Talk:IBM remote batch terminals

2770/3770

What's up with these terminals anyway? They sound similar to the 2780/3780, in fact too similar. Is one set GSD products and the other DPD? Why are there two distinct lines of remote batch terminals? Peter Flass (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So I found this great reference: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/systemSummary/GA22-7001-6_370_System_Summary_Dec76.pdf The scanning for that book is not good, so here are the pages to reference: 2780 8-12, 3780 8-16, 2770 8-25, 3770 8-40. It details all four devices, they are all clearly different. The main thing is the article title is not quite right. Also there were more data terminal systems than these four. Maybe we should expand this article and rename it? AVandewerdt (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There are manuals specific to the 2780 and 3770 in bitsavers, although I couldn't find anything there on the 2770 and 3780. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The 2780 and 3780 are integrated terminals while the 2770 and 3770 are more flexible.

What's up with the article title? The article covers 4 terminals, not just two. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The IBM 3780 isn't fully integrated, since the optional IBM 3781 is a separate box. The later machines are presented as upgrades from earlier machines, so the IBM 2780, 2770, 3780 and 3770 can be considered an evolving line of terminals. Perhaps a better name for the article would be “IBM 2780 and successors”. John Sauter (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The 3770 is a successor to the 2770, not to the 3780; that's two lines of two generations each. Maybe IBM remote batch terminals, and include any others that you know of? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Chapter 6 of “Component Description for the IBM 3776 and 3777 Communication Terminals” describes in detail how the IBM 3776 model 1, 3776 model 2 and 3777 model 1 can be used to emulate either an IBM 2770 or an IBM 3780. It seems to me that makes all of these terminals a family. John Sauter (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, a 360/30 can be used to emulate a 1401, but they are definitely not in the same family. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

So how about "IBM remote batch terminals?" as suggested in the other section on this page?  :-) AVandewerdt (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about the model 30 not being in the same family as the 1401. IBM marketed the model 30 as an upgrade to the 1401, so I would call it part of the same family. If there were an article on IBM computers it would include both the 1401 and the model 30. That article would be too large, but for an article on IBM Remote Batch Terminals (a name I like, by the way) the size is small enough to include everything from the 2780 to the 3777. Let's not forget the 2922 and model 20. John Sauter (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

IBM may have marketed the 360/30 to 1401 customers, but the two machines had essentially no point of similarity. They have less in common than an Intel 8088 and a Motorola 68000.

the IBM 2922 and the 360/20 are computers; as with the System/360 and 1130, the protocols they use are not built in but are determined by the program you load, e.g., the programs mentioned in IBM 2922#Software. I believe that Multileaving was more common than 2770/3780 or 2780/3780 protocols. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

So where do you draw the line between data terminals and computers? The IBM 3773 and 3774 have very basic programming capability in the P models, though that was not carried into the later 3776 and 3777. It seems to me that if a product is intended as a data terminal, with programming only a secondary possibility, we should include it in this article. Thus the 2922 would be included but not the model 20, even though the hardware is identical, because the model 20 is intended to be programmed by the end user, and the 2922 is not. John Sauter (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You may have seen I made an executive decision and moved the article. Of course this is Wikipedia so who knows if it will hold. I like your criterion. I note the 2922 already has a well formatted article. AVandewerdt (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that if it works out of the box then it is a terminal. If you have to acquire and load a program then it is not a terminal but the program could be considered to be a terminal. By that criterion the 2922 is not a terminal. I would suggest having a Programmable workstation section listing various remote-batch workstation programs. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think “works out of the box” is a good criterion, but I don't know how the IBM 2922 was delivered to the customer. Did the field engineer provide the terminal emulator card deck or did the customer have to acquire it himself? Might the field engineer even have loaded the card deck into core? Notice also that the 2922 without the optional card punch is not self-hosting. The customer would need a 2922 with a card punch (or a System/360 model 20) to run CPS. I suspect the 2922 was developed for customers who wanted a terminal with a high-speed printer and had no need for a card punch. That need was later filled by the 3777. John Sauter (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The wiki article IBM 2922 mentions the Type 2 Field Developed Program (FDP) DOS/VS POWER Workstation Support for the IBM 2922 (FDP 5198-BBY), which simulated a 2780. As an FDP the customer had to order it separately. There were also 2922 workstation programs that were available from some mainfram softwas, e.g., in MVS for both JES2 and JES3. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I found chapter 5 of the JES2 manual a real eye-opener. It mentions the System/360 model 20 submodel 6, which I didn't know existed. It also clearly describes the process of generating a program for the various kinds of remote programmable terminals that supports multi-leaving, which is more flexible than the 2780's protocol. The process reminds me of OS/360 sysgen in that you describe your hardware and the process writes the support software for it. For the System/360 model 20 and the 2922 it punches the software on cards, which you presumably walk to the remote station and load into memory using the remote station's card reader.

I imagine the usual 2922 customer generating software for his 2922s using JES2, and not even considering using CPS on a model 20 to write his own programs for it. Does that mean the 2922 is a remote terminal “out of the box”? John Sauter (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, JES2 and JES3 come with the same workstation programs, which derive from the worksation programs from ASP and HASP II, not from the workstation programs for OS/360 RJE.

In an OS/360 sysgen, the bulk of the code is shipped as object modules; the sysgen stage 2 only assembles a tiny fraction. And, yes, for a rmtgen you have to walk the punched output to the workstation and load it.

It means that the 360/20, 2922, et al are not workstations out of the box. BTW, despite the name, DOS/VS POWER Workstation Support for the IBM 2922 can be used for, e.g., ASP, HASP II, JES2, JES3, POWER, RES, RSCS, TSS/360. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think your definition of “out of the box” is too strict. I agree that the System/360 model 20 is not just a remote batch terminal, but I think the 2922 is. Consider that the 2922 was marketed and used as a remote batch terminal, and it would have been difficult for a customer to write his own software for it. Writing software for a 2922 would have required a System/360 model 20 running CPS, and if you have that, why not just use it to run your program, instead of carrying the cards over to the 2922? It's not as though the 2922 could do any serious data processing since it did not have disk or tape. It could only read cards and print lines. I suppose it could have been used to reformat card data into print lines, but that seems like a pretty marginal application. If you are going to punch a deck of cards for the 2922 to reformat and print, it would be faster to do the reformatting on the model 20 and transmit the print lines to the 2922, and then you are again using it as a remote batch terminal.

Considering its limited ability to do anything else, I think the 2922 should be classified as a remote batch terminal, and the article on it should be referenced in this article. John Sauter (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

change name of article?

I agree we should not use machine type numbers and focus on what these were as more of a family of products. Something like “Remote Data Terminals”. AVandewerdt (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The article title should mention IBM, since it does not cover any other manufacturer's products. How about “IBM Remote Data Terminals”? We could then add the IBM 2741. John Sauter (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I like your suggestion AVandewerdt (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Interactive terminals deserve an article of their own, listing at least

• 1050
• 2260
• 2265
• 2740
• 2741
• 3101
• 3151
• 3152
• 3153
• 3161
• 3163
• 3164
• 3270
• 3767
• 5250
• TeleType

The term Remote Data is too generic. How about IBM remote batch terminals? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that interactive terminals deserve an article of their own, which should include terminals from other manufacturers, such as the VT100, though I am not volunteering to write it. I like “IBM Remote Batch Terminals”. John Sauter (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

One massive article for all manufacturers, or a separate article for each manufacturer of interactive terminals. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I am not willing to write it, I would not presume to tell whoever is willing what he should do. Of course, Wikipedia standards must be met, which means the article cannot be extremely long. John Sauter (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Synchronous Transmit-Receive (STR)?

@Peter Flass: My recollection is that the only IBM terminals to support STR had 1xxx model numbers, and that the 2780 was strictly BSC. I checked at bitsavers, but they only showed newer editions of the 2780 documentation, so the absence of STR doesn't mean that it wasn't in the original. Does anybody have a revision 0 copy that they could make available?

In any case, the older STR remote batch terminals definitely belong in the article. If anybody has documentation for them, I'd appreciate it if they could update the article or make links available. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I started to do the 2780, but the doc was confusing. Maybe I’ll start somewhere else. Peter Flass (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that the iBM 2780 ever supported STR. It did support six-bit transcode, which was removed in the 3780. John Sauter (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing the manuals, I believe you two are right and I’m wrong. The 2780 did support transcode, but not STR. I think the 3780 dropped transcode support. Peter Flass (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the 2780 had SBT, although OS/360 RJE and HASP II did not support SBT for BSC. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Picture of IBM 3780

Peter Flass uploaded a picture of the IBM 3780, which I moved to the correct section of this article.

Investigating the picture I found that it was taken around 1974, but the metadata in the upload says it was taken with a Hasselblad H3DII-39, which was not marketed until 2007. I suspect the metadata is incorrect.

The line of text below the picture says "Administration building of Swissair in Balsberg (Kloten), input/output unit IBM 3780 (data communication terminal) punch card reader and punch card printer" whereas the caption says "Consisting of card reader, card punch, line printer". Zooming in on the picture it is easy to see the "IBM 3780" badges on the card reader and line printer, but I do not see anything that resembles a card punch. The reference to a "card printer" may be a misunderstanding.

Can anyone identify an IBM 3781 card punch, or a card interpreter, perhaps an IBM 557, in the picture? In their absence I suggest the caption should not refer to a card punch. John Sauter (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

John - I was going by the original German caption “VERWALTUNGSGEBÄUDE DER SWISSAIR IN BALSBERG (KLOTEN), EINGABE/AUSGABE-EINHEIT IBM 3780 (DATA COMMUNICATION TERMINAL) LOCHKARTENLESER UND LOCHKARTENDRUCKER”, but I’m somewhat unclear on what’s included. The attached printer wouldn’t be a “LOCHKARTENDRUCKER”, the literal translation of which is “punched-card printer”. Maybe they’re saying it’s just a card-reader and a printer? Maybe we need an IT person whose native language is German. Peter Flass (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)