Re: Development of ASCII

hancock4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>On Mar 8, 12:04 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>There were developments beginning in the mid 1950's. The standards
>>committee was formed in 1960. The big deal was convincing AT&T to
>>join, and thus did not promulgate a 6-bit code, and then promoting
>>its use internationally.

>Where did you read this?

Just a quick summary of several articles on ASCII that weren't very
detailed. When I find a more detailed article, I'll let you know.

>>What I read is that the pizza and beer didn't run out for two years
>>because all the major cor****ations took parochial attitudes, but
>>finally, IBM and Teletype agreed on something resembling IBM's original
>>proposal, which broke the logjam.

>I don't understand what you mean:  What is the "pizza and beer"
reference?

Don't you know why it take years to write standards? The industry
committees meet for very long periods of time out of town, not coming to
any
agreements but scarfing down pizza and beer on their employer's dime. At
some point, their bosses get fed up and tell them to finish the work
because the food and beer run out. Magically, they agree to a draft
which is written in a matter of days, then take a reasonable amount of
time to work out the details.

>What exactly did IBM and Teletype agree on and what was the logjam?

I'm not exactly sure, but the final code layout was close to IBM's
original suggestion.

>Was this before or after System/360?

Before, but the IBM engineer in question didn't work on 360. The 360
didn't have sufficient lead time in incor****ate ASCII, hence EBCIDIC,
which sure is layed out as if it were a punch card.

>I strongly doubt IBM would've considered a code that wasn't related to
>its punch cards since in 1962 punch cards remained a very big part of
>I/O for computers.

>Remember that IBM had converters to translate Baudot into Hollerith
>(punched card) since 1940.  Companies used this to transmit data.

I know; I read that too. But IBM also had a whole bunch of incompatible
code sets. There wasn't one universal code set, even in one company.

>>>About that time Teletype Corp came out with the model 33 ASR which
>>>used it.  But I think most business communications, via WU Telex or
>>>AT&T TWX stayed with Baudot until the end.

>>From what I read, Teletype implemented ASCII immediately, so I don't
think
>>that's correct.

>Teletype offered new machines in ASCII, but it also offered new
>machines in Baudot as well.

I guess that makes sense as there were too many machines limited to
5-bit communication to ignore. I wonder why the machines couldn't
communicate in both 5-bit and 7-bit.

>The business telegraph switched networks--Telex and TWX--mostly stayed
>with Baudot (I used them well into the 1970s).

I'm confused. I thought TWX went to ASCII. So you're saying Teletype's
use of ASCII was limited to direct station-to-station communication, not
using the network, like a directly dialed typewriter or something?

>The ASCII machines tended to be used as computer terminals, not
>telegraph terminals.

Which computer manufacturers had adopted ASCII early?