IBM mechnical devices

[M H Stein]

------------Original Message:
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:51:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>
Subject: Re: IBM mechnical devices
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <20071129184544.W60333 at shell.lmi.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, M H Stein wrote:
> LOL!
> There were several different models - see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products
> They were used mainly for utility bills, etc. which were often printed on
> punched cards to be returned with your payment for processing. We
> didn't do that sort of work very often, and when the cards had to be easily
> human-readable (such as your COBOL cards) they'd be punched on a
> printing keypunch (026) in the first place.

Unfortunately, the card output punches of most of the computers, and the
stand-alone duplicator didn't print when it punched.
<snip>

------------Reply:
Afraid I don't get your point; after all, that was the purpose of interpreters like 
the 557, to print the data that the computer or EAM had punched (and not 
printed). The 500 series output & reproducing punches couldn't punch *and* 
print because AFAIR the print mechanism essentially replaced the punch 
mechanism (except for the 519 which had a small numeric printer added,
mainly for serial-numbering the cards).

The keypunch equivalents could, but were much too slow for serious output 
operations. Not only were they slower to begin with, but they punched 80
columns lengthwise while pretty well all the electro-mechanical EAMs worked 
on the principle of a 12-phase synchronized cycle across the card, corresponding 
to the 12 zones of the cards.

Your COBOL source cards on the other hand would have been punched 
on a keypunch and could have been printed as they were punched, no?

mike