Scotland's future

[JohntheBike]

Yes, old stuff will still work, I still run Snake on a new system but in order to provide better performance you could rewrite your old programs using the new instruction set, some people do, some don't.

Yes, old stuff will still work

I have it on good authority that the machine code structure is exactly the same as it's always been on IBM mainframes, i.e. what was originally OS360. What has changed is that a large number of new machine code instructions has been created to address the requirements of the modern environment.

3GL languages will compile as before and so there is no need to alter any old code. There is no requirement to alter and re-compile the IDMS based application programs that I support now, some of which have not been recompiled in over 15 years. It's now over 40 years since I wrote Assembler and PL/1 code, so I wouldn't be aware of any subtle new instructions. However, what I do know is that post 85 COBOL does containing many facilities that COBOL G didn't, particularly the special date FUNCTION(s). So there would have to be new machine code instructions to provide these facilities.

But the point to make for BR14's sake, who incidentally hasn't answered my question, is that no one can know everything about everything in IT or life for that matter. I will know many things that many others will not know, because I've been exposed to those issues, whereas others may not have been and vice versa. So it's quite immature for anyone to mock anyone for not knowing some remote piece of information about any subject.

Clearly having completed over 53 years in IT, I do know quite a few things, but clearly not everything about IT. Incidentally, I probably know more about HP3000 mid range architecture that IBM mainframe, as my role whilst running HP3000 platforms was akin to an operating system specialist. But then again, there is a multitude of information on the HP3000 platform that I was not exposed to, particularly the Unix shell, so some will know about those issues, whereas I will not.

[Zigenare]

I have it on good authority that the machine code structure is exactly the same as it's always been on IBM mainframes, i.e. what was originally OS360. What has changed is that a large number of new machine code instructions has been created to address the requirements of the modern environment.

3GL languages will compile as before and so there is no need to alter any old code. There is no requirement to alter and re-compile the IDMS based application programs that I support now, some of which have not been recompiled in over 15 years. It's now over 40 years since I wrote Assembler and PL/1 code, so I wouldn't be aware of any subtle new instructions. However, what I do know is that post 85 COBOL does containing many facilities that COBOL G didn't, particularly the special date FUNCTION(s). So there would have to be new machine code instructions to provide these facilities.

But the point to make for BR14's sake, who incidentally hasn't answered my question, is that no one can know everything about everything in IT or life for that matter. I will know many things that many others will not know, because I've been exposed to those issues, whereas others may not have been and vice versa. So it's quite immature for anyone to mock anyone for not knowing some remote piece of information about any subject.

Clearly having completed over 53 years in IT, I do know quite a few things, but clearly not everything about IT. Incidentally, I probably know more about HP3000 mid range architecture that IBM mainframe, as my role whilst running HP3000 platforms was akin to an operating system specialist. But then again, there is a multitude of information on the HP3000 platform that I was not exposed to, particularly the Unix shell, so some will know about those issues, whereas I will not.

Here's something you need to know.

"When to shut the **** up!".

You can have that one for free.

[JohntheBike]

Here's something you need to know.

"When to shut the **** up!".

You can have that one for free.

I'm glad to see I'm irritating you!

[BR14]

I have it on good authority
But the point to make for BR14's sake, who incidentally hasn't answered my question.

yes, of course you do.
what's a stupid obscure question on data structures got do do with the fact that YOU were claiming that a 64bit OS will run on a 32bit hardware platform?
do yourself a favour and just feck off.

[Zigenare]

I'm glad to see I'm irritating you!

Not at all. You're boring, not irritating.

[JohntheBike]

yes, of course you do.
what's a stupid obscure question on data structures got do do with the fact that YOU were claiming that a 64bit OS will run on a 32bit hardware platform?
do yourself a favour and just feck off.

just proving that you don't know everything about IBM mainframe technology. The machine number of the mainframe isn't really that relevant to me, just that they are still effectively OS360 machine code architecture.

and I'm glad to see I'm irritating you also.

[JohntheBike]

Not at all. You're boring, not irritating.

well, I'm glad to see I'm boring you also.

[BR14]

just proving that you don't know everything about IBM mainframe technology. The machine number of the mainframe isn't really that relevant to me, just that they are still effectively OS360 machine code architecture.

and I'm glad to see I'm irritating you also.

I don't claim to know everything. but you do, constantly, with your endless, tedious boring twaddle.

[JohntheBike]

I don't claim to know everything. but you do, constantly, with your endless, tedious boring twaddle.

since when did I claim to know everything? You criticised me for not knowing what IBM mainframe machine number supported ZoS. As I've said, machine numbers are of little relevance, what is relevant is how they work. So, for your education, the question wasn't an obscure data one, it was fundamental to how OS360 machine architecture works for packed decimal fields.

[BR14]

AFFS.