 1967 EC was done, and that’s why the
>> IEEE designed a whole new floating-point format from scratch.
> 
> There were various floating-point hardware implementations in
> operation, having different numbers of mantissa bits and exponent
> ranges.

What era are you talking about?

-- 
John W Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of 
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
  -- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"

0
Reply John 2/4/2013 1:39:28 AM

On 2013-02-03 23:08:45 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt said:

> John W Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.neg> wrote:
> 
> (snip, someone wrote)
> 
>>> Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.
> 
>> And did any of these compile to Halve instructions on pre-1967 S/360
>> compilers?
> 
> Does it compile to HALVE on any compiler?

It wouldn't surprise me if it did nowadays; modern compilers, pushed by 
advances in the state of the art and pulled by RISC and the modern 
distaste for assembly language, do the most amazing optimizations. But 
I'm fairly certain it didn't in 1965-1967. (I have a vague memory of 
actually trying the experiment, but I could be just imagining it.)

-- 
John W Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That. 
....you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because 
it humiliates.  You may come to think murder wrong, because it is 
violent, and not because it is unjust."
  -- G. K. Chesterton.  "The Ball and the Cross"

0
Reply John 2/4/2013 1:53:42 AM

On Feb 4, 12:39=A0pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2013-02-03 22:55:32 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 1:16=A0am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.neg> wrote:
> >> Robin Vowels <robin.vow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 3, 4:25 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2013-02-02 14:30:05 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>
> >>>>> Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
> >>>>> originally
> >>>>> implemented.
> >>>>> =A0 =A0To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterw=
ards.
> >>>>> Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
> >>>>> To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
> >>>>> subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
> >>>>> adding zero.
>
> >>>>> =A0 =A0The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they w=
ere
> >>>>> much faster than using a divide instruction.
>
> >>>>> =A0 =A0Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
> >>>>> because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the resul=
t.
>
> >>>> Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating squa=
re
> >>>> roots,
>
> >>> One use.
> >>> I opened up IBM's Scientific Subroutine package at a random page:
> >>> Subroutine MEAT has two divisions by 2.
> >>> Elsewhere in the manual I found multiplications by 0.5.
>
> >>> Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.
>
> >> And did any of these compile to Halve instructions on pre-1967 S/360
> >> compilers?
>
> > Whether they did or not is irrelevant.
> > I dispute your claim that the main use of HxR
> > was for computing square root.
>
> >> Anyway, it is well known that the original S/360 floating point was no=
t all
> >> it should have been. That=92s why the 1967 EC was done, and that=92s w=
hy the
> >> IEEE designed a whole new floating-point format from scratch.
>
> > There were various floating-point hardware implementations in
> > operation, having different numbers of mantissa bits and exponent
> > ranges.
>
> What era are you talking about?

Before IEEE FP, obviously.
0
Reply Robin 2/4/2013 2:50:24 AM

Apart from the obvious division by 2, some constants lend themselves
to Halve instructions (as they were originally).

Multiplying by 1.5, for example, which can be performed by
HER r2,r0
AER r0,r2
without having to worry about any lost bits; also 1.25.
Similarly, divide by 16.
0
Reply Robin 2/4/2013 3:05:48 AM

On Feb 3, 6:28 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Robin Vowels <robin.vow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
> > originally implemented.
> >   To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards.
> > Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
> > To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
> > subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably
> > by adding zero.
> >   The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
> > much faster than using a divide instruction.
>
> Even so, HALVE has to be used carefully.

That's what I said.

> Multiplying by two and then HALVE can lose low bits,

No-body would want to do that.
If you multiply by 2 and then halve the result, you finish up with
what you had to start with (apart from possible changes at the
least-significant end).

> such that
> the last iteration of square root is done differently on non
> base two machines.

As on the S/360 before the advent of the guard digit.
But not on the S/360 and later with the guard digit.

Without the guard digit, any F.P. computation that finished
with a division by 2, 4, 8, etc, via HxR, such as average of two
values, could lose a bit.
It's not something that was specific to square root.
0
Reply Robin 2/4/2013 12:49:30 PM

Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 12:39 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-02-03 22:55:32 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 4, 1:16 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.neg> wrote:
>>>> Robin Vowels <robin.vow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 3, 4:25 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013-02-02 14:30:05 +0000, Robin Vowels said:
>> 
>>>>>>> Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
>>>>>>> originally
>>>>>>> implemented.
>>>>>>>    To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards.
>>>>>>> Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
>>>>>>> To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
>>>>>>> subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by
>>>>>>> adding zero.
>> 
>>>>>>>    The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
>>>>>>> much faster than using a divide instruction.
>> 
>>>>>>>    Why the Halve instructions were done like that is puzzling,
>>>>>>> because it wouldn't have taken much hardware to normalize the result.
>> 
>>>>>> Since the main use of the Halve instructions was in calculating square
>>>>>> roots,
>> 
>>>>> One use.
>>>>> I opened up IBM's Scientific Subroutine package at a random page:
>>>>> Subroutine MEAT has two divisions by 2.
>>>>> Elsewhere in the manual I found multiplications by 0.5.
>> 
>>>>> Generally, in algebraic formulas, one sees division by 2.
>> 
>>>> And did any of these compile to Halve instructions on pre-1967 S/360
>>>> compilers?
>> 
>>> Whether they did or not is irrelevant.
>>> I dispute your claim that the main use of HxR
>>> was for computing square root.
>> 
>>>> Anyway, it is well known that the original S/360 floating point was not all
>>>> it should have been. That’s why the 1967 EC was done, and that’s why the
>>>> IEEE designed a whole new floating-point format from scratch.
>> 
>>> There were various floating-point hardware implementations in
>>> operation, having different numbers of mantissa bits and exponent
>>> ranges.
>> 
>> What era are you talking about?
> 
> Before IEEE FP, obviously.

Then they might have chosen 360 hexadecimal format. They didn’t.

In fact, I well remember numerical analysts decrying 360 hexadecimal in the
1967 era. Some of their complaints were addressed by the great EC, but some
simply couldn’t be.
0
Reply John 2/4/2013 1:43:20 PM

Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 6:28 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> Robin Vowels <robin.vow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as
>>> originally implemented.
>>>   To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards.
>>> Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end.
>>> To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/
>>> subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably
>>> by adding zero.
>>>   The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were
>>> much faster than using a divide instruction.
>> 
>> Even so, HALVE has to be used carefully.
> 
> That's what I said.
> 
>> Multiplying by two and then HALVE can lose low bits,
> 
> No-body would want to do that.
> If you multiply by 2 and then halve the result, you finish up with
> what you had to start with (apart from possible changes at the
> least-significant end).
> 
>> such that
>> the last iteration of square root is done differently on non
>> base two machines.
> 
> As on the S/360 before the advent of the guard digit.

You mean on the 360 before the guard digit from 32-bit format was
reproduced on 64-bit format. 

> But not on the S/360 and later with the guard digit.
> 
> Without the guard digit, any F.P. computation that finished
> with a division by 2, 4, 8, etc, via HxR, such as average of two
> values, could lose a bit.
> It's not something that was specific to square root.
0
Reply John 2/4/2013 1:43:20 PM
comp.lang.pl1 1669 articles. 0 followers. Post

13 Replies
47 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 56


  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Reply:

Similar Artilces:

IBM 360 Halve Instructions
Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an oddity as originally implemented. To be sure, they halved an FPN, but did not normalize afterwards. Hence, an extra bit could be lost at the least-significant end. To avoid further loss of least-significant bits in subsequent add/ subtract operations, it was necessary to normalize, presumably by adding zero. The main advantage of the halve instructions was that they were much faster than using a divide instruction. Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > Talking about the Halve instructions, they were an od...

IBM System /360 nostalgia
On Friday, 20 July 2012 04:03:43 UTC+10, John Levine wrote: > On a 360/30, the MVC to move a 100 character field took 330us, or 355 > if it used EX to set the field length. Do a 20 of those for a 2K disk > block and it's 6ms just to move the data, an appreciable fraction of > the time to do the disk I/O. These days, moving that much data is > probably under 50us, so who cares? The model 30 was a small entry-level machine, and wasn't particularly fast. Comparable figure for a first-generation machine (1955) to move 100 characters took 512uS. Model 40/44 ...

IBM 360/370 instruction set architecture
Hi Does anyone know any links for the IBM 360/370 instruction se architecture I've been looking for it for a very looooong time but i've found n good site about it. I just need a list of instructions for 360/370 addressing modes and instruction formats. Please help m Ada On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:16:40 -0500, adamlipinski@megapolis-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid (Adam_L) wrote: >Does anyone know any links for the IBM 360/370 instruction set >architecture? >I've been looking for it for a very looooong time but i've found no >good site about it. I just need a list of inst...

IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today
It was 40 years ago today (4/7/64) that IBM announced its System/360 line of mainframe computers, introducing an architecture still used today and breaking new ground. S/360 was built with the idea of teleprocessing and soon it was used for considerable data communication. The Bell System's had a lot of business from this, both dial-up and private lines. I don't think S/360's precedessors, such as the 7090, did much teleprocessing except in very specialized circumstances. The S/360 architecture of channels and interupts worked well with teleprocessing requirements. Th...

IBM System 360 conditional branch after unsigned arithmetic
I am trying to understand the IBM S360 condition codes. IBM took a fascinating approach, so different from the NZCV arrangement that I am familiar with, and set just two bits to indicate the condition. After some working through of examples the IBM idea seems easy enough where after a signed add, for example the instruction sets the two-bit condition code to one of the following values. 0 meaning sum was zero (mask 1000) 1 meaning sum was < zero (mask 0100) 2 meaning sum was > zero (mask 0010) 3 meaning an overflow occurred (mask 0001) The branch instruction inclu...

Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today
My first computer systems were IBM 7040, 7044, 7090, 7094 and 1401. After about a year, I encountered my first IBM System 360 machines and since then have have worked with most of the S/360 line (models 22, 30, 40, 44, 50, 62, 65, 67, 75, 85 and 91) and many of the S/370 and S/390 lines which are follow-on architectures. I have worked also on the RCA Spectra 70/45 with similar architecture and on many of the Amdahl machines from the V6 to the 5890 models which were capable of running the IBM S/360, S/370 and S/390 operating systems. In article <telecom23.169.12@telecom-digest.org...

Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today #2
herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov (Randolph J. Herber) wrote Thank you for the comprehensive comments. > But, these machines [1401] were slow: > each character processed, even the characters in the > instructions, required 11 microseconds of CPU time. According to the Campbell-Kelly-Aspray (sp?) book, the biggest feature of the 1401 was not the CPU but rather the fast and clean 1403 printer. I would guess that the 1401 CPU was hardware bound-- meaning the slow printer and reader determined throughput, but the fast 1403 was a big improvement over what else was out there at t...

Auction: IBM touch screen system /Complete system all IBM
>http://cgi.ebay.com/IBM-touch-screen-system-Complete-system-all-IBM_W0QQitemZ8764562140QQcategoryZ74946QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem< Ends Feb-17-06 15:11:28 PST http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8764562140 What is that wire going into the keyboard between CTRL and =E2=86=90 ? Touch screens are neat. I used them when I worked on the PLATO Computer Aided Instruction system for the University of Illinois, Chicago Medical Center. I wonder what ever became of Plato? Dan Dan-the K wrote: > What is that wire going into the keyboard between CTRL and =E2=...

Auction: IBM System/36 5362 System Unit System Reference Codes (wooden shoes, ho!)
>http://cgi.ebay.com/IBM-System-36-5362-System-Unit-System-Reference-Codes_W0QQitemZ8738424129QQcategoryZ1247QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem< Ends Dec-21-05 10:59:09 PST Goes Netherlands IBM System/36 5362 System Unit System Reference Codes http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8738424129 End time: Wednesday, December 21, 2005, at 10:59:09 AM Pacific Standard Time [The output above was from my program simply pasted into the newsreader window. I am still ironing out some bugs like if there is embedded quotes in the item description or if eBay truncates certain string...

IBM Personal System/2
I have a box labeled: IBM Personal System/2 - System Library and there are tons of little books inside containing detailed documentation regarding PS/2 computer systems and OS/2 2.0. They are in incredibly good shape. Covers still shiny as ever. Anyone know how much I could make selling these? Nope......... CT the Pragmatic "Tim Knight" <ferrousp@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040919195654.09844.00000587@mb-m19.aol.com... > Nope......... > > CT the Pragmatic Aw, I dunno.......... if you find the right *victim*, they could be worth dozens o...

why so difficult to get IBM BP quote on IBM i systems?
I am getting nowhere asking different business partners for quotes on the following IBM i edition Power systems: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/hardware/servers/js12/799860xi.html http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/520/configs/9407m151i.html From each BP I am dealing with I ask for the quote and get back something which is twice the price. Some provide detailed pricing, others say IBM does not allow details to be quoted. When I call IBM directly and ask questions like what is the difference between versions of the BCS chassis, I am told I have to ask the BP. Problem is t...

Auction: IBM Video Capture Adapter / A for IBM Personal System/2
BIN 9.99 12 available $10 shipping >http://cgi.ebay.com/IBM-Video-Capture-Adapter-A-for-IBM-Personal-System-2_W0QQitemZ5166911589QQcategoryZ3761QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem< -- Reply to ohland@charter.net Can someone forward one to me in France please ? I don't want to do an expensive wire transfer to get one. Thanks Nicolas ...

Auc-tion: IBM MICROCHANNEL 1200-2400BPS MODEM FOR IBM PS2 SYSTEMS
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120064993053 End time: Dec-21-06 00:32:30 PST (4 days 11 hours) Ships to: Worldwide Item location: BERTONE MOTORS, CINCINNATI, OHIO, United States No affiliation "picture may not be actual item exactly; but is of and will be a PS2 microchannel modem; picture may not be exact card, I have several to sell and they are not the same, specs are within that stated" -- Jelte ...

Auction: IBM Video Capture Adapter / A for IBM Personal System/2 #2
>http://cgi.ebay.com/IBM-Video-Capture-Adapter-A-for-IBM-Personal-System-2_W0QQitemZ5166911589QQcategoryZ3761QQcmdZViewItem< BIN Sealed in box, includes cables. 13 available. ...

[auction US] IBM MICROCHANNEL 1200-2400BPS MODEM FOR IBM PS2 SYSTEMS
Beware! The seller doesn't seem to care much about which card you'll be getting! >http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=120086889786&ss PageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=002< Regards, Alvin. ...

[News] Oracle Brings Identity Management to UNIX/Linux, IBM on System i and System p
Oracle announces new Oracle Identity Management Software ,----[ Quote ] | Oracle Authentication Services for Operating Systems is software that | centralizes user management and authentication across major Linux and Unix | flavors. `---- http://www.wwpi.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3953&Itemid=128 COMMON Prepares for the Power Systems Evolution ,----[ Quote ] | Although that community has been 100 percent devoted to one platform and now | that platform is being merged into a single set of iron that also runs IBM's | AIX Unix and Linux, Dufault says, i...

IBM System/36 ISA board (turn your PC into a System/36) auction Netherland!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1247&item=5172064312 Ends Mar-11-05 11:28:49 PST Now THIS is pretty damn odd. Louis Ohland wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1247&item=5172064312 > Ends Mar-11-05 11:28:49 PST Look, we can search Ebay for ourselves if we want to. Stop spamming. ~Mik -- "The geek shall inherit the earth." -- Rainer Wolfcastle in "Undercover Nerd" Mario Berger schrieb: > Louis Ohland wrote: > >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&c...

SA22-7228 "IBM RISC System/6000 and System/390 Server-on-Board"
SA22-7228 "IBM RISC System/6000 and System/390 Server-on-Board". This manual is for Micro Channel systems. ...

Auc-tion: IBM mainframe emulation software, OS/360 DOS/360 VM/370
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7210535332 BIN : $12.00 Ships to: Worldwide Item location: Jerusalem, Israel Quantity: 25 available cs2001 Hercules IBM System 360/370, ESA/390, z/Architecture Emulator, with Operating Systems About the Hercules Emulator The emulator is available for Windows and for Linux. The source is also available, so adapting to any form of UNIX should be practical. This emulator is a serious piece of work, but it does have some limitations that make it not quite suitable for a production environment. However, it is under deve...

Auction: Vintage IBM 5362 System 36 Computer System S/36 (LA local pickup only)
BIN http://search.ebay.com/200344827100 Santa Cruz, California On Nov 29, 8:52=A0pm, Louis Ohland <ohl...@charter.net> wrote: > BIN http://search.ebay.com/200344827100 "Here's your chance to have a small IBM system that's constructed like their mainframes of years gone by." That's either literary license, or the seller has no concept of classic mainframe construction. The 5362 is built in a manner similar to the RT/PC or the RS/6000 7013s, even the high-end 5360 was not up to mainframe construction standards. Rick Ekblaw RickE wrote: > On ...

A Walk Through The Xbox 360 Evaluation Lab [3DO, WebTV, IBM, ATI joined up to make Xbox 360]
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2005/08/a_walk_through_.html Tuesday, August 16, 2005 A Walk Through The Xbox 360 Evaluation Lab At Microsoft's Mountain View, Calif. Campus Dean Takahashi, 12:01 AM in Dean Takahashi, Gaming (This story is a companion to a shorter piece we're putting in the newspaper) Leslie Leland was kind enough to walk me through the product evaluation and reliability labs for the Xbox 360 at Microsoft's Mountain View, Calif., campus earlier this month. She's one of the hardware engineers who makes sure that the box will work when i...

IBM System z9
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/systems/systemz9/z9109/ Just try to guess which OS will *not* be running on it -- Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending incompatible products. Reactivate your MS software In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:53:55 +0200 <dc67tj$pcb$00$1@news.t-online.com>: > http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/systems/systemz9/z9109/ > > Just try to guess which OS will *not* be ru...

IBM on designated systems ..
To: Dieterle@RTPNOTES cc Subject: Status on MDA Milestone questions To: DIETERLE-RTPNOTES From: Robert F. Dieterle IBM PC Company, Mobile Computing Software Planning T/L:4411919-543-6234 Fax: T/L.441:543-~~12 Subject: Status on MDA Milestone questions ... Diana D. Romero Manager, Development & Licensing Contracts IBM PC Company Subject: Status of MDA Milestone questons Phyllis, we can pay royalties on a per System or Per Copy basis for the Win 3.11 and Win 95 contracts. To get the lower, per System rate, we must "Designate" models, and pay the royalty on all of those mod...

IBM System 34
My cousin asked me if I knew anyone that would fix or have parts for this system 34. Any one know someone who has parts or will work on an IBM System 34. It is located in Clifton Heights SW edge of Philly. Sounds like it needs a power supply. LJ ...