csquared3 at tx.rr.com
Mon Dec 14 11:45:42 CST 2015
On 12/14/2015 11:17 AM, Charlie Carothers wrote:
> On 12/12/2015 6:11 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015, Mike wrote:
>>> The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what
>>> in the world did the computers without a screen to look at do? Now I
>>> know about the tape, cassette tape's and even the paper with the
>>> hole punches in them but what kind of applications were they use
>>> for? Mathematics or? ? ?
> I think that's a very inviting question for those of us who view those
> years with a good bit of fond nostalgia!
> The first ones I personally encountered all read and punched 80-column
> cards. Some read and wrote to physically rather huge disk drives
> which could store all of 5MB, but most of them read and wrote 7-track
> 1/2" wide magnetic tape. The "display" was a line printer. These were
> strictly business systems used to maintain the needed data for
> insurance companies, banks, General Services Administration, and a
> local daily newspaper.
> Later, rather more interesting ones to me, read and punched 1" wide
> paper tape. Their primary output was to 1/2" magnetic tape, and their
> operator consoles were an I/O Selectric typewriter. Some of them also
> had line printers. They were more interesting to me because they were
> interfaced to optical character readers, and their main role was to
> control certain parameters in the OCR system but mostly to receive the
> characters which were read and write them to the mag tape. The mag
> tapes were further processed on much larger computer systems as
> desired by the customers.
> All text, no graphics at all. Well, I did once write a graph plotting
> program that could plot data to a line printer. It could even plot
> multiple graphs overlaid, and kept the curves separated by using a
> different text character for each input data set. That was fun. :-)
> Please note that I did change the subject on you so folks would know
> this is not part of the abominable thread.
> Charlie C.
Whoops, I should have read further before changing the subject! Sorry
about that. Hopefully this will "fix" it, even though I'm probably
committing a no-no by replying to my own post.
More information about the cctech