Conference 7.286::digital

    Oh, I'm sure MVCS has sold something to GE before.  ;-)

    From someone else on the same subject...  they said John Rando has
    denied that MCS was for sale.
    
    .Larry

    I'm getting very cynical.   If someone says ABC is not up for sale, my
    immediate reaction is nowadays:  "Oh, they've sold it already but
    aren't telling us.   The statement is true in the tense it is written
    in, but you have to change the tense to get the real truth."

    
    As one F.E who shares a site (or two, or three...) with GECS types,
    I've already been asked that one, but I think that they have just as
    many problems as we do. After all, they fix ANYTHING and have the parts
    book to show it. The DEC part is reasonably thick...
    
    And one more thing, out here in the field, our customers call us "DEC",
    (pronounced "DECK") and when they want something fixed, the boss
    customer tells the call-logger to "Call DEC Field Service...".
    
    So lets stop all this politically correct crap and do it right. 
    
    We're DEC, and we aren't gonna take anymore...
    
    .mike.

    re -.1
    Mike,
      I am a multivendor customer service engineer. My customers call us
    Digital. By repeatedly refering to ourselves as Digital. The customers
    have slowly gotten the message.
      
                                    Steve J.

    Here we go again with the schizophrenic company.
    
    If we are Digital, we need to be consistent throughout the company. 
    This means that we should not have things like DECdirect and
    800-numbers like 1-800-PCBYDEC.
    
    This also means we cannot name products DECpc, DECstation, DECthis and
    DECthat.
    
    Since most customers, especially end-users, only know us as the company
    that made the box sitting on their desk (which says DEC VT100 or DECpc
    or whatever), I suggest we use DEC.
    
    If we call ourselves Digital, we better tell the rest of the company.
    
    ..Larry

>    Since most customers, especially end-users, only know us as the company
>    that made the box sitting on their desk (which says DEC VT100 or DECpc
>    or whatever), I suggest we use DEC.

Every piece of equipment in my cubicle says digital -- even the DECpc.

I tried to find a VT100 in the lab, but the best I could do was a VT102.
That also said digital.

    I am starting to get tired of the Digital Watch and stuff like that. 
    If I were naming the company (which I am not) it would be DEC as to
    not confuse our name with digital.   
    
    Lately I've been seeing alot of advertisements with digital _______
    (fill in the blank)... from other vendors.  digital this, digital
    that...
    
    I personally think the name is outdated - its like naming a telephone
    company analog? 
    

My monitor says Digital,the PC says DEC.

Bob

re .9:

Doesn't your DEC PC have the digital logo on the faceplate?

    That's funny...
    most of the equipment in my cube says COMPAQ.
    
    Except for the monitors... they say IBM
    
    tony
    (who wonders why Digital prefers to RENT someone else's products than
    use its own)
    

	Calling ourselves "Digital" and using DECprefixes is not
	inconsistent. Other companies succeed very well this way, with a
	notable example being McDonald's. They don't want to be called "Mc"
	any more than they want to sell "McDonald's Chicken Nuggets."

	The problem isn't with the name/prefix combo. It may be the name
	"Digital," though. Just this weekend in the Boston Globe, there was
	an article abotu Seybold, who they claimed was "The Man Responsible
	for the Digital Upheaval," or some such. I thought it was going to
	be an article about DEC, but it was about the "digital revolution"
	in general.

	In some ways, I think that trying to call ourselves "Digital" would
	be about as smart as AT&T calling themselves "American" or IBM
	"International". Too general.

	Roy

re .12:

What about American Airlines?

re: .10

Nope.  Says, "DECpc 450ST"

>>        Calling ourselves "Digital" and using DECprefixes is not
>>        inconsistent. Other companies succeed very well this way, with a

	Indeed... just look at Microsoft. MS Office, MS Word, MS Access et al.

	Whoever thinks of them as MS?

    Many of you miss the point.  Stand on a typical street corner in any
    major urban area in the world and ask the question "Who is Digital or
    DEC" and 80% or more wouldn't give you the right answer.  Ask the
    question "Who is IBM, AT&T, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Microsoft, Exxon, etc"
    and 80% or more would give you the right answer.
    
    It's called *Name Recognition*.  We do not have it.  The present
    management has squandered the lead the Alpha gave us.

Re .12
I believe that AT&T recently changed their official name to "AT&T" (or maybe
its just "ATT") from the older and more verbose "American Telephone and
Telegraph".

-steve-

    
    	Funny thing is, some years ago, talking to people in "the City,"
    they had never heard of DIGITAL or DEC, but they had heard of VAX and
    were quite surprised to know that VAXes were made by a company called
    DIGITAL!
    
    				Malcolm.

    Hopefully it will not take a buyout and a name change to correct this
    but I believe it is an issue, especially if we want to make progress
    with retail outlet sales.
    
    Fancy advertising of sweaty old men in a locker room next to a CRT 
    aside (who thinks of these anyway...)  doesn't do much for name
    recognition I believe an ad that introduces us to the public would 
    be benefical.  The company has a long history in this industry and I 
    don't really think the public knows this.   Some sort of an ad with 
    black/white photos / moving picts from the war project days MIT, and then 
    bring the public up to date with the advances made in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 
    90's would be very educational to the public.   This may just very well 
    help name recognition.
    
    Maybe Ken would like to help?   Maybe a little walk thru the Digital
    archives...  I think alot of times we in this industry 
    get caught up  in the future which is ok but for name recognition -
    build on our history, as it relates to our innovations and our
    future...
    
    If you were buying a PC and looking at a competitors machine (they
    have maybe been in the biz for 5 years or so) and looking at a DECpc
    with full warranties and the proven innovation our company is known
    for that may help turn the tables.    Thoughts?  
    

I personally think that it would be ludicrous for Digital to sell MCS.
Didn't it make $300 million for the corporation last year?

-Andy (in MCS)

>                   -<     They've heard of VAX though!     >-
    
>   they had never heard of DIGITAL or DEC, but they had heard of VAX and
>    were quite surprised to know that VAXes were made by a company called
                                       ^^^^^
                                         |
                 Yup! best vaccuum I ever owned! Those Vaxes are great!
    
    /Bob

    re .20
    
    When Chrysler was in deep doo-doo some years back, Iacocca (sp?) was
    questioned as to why the first thing he sold was their tank engine
    outfit, arguably the jewel in Chrysler's crown at that time. His reply
    was something along the lines of "I could get the most money for it -
    nobody would buy anything else".
    
    Rgds,
    
    AW

    
    	I thought shall I write anything about Vacuum Cleaners?  Nah, so I
    didn't - someone had to do though!
    
    	It was the Computers to which they referred though.
    
    				Malcolm.

    Re: .20
    
    MCS may have made 300M last year, but what were its costs of doing
    business? probably in the neighborhood of 95% if you apply accounting
    methods the rest of the real world uses.....
    
    Think about it... it showed a profit because all costs went to the
    CBUs, IBUs, SBUs, or whatever the in-vogue name was, who sold the
    equipment in the first place.
    
    As soon as quality goes up and components get cheaper, and real costing
    methods such as activity based costing are applied, MCS shows up as a
    dog with many fleas.....
                          
    arthur

>    MCS may have made 300M last year, but what were its costs of doing
>    business? probably in the neighborhood of 95% if you apply accounting
>    methods the rest of the real world uses.....

My understanding is $300 million PROFIT.  That is, after expenses.  Think
of what Digital would have lost last year had it *not* done this...

    Andy is right...sort of.  At a question and answer meeting 2 weeks ago
    Dick Sellers stated that MCS is making $300 million profit. But that
    was per quarter, not per year! He stated that with out MCS'
    contribution to the company, the loss for last quarter would have been
    $483 million not $183 million.
    
    f.m.

    gentlemen,
    
    hate to disagree, as I too have been in your camp of thought, but I do.... 
    my understanding, as it was explained to me recently, is that the term 
    "profit" on this unit is derived from an "internal definition" or
    standard, 
    
    and that the corporation does not in fact, at present, apply actual 
    costs/expenses, rather "shadowed" estimations......
    
    I think we'll find out shortly the truth on the matter.....
    
    what were the actual revenues generated by MCS last quarter? I doubt
    that MCS CLEARED  300M in one quarter........
    
    arthur

    
    MCS has always had an excellent margin return to the corporation.
    Even though overall service revenue declined, services (not only MCS) 
    still give us healthy margins, though they too have been squeezed.  
    Check out the overall services vs expense picture for the corporation 
    from the last results.  Better still, Mr. Palmer gave a good presentation 
    of each business unit's contribution last year. (I don't have a pointer,
    sorry.)  If I remember correctly, the percentages showed a substantial 
    MCS contribution to profit, much closer to 300/quarter.  Many of the
    MCS services are not traditional break/fix.  PC integration, shorter
    term consulting, software installs/updates and others all provide us
    with respectable margin dollars.  That's some of the reasons why our 
    worldwide service delivery capabilities WOULD be an attractive 
    business aquisition.
    
    	marty

    I've had some experience with MCS pricing and costing for a $43M SI
    contract.  We brought in MCS to estimate our actual costs of the
    maintenace of the system.  They gave us a price based on price of the
    Digital components (6M).  The number was substantial to say the least, but
    when they estimated the cost, they supplied a percentage to the price
    of around 50% (3M), then they said no make that 65% (3.9M).  To say the least I was
    dismayed that they didn't have a better formula based on actual
    delivery cost.  We then used an activity based costing person from
    manufacturing and a local MCS person to try to find a true cost model. 
    We were generous on assumptions and came up with a cost of around 25%
    (1.5M) of price.  There is no correlation between price and cost so I
    don't recommend using a 25% model, I'm just using the % to show
    relativity.  Now there is a surplus on that budget of 2.4M which will
    be spent elsewhere, which will subsidise some other activity.  That
    2.4M shouldn't be discretionary spending money for MCS, it should fund
    whatever projects are for the best interest of the shareholders, which
    might in fact be MCS projects or initiatives.  Until we get better
    cost recording systems and measurement systems, we won't know where we
    are profitable and unprofitable and to what extent we should be making
    and losing money.
    
    My $.02,
    
    Scott 

Here I am again;  :^)

Financial World, June 7, 1994. Page 8
Reprinted without permission.

Letters to the Editor:

It's good to see the business of auto racing finally getting some attention
from the business media.

We do argue with a few of your points, including the comments about
Performance Research.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  It's true that
few people remember which credit card company sponsors the Olympics, 
particularly since the credit card logos are not part of the event.  But 
racing fans know darn well, for instance, that Dale Earnhardt is sponsored by 
Mr. Goodwrench.

Comparing the number of racing fans who say they "almost always" or
"frequently" choose a product involved with racing to fans of other sports
is also misleading.  Football, basketball, and baseball, and to a lesser
extent golf and tennis, have always had the exposure and support.  Those
sports are covered, even blanketed by the media.

Auto racing hasn't had that kind of support, but its appeal is such that
it has grown by leaps and bounds anyway.  The fans tend to be more loyal
to those companies who support racing teams and drivers or sponsors of
events.

Those who haven't benefited from their involvment in auto racing tend
to be those who make the mistake of thinking all they had to do was
paint their name on the side of the car.

Jim Pallas
Wesley Brown
Pallas Motorsports
Austin, Texas.
                     
{I posted this due to a few previous entries where people wondered how we
could go about getting better brand recognition and public awareness.
If someone who's job it is to advertise or market would care to investigate
this deal, they'll find the ROI is incredibly high, as in the initial
investment compared to the audience you reach is huge.  I don't know how
much it costs to run a series of adds on the tube (like the piano on A&
E, where we were "taking notes", or to run print adds in the WSJ or whatever,
but I imagine it adds up very fast.}
                     
as always, FWIW
MadMike
                     

    Re: .26
    
    MCS profitable? If so, then why are we so shortsighted as to be hastily
    laying off MCS engineers?
    
    MCS must not be profitable, right?
    
    Lee

                    <<< Note 3141.29 by SNOC01::KINGSCOTT >>>
                     -< 35% Margin or 75% Margin for MCS >-

>>>     Until we get better
>>>    cost recording systems and measurement systems, we won't know where we
>>>    are profitable and unprofitable and to what extent we should be making
>>>    and losing money.
    
    Scott,

	I couldn't agree with you more on this point. "In the meantime we're 
	making cuts and decisions on the future of this Corporation" ----
	Somehow, I can't fathom a company making these types of decisions
	without the above information (accurate). Can you?

	Rick

    
      Many of the noters in here don't realize what MCS is servicing these 
    days. After this note I'm out on a Sun Sparc 10, a Printware Printer,
    a DEC H9900 air conditioned cab, then *maybe* a traditional Digital
    call. I can go weeks without a call on a VAX these days whereas eight
    years ago all I did was VAX, PDP and non-DEC stuff hanging off our
    equipment like SYstem Industries and Fujitsu. Things have changed and 
    so has MCS, permanently!
    
    						-John R (MCS SYO)

    Then you've got MCS folks like myself that seldom _ever_ see a Digital
    product. In the PC arena we service *anything* the customer has. IBM,
    Compaq, Dell, Gateway, Apple, Zenith, Clones and anything else that's
    out there.
    
    The only Digital calls I get are for DECpc's that are under warranty
    and the zillions of VT340's that have a design bug where the flyback
    transformers go up in smoke....
    
    Harry
    

    Re:             <<< Note 3141.31 by CSOADM::ROTH "What, me worry?" >>>

    The fact is that Digital as a whole still has a lot  of fat (revenues
    per employee) when compared to the competition.   That  is  the  same
    case in MCS.  So even if MCS is  profitable, it has to trim and align
    better with the market, very painful for all of us, but those who are
    left  at  the end (when will that be?) hopefully will be  in  a  more
    solid organization.    MCS  has stated that we have about 30% to many
    indirect employees, (no  revenue  producers,  I  am  one of them!) so
    things are not going to ease off.  This summer will not be a fun one.
    
    /OLD

>    and the zillions of VT340's that have a design bug where the flyback
>    transformers go up in smoke....

Ahh, reminds me of the days of servicing VT100s...

Thanks for the memories Harry! :-)

-Andy

    I liked vt52s the best.  The top was flat, so you could put your coffee
    cup up there, and it generated so much heat, your coffee stayed *warm*. 
    
    --bonnie

	Not to mention the best keyboard DEC ever made.. (VT52)

						mike

    Hey - I have a VT52 you can have!!!  I never thought of advertising it
    for its coffee-warming abilities!
    
    See NH_Wantads.   It comes with a PDT11 and a VT100 and lots of other
    stuff of the same era.

Mount the Alpha chip with its heatsink exposed, and we'd
have a winning combination of computer and coffee-warmer.

(Mind you, it might not do much for reliability.  I speak
 as one who has emptied his share of coffee into a VT52).

>	Not to mention the best keyboard DEC ever made.. (VT52)

You said it!  Those were the days of 3-key rollover and tactile feedback.
I still have a VT52 with the built-in printer (and a couple of rolls of that
special, thermal paper, too)!

-steve-

	If you think the VT52 was bad, 

	you should have tried to get the line feed to work on a LA30 ...

>You said it!  Those were the days of 3-key rollover and tactile feedback.

Don't you know it!

>I still have a VT52 with the built-in printer (and a couple of rolls of that
>special, thermal paper, too)!

That's no VT52 - that's a VT61 (if I recall correctly).  I used to cringe
when I got a call on one.

As for best coffee-warmer/bun-warmer: Has to be VAXmate, hands down!

-Andy (who literally did just that on several occasions when I had one)

    A few of the VT52's had the toilet-paper printers... I saw more of them
    on VT55's (VT52 -w- graphics).
    
    Remember VT52's parents... the VT50 and VT50-H?
    
    Lee (who also worked on VT05's)
    
    p.s.
    
    $ help set term/dev !still lists VT05,VT52
    
    

RE:  <<< Note 3141.45 by ALFAXP::MITCHAM "-Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta)" >>>
                      -< To further rathole the topic... >-


>>I still have a VT52 with the built-in printer (and a couple of rolls of that
>>special, thermal paper, too)!

>That's no VT52 - that's a VT61 (if I recall correctly).  I used to cringe
>when I got a call on one.


VT55...VT61 was a typeset business version of the VT52, I believe.



Jim

Didn't the VT61 have a special set of colored keycaps for word processing?

I also have a VT05.  Love the way you can *send* upper and lower case
characters but only display in UPPERCASE.  Remember the TECO command "0EU$$"
that flags lower case characters with a leading apostrophe so you could tell
which was which?

The sad thing is that I felt more productive on my VT05 than I do today...

-steve-

    The annoying thing about the VT05 was that anything you parked on top
    of its long, sleek, curvy chassis ended up behind your desk in an
    inaccessible crevice...  plus the keyboard couldn't stand up to the
    great VT52 keyboard!
    
    /Charlotte-who-'s-waiting-for-a-big-build

    The VT61 was a block text editor - it was just jam packed with "stuff". 
    As for the VT05, you would always spill coffee into it - that is why
    the VT52 got its' flat top unlike the VT05. (-)
    
    I am very disappointed no one has mentioned the LT33 or LT35 as of yet/
    What is this company coming to ???

    re:Teletypes (now that you mentioned them in .-1)
    
    	I remember my first call on one of them. The tech I was with was
    supposed to teach me how to fix them. When we got on site, he pulled
    out a big oil can and squirted everything that moved. It fixed the
    problem.
    
    	I asked what happened if it didn't fix it. He said you swap out
    everything but the stand.
    
    	Ray

>                   <<< Note 3141.49 by WRKSYS::RICHARDSON >>>
>                            -< I liked my VT52 too >-
>
>    The annoying thing about the VT05 was that anything you parked on top
>    of its long, sleek, curvy chassis ended up behind your desk in an
>    inaccessible crevice...  plus the keyboard couldn't stand up to the
>    great VT52 keyboard!
>    
>    /Charlotte-who-'s-waiting-for-a-big-build

But Pleeeaassee..  My VT05 is STILL working - 'course 6 years ago, I had made
a "BREAK" (aka brake ) key made that is still superglued to the right side of
the cabinet so I could talk to those new fangled gandalf thingies....  and real
programmers positioned their VT05's over a bit bucket to catch lost parking
items...

realy, this is how to save this company money - recycle old equipment  before
sending it to the computer museum for a tax right off instead of depreciation...

smileys are conceptionally available to the reader...

Alice

    Reply to .29 my previous note
    
    It seems my note got back to someone senior in MCS and in all fairness
    I should say this was 2 years ago.  But what was interesting was he
    took the time to go through their new costing processes which have
    improved significantly from previous practices.  
    
    A little humble pie,
    Scott

re .51

In 1968, I used to work with a guy who's job it was to refurbish Teletype
ASR 33s. His take on the project was to undo every screw and fastener and
as things fell off, put them into a large vat of cleaner.

Then put it all back together again.

We once added a few odd washers and such to his vat. When he was finished
assembling the unit, he returned our extra parts with a few choice comments.

    The VT61T was the typeset version.
    
    The VT71 was my favorite, too bad it was product line specific...
    (Graphics Arts)
    
    ed

It seems like this topic has degenerated into memories of longgg ago times.

So in keeping with this trend..  I remember doing TECO on a LA50 (i think)
terminal.

    Stripping a teletype down to its component screws and brackets and
    cleaning them is a very good way of getting a broken one working again.
    I used to be able to do this to model 15 and 19 machines (WW2 vintage),
    with just 2 tools and no manual.
    
    I remember one case where we even had to dismantle the electric motor
    and clean the ancient grease out of its ball bearings...   Ran like
    a champ afterward.

    <-- yup! Too true. I used to "adjust" airborne Klineschmidts 
             about 20 years ago...couldn't have those 'Red Rockets'
             going to garbled coordinates...
    
    /Bob

    The stairwells in ZKO2 have photos of all these terminals -- vt05s, the
    LA series, Robins, the whole bit.  
    
    In ZKO1, the pictures are of modules and I think printers.
    
    I guess having pictures of all DEC's best hardware on the walls of a
    software engineering facility could be construed as seeing the writing
    on the wall . . . 
    
    --bonnie

>    I guess having pictures of all DEC's best hardware on the walls of a
>    software engineering facility could be construed as seeing the writing
>    on the wall . . . 

	... or it could be a way to help you appreciate what you have today.

	That early stuff was truely horrible to work with...

    HEY-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y
    
    How about moving this thread to its own topic?  This is a rat-hole you
    could drive a semi into...(IMHO)
    
    Back to the topic?
    
    :^)

    Re: .56
    
    An LA30, most likely. An LA50 has no keyboard.
    
    Lee

    re:61
         
    Yea, stick to the topic, please!?!?  We just put oil on the LT33's and
    LT35's too.  If that did not fix them, we would give them to Wayne
    Goldsmith - the old Central Area TTY man himself.  If Wayne could not
    fix it, it was trashed and upgrade(?) to an LA30.  Most of my accounts
    back then were steel mills and the TTYs lasted much longer than the
    newer(?) stuff due to metal dust shavings.
    
    Now, let's all stick to the original topic ... does anyone remember
    what that was?
    
    Chuck

re 3141.62 
>    Re: .56
    
>    An LA30, most likely. An LA50 has no keyboard.
    
It doesn't even have a monitor. It's a printer.


Chele

>It seems like this topic has degenerated into memories of longgg ago times.
>
>So in keeping with this trend..  I remember doing TECO on a LA50 (i think)
>terminal.

I remember doing TECO on a PDP-8 on an ASR-33.

And I modified TECO to work on a serial port connected to an IBM 2741!
Possibly some of the very first upper/lowercase letter-quality text
processing done on DEC gear.

/john

>I remember doing TECO on a PDP-8 on an ASR-33.

	I can't remember TECO on an 8 but I do remember FOCAL.

    
    On the original note...
    
    If Digital is going to sell anything to anyone they really need to sell
    something that people want and is making a profit.  Also when it is
    sold we do not want to affect what is left.
    
    Although, being from MVCS myself, I do not like the thought of being
    sold off, I can see the logic in the decision.
    
    
    Regards 
    
    Paul

    re: .63
    
>    LT35's too.  If that did not fix them, we would give them to Wayne
>    Goldsmith - the old Central Area TTY man himself.  If Wayne could not
>    fix it, it was trashed and upgrade(?) to an LA30. 
    
    Note that Wayne was TFSO'd late last year/early this year, and now
    works for a competitor.
    
    	Stu, formerly a member of Wayne's unit

    I didn't know Wayne was gone.  Sorry to hear that.  He was a ghood man
    to work with when he was in Chicago.
    
    I wonder who takes the TTY calls now????
    
    Chuck

    re .69
    
    That should read "good man"

    Wayne used to send his rejects to Walt Mackenzie in the Mill.  Walt
    is also gone - he is now a wholesale fish distributor.
    
    Re: 3141.65 - the first real "letter quality" terminals were the 
    Friden Flexowriters that we used on the PDP-1 and PDP-4.  Also 
    earlier, I think someoneone was reminiscing about using a VT50 with
    TECO, not a LA50.
    

Ah, the flexowriter.  What a wonderful device.

(Apart from anything else, you could write Algol 60 as it 
 was meant to be written.  Two cases for user identifiers,
 underlining for language tokens.  No need for "reserved words",
 a thoroughly retrograde concept, and no need for nasty stropping
 conventions.)

    The Friden was used as the console station on the world's first fully
    transistorized computer (government name of BOGART). Electrical Codes
    weren't much in those days. If you had a metal badge on a chain around
    your neck, you were apt to get a shock if the badge fell between the
    keys.
    
    I could be wrong but I thought they also made an electrical all gear
    driven calculator.

    Good ol Friden. I worked for them and repaired the Flexowriter back in
    the 60's. Friden was know then for the mechanical calculators. Friden
    was later purchased by the Singer Co. We were then known as Singer
    Business Machines. In the late 60's they made billing machines and
    computers. I also worked on their bigger computer that was a host
    system for the Singer Point of Sale cash register. I spent a bunch of
    Sundays in Sears stores installing those suckers.
    
    After they went out of business I moved up the street and went to work
    for Digital.
    
    I guess those were the good ol days.
    
    Tom
    

    ahhhhh.. Frieden!  Remember them well.
    
    When I was in High School, I dated his daughter, Nancy.
    
    t.

    We had a Flexo-writer as the console on the IOIC systems when I was in
    the Navy...We used to get bugged about all the dust on the "spare" one
    during inspections. So one night, we dragged that beast to the rail and
    gave it the old heave-ho! Made a TREMENDOUS splash when it hit. (This
    was from the 03 level on an aircraft carrier, say 65-70 feet up.)
    
    .mike.

	You threw a Flexowriter overboard?

	BARBARIANS!!



	(Should've dumped whoever was complaining about the
	 dust, instead)

RE: .76

	What, you didn't launch it off the cat? (catapult) Now THAT would
	have been a cool sight to see!!

							mike
							(not .76)

    
    	Singer Business Systems?  Didn't their Computers have only 10 bit
    word length or something rather different like that?
    
    				Malcolm.

    RE: .79
    
    The Singer System 10 used 7bit characters. The instructions were 10
    characters. If I remember correctly, the system only had 15
    instructions.
    
    Tom
    

The System Ten by Singer used 6 bit characters internally and ASCII 
externally. It dropped bit 6 on input and generated bit 6 by inverting
bit 7 on output. The instructions were 10 characters long, and there 
were only 13 of them. It did 20 way multiprogramming in hardware.
I wrote the programmer's reference manual, cross and native assemblers,
bootstrap loader, and some other stuff, and got the 13th instruction 
added. 

Now back to the previous rathole.

    
    	If Dave Barron is in this conference, he used to fix those Singer
    machines before he joined DIGITAL - many years ago!
    
    				Malcolm.