Tag Archives: QIC tape drive

1988-2014 TSI: The IBM AS/400 and its Follow-ons

Posted on by
6

An amazing system. Continue reading →

In the eighties IBM sold two mini-computers1, the System/36 and the System/38. It was hard to understand why. They both supported the same programming languages (RPG, COBOL, and BASIC), cabling, and peripherals. They both were aimed at small businesses that used them for traditional “business” applications—as opposed to graphics or calculation-intensive jobs. There was a large overlap in the targeted customers for each system. Both systems were even designed at the same IBM facility in Rochester, MN.

For several months rumors abounded in the trade magazines for these products that IBM would soon announce a new computer to replace both of them. The code name was Silverlake.

The announcement was made on June 21, 1988. I attended a briefing at the IBM office in Hartford. The name of the new system was AS/400. The “A” stood for “application” because every program ever written for either the S/36 or the S/38 would run on the new system. Neither the S/36 nor the S/38 could be upgraded to an AS/400, but the new system accepted all of the software and most of the peripherals. The thrust of the pitch was that IBM was providing the “best of both worlds.”

A System/38.

This claim was possible because the “native” environment of the new operating system was based on the System/38. The new system also supported a “System/36 environment” that allowed programs written for that system to run with no changes. Since the native environment was much more efficient than the S/36 environment, software developers were expected to migrate their code to the native environment as soon as they could.

My immediate interest was in the price of the low-end systems. I was bitterly disappointed. The least expensive model, the B10, cost much more than the 5363, which was a perfect fit for most of our target market. Once again, IBM just refused to address the millions of small businesses that could be served very well by an economical system that could handle a handful of simultaneous users. In 1987 IBM had finally introduced such a system. With this announcement just one year later a perfectly good solution was replaced by a much more expensive and unproven one.

So, from the perspective of selling to local advertising agencies and other small businesses, the announcement was a nightmare. However, as is described here, Macy’s gave TSI no choice but to embrace the AS/400. They wanted to hire us to develop a system for them, but they had no interest in purchasing obsolete hardware.

IBM’s approach eventually worked out in our favor. The AS/400 had many outstanding features that were not available on the System/36.

The B10 was the size of a two-drawer file cabinet. The B60 required four racks. All were announced in 1988.
  • The new system’s operating system was built over a relational database. I am not sure that most people in the S/36 community knew this at the time because IBM did not even mention it at the announcement meeting, and the database was not even given a name (DB2/400) until much later. All anyone knew was that it sure had fast file access.
  • The defining feature of the operating system was inherited from the System/38: Single-Level Store. I never have understood this completely, but the effect was that the main processor did not care whether programs or “pages” of data were already in memory. The task of managing storage was managed by other processors. So, the problem that occurred on the System/36 when too many jobs were running simultaneously would not occur on the AS/400. Moreover, the compiler on the AS/400 took advantage of this setup to make the programs run much more efficiently under normal conditions as well.
  • For our purposes the big advantage of the AS/400 was that BASIC programs on the AS/400 were compiled, not interpreted. This meant that we could externalize routines that were performed by many programs, and one program could call several other programs that could run simultaneously as “batch” jobs without tying up any terminals. These were huge advantages.
  • The BASIC interpreter that was invaluable for debugging was NOT eliminated.
  • The AS/400 operating system was designed to be able to take advantage of future hardware advances. Because potential customers were more concerned about solving their immediate problems, this was not a great selling feature. However, it was definitely a great “keeping” feature. Ever program that we wrote in 1988 still works on hardware marketed by IBM thirty-one years later!
  • The first announcement did not require this, but eventually every AS/400 came with a 1/4” cartridge tape drive. This eliminated the nightmare of having to convert repeatedly from one storage means to another.
  • Priority could easily be assigned to certain jobs.
  • A modem could be attached for faxing. Our AdDept customers used these for insertion orders until we devised a better way of handling them.
  • The system could be attached to an Ethernet or Token Ring network.
  • IBM’s query tool was a big improvement. We insisted that all of our clients licensed it, and I personally trained at least one employee in its use. That worked fine unless the person who had been trained left the company or was reassigned. We also offered support for designing and helping with queries, but we charged a monthly fee for this service.
  • Printing was much more flexible. Even laser printers attached to PC’s could be used for printing reports. I learned PCL, Hewlett-Packard’s printer language, so that I could design customized reports with fonts and simple graphics (borders and the like could be generated on HP printers. This was very popular with our customers.

Although some things continued to frustrate me about the AS/400, I grew to appreciate it more and more. It was not designed for tiny developers like TSI, but it allowed us to produce software with features that went way beyond the capacity of any model of the System/36. By the time that the E models of the AS/400 were released in 1992, the low-end systems represented very good investments for the companies who were interested in TSI’s products and services.

On the other hand, IBM’s approach meant that independent developers who marketed to the end users directly rather than to IT departments—and there were a lot of us—had to devised a way to survive until IBM provided us with a reasonably priced product. Those four years were very difficult for TSI. The company survived, but the grim reaper’s shadow was on our door quite a few times.

TSI’s B10 had a diskette drive and a QIC tape drive.

Over the course of twenty-six years, TSI had at least four AS/400’s (or follow-ons. named iSeries or System i) All of them worked spectacularly well. We hardly ever called IBM for either hardware of software support. We purchased or leased all of them at big discounts because we were developers. On the first one, a B10, I prudently scraped together enough cash2 to order the maximum amount of memory and disk. It was adequate for development purposes, but if one of our clients had tried to run its business on it, it would have been embarrassing. For one thing the operating system itself required almost half of the unit’s disk space! Subsequent releases of the OS required much more disk.

Still, we lived with it, and we came through on the other end.

How well did the strategy work for IBM? In 1988 IBM was one of many competitors in the mini-computer market. The others were DEC, Hewlett-Packard, Data General, Wang, and a host of other companies. By the mid-nineties all of the competitors had conceded the entire market for reasonably priced multi-user computers to IBM. All of them except HP went out of business, and even HP (after several mergers) now makes and sells only PC’s and printers. This stunning event went almost unnoticed by most so-called experts. They blamed poor management by these companies for their demise. Were they all stupid? No, the AS/400’s were demonstrably superior.

Lou Gerstner.

The mini-computer market still exists, but almost no one talks about it, because IBM has hidden its premier product inside hardware with other brands. The only thing that IBM left for the AS/400’s legions of devotees to cling to was the letter i. When Lou Gerstner took over the reins of IBM in 1993, he put a heavy emphasis on services, which were very profitable, over hardware and software, which evidently were not. So, Gerstner never liked the AS/400 approach because the IT departments that used it had little demand for IBM services. For example, at some point in the twenty-first century I visited Macy’s IT department in a suburb of Atlanta. Dozens of IBM employees went to work there every day. One extremely large office contained desks for them and no one else. Macy’s had several AS/400’s or i series systems there. One person managed them all, and he worked for Macy’s, not IBM.

Users of TSI’s software systems loved their AS/400 computers, and they never purchased any services from IBM beyond maintenance contracts.

The AS/400’s operating system (OS/400) employed strict typing of objects. Every object had one and only one type, and it was unchangeable. On a PC a developer—or even an end user—can change the type (as designated by the three-digit “extension” after the period). For example a text file named sample.txt can easily be changed to a comma-separated-values file sample.csv. Users could even make up their own extensions.The operating system might warn the person that changing the extension might make the file unusable by certain applications, but it would still allow it.

The AS/400’s native environment, in contrast, had a limited number of well-defined object types, many of which had equally rigorous subtypes:

  • Database files could be physical or logical. A logical file is equivalent to what is called a “view” in SQL.
  • Programs had subtypes for each supported language. A new language called CL3 was added.
  • Menus were lists of options displayed on the screen, usually with a command line at the bottom. Each option had a number.
  • Commands were routines that could be invoked on any command line. A command was essentially a shortcut for calling a CL program.
    • The names of the commands supplied by the operating system. were consistent throughout: VVVAAANNN, where VVV was a three-character abbreviation of a verb, AAA was an optional three-character abbreviation of an adjective, and NNN was a three-character noun. For example, DSPSYSVAL was the command for Display (DSP) System (SYS) Value (VAL).
    • Most commands had parameters. For example, the GO command required the name of a menu object as a parameter. GO BACKUP caused the system to display and execute the menu object named BACKUP. Pressing F4 after keying in the command displayed a data entry screen for all of the parameters.
    • TSI created a large number of commands in
  • Several other object types, such as line descriptions and spool queues, were used by the system software. Most system objects of all types (except commands) began with the letter Q.
  • BLOBs were objects that did not fit any of the other types. They included all types of images, video, sound, etc. They were added in later releases.

Users could not create new object types or subtypes, but new ones often appeared in new releases of the operating system.

Every object had a name, which was limited to only ten characters. A letter was required for the first character. The other characters could be letters or numbers. A few special characters were also allowed. The names were NOT case-sensitive.

Every object resided in a library, which was itself and object with a ten-character name. This was a departure from the S/36, where data files were not assigned to libraries. On the AS/400 two objects in the same library could not have the same name.

On the S/36 and for a short time in the S/36 environment on the AS/400 TSI used periods in the names files that were associated. For example, files that began with “M.” in the GrandAd system were media files. In the native environment of the AS/400 such files caused a problem for some third-party programs that users might wish to employ to create customized reports. So, TSI changed the names so that the first one or two characters served to group files.

Third-party programs and programs written in other languages also had difficulty with integers that were left-padded with blanks4, as BASIC programs have always done. TSI changed all of its programs to pad integers with zeroes instead of blanks. So, when the value of a three-digit number was 15, it was written on the AS/400 database as 015, not (blank)15.

1. The terms mini-computer and midrange computer referred to multi-user systems that were not powerful enough to run the business applications of major corporations. The System/36 and System/38 were certainly mini-computers. At its introduction so was the AS/400. The twenty-first century models, however, were more powerful than the mainframes of the eighties.

2. I suspect that TSI actually leased it.

3. CL stood for Control Language. CL was the easiest language ever. It was simply a list of commands to be executed in order. Since CL programs were compiled, they could be called from other programs written in any language.

4. I considered this an intolerable bug in the software developed and marketed by the other company. I encouraged the person trying to use the software to complain to whomever claimed that the product would work on AS/400 files. Eventually, we changed our files and programs to forestall a brouhaha.

1983-1988 The IBM System/36

Posted on by
2

A true multi-user system. Continue reading →

A 5360. The box on the top left is the diskette magazine drive.

IBM’s introduction of the System/36 (S/36) in May of 1983 was not a monumental event for TSI. From our perspective the new system seemed more like a marginal upgrade of the System/34, which had always been much too pricey for anyone who would talk to us. The new system had only one basic model, the 5360. The starting price for one of these was still $140,000. It was also gigantic and had special electrical requirements. It was clearly designed for a small data processing department, not a small business without one.

The biggest advantage of the System/36 over any system that we had worked with was that it supported a fairly large number of terminals and printers. This was because it could run a number of jobs at the same time. It also supported batch processing, which meant that time-consuming jobs need not tie up any workstations.

We appreciated these benefits. In fact, we drooled over them. However, no prospective customer of ours ever had a six-figure budget for hardware.

The 5250 screen showed one color, green.

The peripherals were also rather expensive. IBM in those days ignored standards used in the rest of the industry. It set its own standards, and they were all proprietary. So, cheaper hardware from other vendors would not work with IBM systems.

Although the price went down through the years, a 5250 terminal cost around $2,000 when the 5360 was introduced. The cheapest printers, which used dot-matrix technology, were in the $5,000 range.

Both ends of twinax cables were male. A device with two female ends was needed to connect two together

The cabling was also not cheap. The system used twinaxial cables for direct attachment of these devices. Most competing systems used serial or parallel connections. Twinax was decidedly better, but it was also more expensive.

The local devices were connected in a serial fashion to a controller. Up to seven devices could be connected on one twinax line. Each device had two female twinax connections on the back, either in one T-shaped unit or with two short cables. One was called the “gozinda”; the other was the “gozouta”.

The T-shaped connector.

So, if the S/36 had four devices named A, B, C, and D. A would be connected to the controller by a twinax cable, B would be attached to A by a twinax cable, C would be attached to B, and D would be attached to C.

A switch on device A, B, and C needed to be set to allow pass-through to the next device on the line. On device D that switch needed to be set to denote that it was the last device on the line.

For device D to communicate with the S/36, all of the connections must be functional, and all of the switches set correctly. It reminded me of Christmas tree lights in the old days.

The S/36 also came with a serial port. Since a modem could be attached to this device, it would be possible for support people at IBM or the software vendor (or anyone else, for that matter) to sign on from a remote location. This was, of course, our dream; it would make support so much easier. The announcement brought it a little closer to reality.

The 8809 tape drive.

The hard drive capacity varied from 30 MB to 400 MB. In the twenty-first century, of course, those quantities would only hold a handful of photos. However, to most software vendors in the eighties this meant that total storage was no longer a big concern. However, the default backup device was a magazine that held only ten 8″ diskettes. Each diskette had a capacity of only 1MB each. This was a rather obvious limitation on the practical storage.

It was possible to attach an 8809 1/2″ reel-to-reel tape unit to address this. I could not find a price for these monsters. It may well have been the case that if you had to ask the price, you could not afford it.

The System/36 had two processors. The main processor (MSP) executed the code; the control processor (CSP) managed the work for the main processor. The CSP was four times as fast as the MSP, and they worked perfectly in tandem. The S/36 could perform an amazing amount of work at very fast speeds with embarrassingly puny processors. It was also extremely reliable.

Some actions, such as IPL1 and backing up files, needed to be initiated from the system console. The system console on the 5360 was built in to the top of the box. Your system operator needed a wheelchair? Life was rough all over.

I missed out on this fun stuff.

The System/36 supported five programming languages: RPG II2, COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, and Assembler. RPG II, a simplistic column-based language, was the most popular. Wikipedia says that this was because it was the least expensive3. The BASIC language was similar to the one used on the Datamaster. I never heard of anyone who programmed in FORTRAN or Assembler on a S/36.

BASIC programs could not be compiled. Therefore, a copy of the BASIC interpreter needed to be loaded into memory for each program that was running. Nevertheless, because the CSP was so efficient, TSI’s benchmarks showed that there was no noticeable difference in the speed of interpreted BASIC programs and compiled RPG II programs performing the same tasks. So, we never considered converting our program to anything besides S/36 BASIC.

IBM also positioned the System/36 with its DisplayWrite/36 software as a word processing server. We found it to be inferior to the Datamaster product in most ways.

The file structure of the S/36 was somewhat different from the Datamaster’s. Programs and other executable items such as BASIC procedures and system procedures were stored in “libraries”. Libraries were somewhat like directories or folders on a PC. However, there was no such thing as a sub-library.

No directory trees on the S/36.

Data files needed to have unique names. They did not reside in libraries. In order to identify which files belonged to which application, the names were preceded by a short identifier and a period. In GrandAd all the media files started with “M.”, and the other files started with “T.”.

The S/36 did not have a relational database4. However, the fields in each file were defined in the system using field names, positions, and length/type designations. These data definition specifications were called DDS. Programs could access files using the same ISAM techniques with which we were already familiar. However, IBM also offered a product named Query/36 that allowed someone who know how the files were named and structured to write queries in a manner that was similar to SQL. These queries could then be saved and executed on demand.

Query/36 was a valuable debugging tool. TSI required all of our clients to buy it.

IBM announced the 5362 in 1984. It was much smaller than the 5360—only about as large as a two-drawer file cabinets. It also had no special electricity requirements. It used the same operating system as the 5360, which was called SSP. It came with one diskette drive and up to 120MB of hard drives. A QIC (1/4″ cartridge) external tape drive was available. A 5250-type terminal plugged into the first twinax spot served as the system console. Fewer devices could be attached, but none of our clients ever reached the limit. Best of all, the starting price was only $20,000, about the same as two Datamasters and a hard drive.

Many advertising agencies in the northeast could afford this level of investment. It took some time for TSI to convert the ad agency programs. I remember spending many days at IBM’s office in Hartford working on this. After tat we needed to change the focus of our marketing efforts to larger ad agencies. At this point IBM had no system to offer to the many whose needs would be satisfied with one Datamaster with diskette drives.

We were happy with this announcement, but it was a disappointment that IBM had totally abandoned the market that had produced the majority of TSI’s sales.

The 5364 (or System/36 PC), which was announced in June of 1985, was IBM’s belated attempt to recapture that market. The starting price of $5,995 was quite attractive. For some reason the system console had to be an IBM PC, XT, or AT with a special card inside. The S/36 part was the same size and shape as an AT. It contained a 5 1/4″ diskette drive that was compatible with neither the attached PC nor any previous model of the S/36. Compatibility was not a high priority for IBM.

This is what the system console looked like with the PC on top of the 5364. Manute Bol found it very convenient.

This bizarre arrangement was very difficult to explain to a prospect. Why would a super-reliable S/36 be coupled to the least reliable hardware ever to wear the IBM logo? It did guarantee that at least one IBM PC was installed at each location, I guess. However, most installations probably did what we did—attach the oldest, slowest machine available as the system console, and then use it only when necessary.

The 5364 had two severe limitations. In the first place, only four devices (counting the system console and the printer) could be attached. So, the S/36 customer could really only attach two more displays or one display and a printer. Still, that would suffice at most small ad agencies and at TSI. We immediately ordered one.

The other limitation was, in some ways, worse. The 5364 came with only 256K of RAM. Each session could use up to 64K. However, batch jobs counted as sessions. If one person started some lengthy reports or other process, the system could possibly reach the point where jobs needed to be swapped between memory and disk. This could severely impair the system’s performance.

The announcement of the 5364 created a good deal of business for a company named Black Box. They sold a box with slots for one 8″ and one 5 1/4″ diskette and software to make image copies from one to another. We bought one, and I used it a lot.

This is a 5363 with both a diskette drive and a QIC tape drive.

In 1987 IBM finally fixed all of the problems, at least the ones that most concerned us. The 5363 was a reasonably priced machine that was suitable for almost any small business. If it had been announced two years earlier instead of the 5364, we could have sold a lot of them.

I could not find anything either on the Internet or in our basement that listed the price of one. I don’t remember that anyone balked at the cost. I also could not discover how much memory it had, but I remember distinctly that it was plenty. It could handle at least seven devices, too, and you could get one with a built-in QIC tape drive.

We enthusiastically ordered one for TSI’s office and tried to get our Datamaster customers excited about it.

By the middle of the eighties most office workers had some kind of personal computer on their desks. They did not want someone to install a terminal next to it as well. But how could they gain access to the S/36 without a terminal? There were no networks worth mentioning in the eighties, and there was nothing like USB. The only way to reach the server was through a twinax line, and IBM did not share its knowledge of how the display and printer connections worked. IBM considered anything that it produced was proprietary.

IBM and many third party companies brought 5250 terminal-emulation packages to market. The idea was to be able transform the PC into a terminal on demand and then change it back. Although the other vendors had to reverse-engineer the 5250 interface, they still were able to produce competitive products that were cheaper and had more features than what IBM offered. They generally consisted of a three pieces:

  1. A hardware card that fit into an expansion slot on the motherboard of the PC. That’s right. You had to take the cover off of the machine and add a card that had the brains needed to make the PC act like a 5250 card. You might also need to physically flip switches on the care to configure it. Then you had put the PC back together again. What could possibly go wrong?
  2. A dongle (sometimes lovingly referred to as a “pigtail”) that screwed into the interface on the part of the card that stuck out the back of the PC. It provided a gozinda and a gozouta for the twinax cable(s).
  3. Software to run on the PC.

When they first appeared, the cost of these packages was well over $1,000, nearly as much or more than a PC or terminal. However, the emulators had one very substantial advantage. The inexpensive printer attached to the PC could also be configured as a S/36 printer. This not only saved money and office space; it was also much more convenient.

For a few years the companies selling these packages did a land-office business.

1. IPL stands for Initial Program Load. It just means the starting process for the system. IBM had three-letter abbreviations of everything, including a three-letter abbreviations (TLA).

2. RPG is short for Report Program Generator. I could never understand why anyone used it.

3. IBM required separate licenses for each programming language that was used.

4. Two IBMers, Donald D. Chamberlin and Raymond F. Boyce, codified the Structured Query Language (SQL) used in relational databases in the seventies. IBM rejected it because the Indexed-Sequential ISAM structure that it used in its computers had much better performance. About three decades later the company changed its mind.