Y2K, 2038 Unix timeout, IBM5100

Rain and Creedo sat in the open bistro, but Creedo was not Creedo.

The second time Rains looked at Cree, he was in an immaculate white robe.

He was a foot taller, long and narrow.His face, lengthened.

The guy and girl in back of them seemed not to notice any difference at all, from the change that only Rains saw.

Next to Creedo, sat an immense Viking.

The man was barrel chested, had twin pony tails and a blond handlebar mustache.

The enormous ax he carried rested on the glassed topped, wrought iron table, before him.

He estimated that by the strength in one arm alone, her could easily pick up a two hundred pound man, as if he were nothing.

Rains blinked and Creedo, or "I believe he looked like one of the Norse Gods, was still there".

The persona that once was Creedo, now deftly spoke.

The waitress fetched a large mug of beer for the giant Viking, as his legs, budging with muscles, tried to find space beneath the flimsy table.

"Rains", said the Norse god, "Maybe the twerps that pulled this off, used time travel itself, in order to perform this feat"?

He could view through the bottom of the glass mug, as the Viking drained the beer and the waitress, sat another before him.

Rains took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes, in disbelief.

When the glasses were placed back on his head, all there was, was lowly, little Creedo.
 
However, YOU were the one who was whining about sticking to the FACTS of whatever we use in our analysis and justification! Do you deny that????

I do agree with you that "FACTS" cannot prove Titor is real. I NEVER said IT will. I asked you to "stick" to the points to MAKE the point STRAIGHT, whatever it is and not post too much stuff and off-topic "COMMENTS" so that I get tired and confused and don't actually get to read the "actual" point you were trying to make relating to the topic.
 
I do agree with you that "FACTS" cannot prove Titor is real.
No, I am going further than that. I am showing you that much of what you use in your analysis simply are NOT FACTS. They are mere GUESSES, and I find it interesting that they are GUESSES that seem to be biased TOWARDS the Titor story. And THAT is not a SCIENTIFIC approach.

I NEVER said IT will. I asked you to "stick" to the points to MAKE the point STRAIGHT, whatever it is
No, that is NOT what you said. Here is what you said, first about how you DID think you could PROVE the interpretation:

Hercules: The fact that how this relates to Y2K and Y2K38 is vague. I accept it. But I am pretty sure if I can spend time to research it I can definitely prove the interpretation is correct .
YOU did say that. So far, you have not only proven nothing of the sort, but you have exhibited use of NON-FACTS to try to do so. Then you also said this:

Hercules: Please try to discuss the FACTS and NOT post too much STUFF not very interesting.
And oh by the way, here is also something you said in the "Titor Question?" thread:

Hercules: I thought this is a science forum. Where does "sentiments" come into science and "intellectual analysis"?
You seem to keep trying to avoid the fact that YOU were the one invoking both SCIENCE and FACTS, and you just don't like it when I show you that the basis for your interpretations does not use FACTS and is not terribly SCIENTIFIC. Ergo, your interpretation has a very slim chance of being correct.

RMT
 
Hercules: The fact that how this relates to Y2K and Y2K38 is vague. I accept it. But I am pretty sure if I can spend time to research it I can definitely prove the interpretation is correct .

Yes I did say that. I said it because of a reason I already pointed out. I am really AMAZED that if the Titor story is constructed, it is done in such a way that it cannot be falsified. Whan I researched the Titor story I found the "events" coinciding with the story. The hoaxer has been that much careful in constructing it.

I thought this is a science forum. Where does "sentiments" come into science and "intellectual analysis"?

Yes I did say it. It is because you don't tend to actually address the points relating to the "topic" rather you post a LOT of stuff relating to emotions.

This discussion is not VERY much relating to this topic. This is also another example how your "non-topic" statements tend to waste time and make us go "off-topic". My point is not to make personal comments and stick to the topic of the thread.
 
Yes I did say that. I said it because of a reason I already pointed out. I am really AMAZED that if the Titor story is constructed, it is done in such a way that it cannot be falsified. Whan I researched the Titor story I found the "events" coinciding with the story. The hoaxer has been that much careful in constructing it.
OK, so this is where I chastise YOU for "posting TOO MUCH" about something that is not relevant to MY POINT. And haranging you about MISSING MY POINT. My point had to do with these words you wrote (maybe I should have put them in bold like you?):

Hercules: I can definitely prove the interpretation is correct
THIS was my point, and it HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG! Not only have you NOT proven the interpretation is correct, but you have attempted to use NON-FACTS and a NON-SCIENTIFIC approach in doing so.

It is because you don't tend to actually address the points relating to the "topic" rather you post a LOT of stuff relating to emotions.
No. Absolutely NOT. You are simply wrong here. I am addressing the POINT you made in the quote above. That is ALL I have been addressing all along. Now, you may THINK that some of the stuff is not relative to this (or to the many, varied points you have tried to make). But I have been CONSISTENT in showing that you are NOT using facts, and you are NOT using science with regard to trying to "prove the interpretation is correct."

And let me make another point....I have not posted anything with respect to emotions. It has all been focused on you trying to make your case, and the factual and scientific holes in you trying to make that case.

This discussion is not VERY much relating to this topic. This is also another example how your "non-topic" statements tend to waste time and make us go "off-topic".
That is your opinion, and I do not agree. Once again I say: EVERYTHING I have called you out on has been about FACTS and SCIENCE related to your "points" intended to "prove the interpretation is correct". I am questioning your methods in how you go about justifying your interpretation about this very topic. Ergo, it HAS been ON TOPIC. I would guess that you think it is off topic just because you are not willing to address, or concede, that MY points about your lack of FACTS and SCIENCE are correct.

My point is not to make personal comments and stick to the topic of the thread.
I am. I am showing that the means you have been employing to try to "prove the interpretation is correct" about the topic of this thread are NON-SCIENTIFIC and NON-FACTUAL.

YOU have not addressed MY points about how you are being non-scientific and using non-facts. If you think you CAN address them, I will collect them all up into one post, and you can try to address them. If you are going to continue to ignore my points, and accuse me of attacking you personally, then we will go nowhere.

Your choice. Address my points, or I will continue to have to point out how you are not addressing the points, and not applying FACTS and SCIENCE.

RMT
 
Not only have you NOT proven the interpretation is correct, but you have attempted to use NON-FACTS and a NON-SCIENTIFIC approach in doing so.

Let us take a look at your rebuttals.I'll make it simple.

You haven't found any Third Party S/360 emulator dated before April 1998, but claim it is possible to make one.

You haven't proved Bob Dubke was LYING. All you said was he is vague.

You said if not Bowler, then someone else might have fixed OS/360, just based on assumption.

You denied the fact that fixing Y2K is difficult and also said IT IS EASY to fix OS/360 Y2K by learning Assembler, but Y2K was viewed very seriously before Bowler fixed it and claimed it is VERY EASY.

Now this is the reason WHY I find the Titor STORY VERY interesting. But I am NOT claiming it is REAL.
 
Let us take a look at your rebuttals.I'll make it simple.
Interesting how you seem to not want to address the rebuttals I have made related to YOUR analytical processes. But fine, I will address these that you have listed. But does that mean that you will do the honorable thing and address ALL the issues I have raised to you that you have ignored?

You haven't found any Third Party S/360 emulator dated before April 1998, but claim it is possible to make one.
Yes, and it is quite simple and scientific: Just because you cannot find something does not, in FACT, mean it does not exist, nor even that it is IMPOSSIBLE to exist! You've got the scientific method a bit backwards here. YOU are the one who has claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE. And as such, YOU need to PROVE your claim. I am under NO scientific obligation to prove the antithesis of YOUR claim! Do you REALLY understand science as much as you claim to? Because it sure doens't seem like you do.

You haven't proved Bob Dubke was LYING. All you said was he is vague.
Once again, speaking from the standpoint of the scientific method: YOU are the one who wants to use Mr. Dubke's statements as if they are true (to support your attempt at a proof). I am NOT relying on his statements being truthful, you ARE. That means YOU have to prove what he is saying is fact, not the other way around (i.e. I am NOT obligated to prove he is lying, because I am making no claims based on his statements). Get it?

You said if not Bowler, then someone else might have fixed OS/360, just based on assumption.
No, it was not based on assumption. Rather it was based on knowledge that reverse engineering ANY electrical circuit is possible. And once you can reverse engineer something, you can fix any problem identified with it. And if you read my discussions with MEM, you will see that these statements of mine are also based on DIRECT EXPERIENCE with reverse engineering machine code when I was in college. No assumptions involved.

You denied the fact that fixing Y2K is difficult
Show me the exact words I used to say this. I do not believe I ever said it was not difficult. I just claimed that it COULD be fixed.

and also said IT IS EASY to fix OS/360 Y2K by learning Assembler
I don't think I said that either! I claimed IT COULD BE DONE. "Easy" is a relative term. It could be easy for a person who has a lot of knowledge of electronics, processors, assembly, and machine code. It would most certainly NOT be easy for a 3 year old.

But I am NOT claiming it is REAL.
And once again, will you get it through your head that I am NOT addressing this point at all! I am addressing your point about how you said:

Hercules: I can definitely prove the interpretation is correct

There you go. I have addressed ALL of your points in that last post of yours. NOW IT IS YOUR TURN TO ADDRESS ALL THE POINTS I HAVE MADE THAT YOU HAVE IGNORED!

Go! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
RMT
 
Just to be sure you address these statements...
You haven't found any Third Party S/360 emulator dated before April 1998, but claim it is possible to make one.

You haven't proved Bob Dubke was LYING. All you said was he is vague.
You can be DAMN SURE that I am NOT going to let you squirm out of these VERY unscientific statements! They CLEARLY show you have no clue about how the scientific method works, because you are asking someone else to DISPROVE claims that have not been verified in the least. That is so wrong on so many levels.

REMINDER: YOU were the one who said the following:
Hercules: I can definitely prove the interpretation is correct
That means YOU are the one doing the proving. NOT ME. I am here to challenge the statements you make in an effort to prove your interpretation. If you do not address these statements you made, and admit that this is NOT scientific, I can guarantee that I will follow-up EVERY post you make in this thread with a reminder of how the scientific method requires THOSE WHO MAKE CLAIMS TO PROVIDE THE PROOF!

You've really dug a deep hole for yourself on this one, Hercules. You might be better to just go silent...like your friend MEM has all of a sudden.

RMT
 
Rather it was based on knowledge that reverse engineering ANY electrical circuit is possible. And once you can reverse engineer something, you can fix any problem identified with it. And if you read my discussions with MEM, you will see that these statements of mine are also based on DIRECT EXPERIENCE with reverse engineering machine code when I was in college. No assumptions involved.

I agree with you it is possible to reverse engineer machine code but it depends upon “how” it is originally engineered. But have you reverse engineered “specifically” an IBM 5100? YOU said it based ON ASSUMPTION that it is possible to reverse engineer an IBM 5100, while Mr. Dubke’s remarks about the machine are CONTRADICTING it. This is just my opinion. But from your opinion, YOU ARE CORRECT.

It is impossible to make a third party emulator before April 1998. It is a point relating to this “topic”. HOW do you want me to prove it? You claim it is WRONG so its up to you (rather it should be easier) to disprove it by finding one.

Dubke’s comments are the BASIS of the interpretation. HOW can I prove Dubke is telling the truth? BUT you are claiming the interpretation is wrong, so again its up to you.
I can definitely prove the INTERPRETATION is CORRECT. Yes I did say it. But I did NOT say I can definitely prove TITOR is REAL.

Lighten up RMT, this is not relating to the FUTURE. This is relating to the PAST. So you can find so many rebuttals, so why not find one. YOU are the one making a BIG issue out of it. If you read the thread once again it is YOU who have put so much EFFORT in DISPROVING it. So why don’t you disprove it? I just made an interesting interpretation. You are the one taking it so SERIOUSLY, so it’s up to you to disprove it. I have decided not to post any replies to this thread until you find a reasonable rebuttal and disprove it. So in the next post you will very well say that I had escaped the discussion ignoring your “scientific” statements.
 
HOW do you want me to prove it?
I don't think you can prove ANYTHING is IMPOSSIBLE. That is why I am berating you so hard....I want you to OPEN YOUR EYES to how SCIENCE works!

You claim it is WRONG so its up to you (rather it should be easier) to disprove it by finding one.
No, no, no, no, NO, freaking NO! Would you PLEASE understand that this is NOT how a SCIENTIFIC approach to claims is done! Here is an example:

1) Einstein says "Hey, I'm pretty sure E=mc^2 describes how Energy and Mass can be interchanged."
2) Now Einstein has to PROVE that claim. It falls on NO ONE ELSE to HELP him prove that claim by DISPROVING some aspect of that claim!

Now let's put it into terms of YOUR claim:

1) Hercules says "It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a 3rd party emulator before 1998."
2) Now Hercules has to PROVE that claim! It does NOT fall upon RainmanTime to try to DISPROVE Hercules' claim by showing where a 3rd party emulator exists!

Get with the SCIENCE program, bucko. You are REALLY being SILLY (and yes, I mean the SAME definition of this as before).

Dubke’s comments are the BASIS of the interpretation.
Yes, you are RELYING on Dubke's statements being TRUE in order for you to "definitely prove" the interpretation is correct. THAT MEANS YOU MUST ALSO PROVE Dubke's claims are also true!

HOW can I prove Dubke is telling the truth
Maybe you should think about this before invoking these statements as part of your "proof"? You want ME to help you figure out how to prove YOUR claim? Get real!

BUT you are claiming the interpretation is wrong, so again its up to you.
NO! You are REALLY inept at science, Herc. I am sorry, but THAT is TRUTH, because you are clearly violating its precepts! Just like the above, YOU are making the ASSUMPTION that Dubke's statements are true in order to be part of your "proof" of your interpretation. That means the burden lies SOLELY on YOU to prove Dubke's statements!

If you think otherwise, then you had better start talking to some scientists, because you REALLY do NOT understand how science works when it comes to claims!

So why don’t you disprove it?
Because I never SAID I was going to PROVE or DISPROVE anything! YOU SAID IT.

You are the one taking it so SERIOUSLY, so it’s up to you to disprove it.
Nope. You are clearly wrong, from the standpoint of science.

So in the next post you will very well say that I had escaped the discussion ignoring your “scientific” statements.
That's the first thing you got right in this post! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
While driving into my office this morning, I thought of a good way to show you just how silly you are being, and how non-scientific your approach is. So that's what I've decided to show you here. But first:

You are the one taking it so SERIOUSLY
I've addressed this before by explaining to you that SCIENCE is serious business. It is certainly not meant to be taken willy-nilly, which is exactly what you are doing in this thread. If someone is not looking out to make sure people making claims and trying to "prove" things adhere to a sound scientific method, then people will believe all sorts of silly things.

Now, I am going to PRETEND as if I can prove that Titor is a hoax, just to illustrate to you how silly (non-scientific) your approach is with respect to your "proof that the interpretation is correct." You will, of course, try to claim that it is not the same, but it really is.

1) My friend on this board, OvrLrdLegion, once said that he knew the details of the person who put together the Titor hoax, and therefore he said it was a hoax. (He didn't really, but for sake of argument, this is just as verifiable as Dubke's statements.)
2) If you combine all of the circumstantial evidence those on this board have pointed out about how Titor was certainly not telling the truth, coupled with OvrLrdLegion's statements, then a silly person might claim that this "proves" Titor was a hoax (it doesn't of course, but bear with me for the purpose of this exposition).
3) Now you (Hercules) come along and challenge that stance, pointing out (rightfully so) that I have not PROVEN that what OvrLrdLegion has said is true.
4) But if I were to take your stance, as with the Dubke statements, I would reply to you "HOW do you expect me to PROVE OvrLrdLegion's statements are not true? Since YOU are the one who is taking it so seriously, that means YOU are the one who has to DISPROVE OvrLrdLegion's statements!"

Now isn't that silly? And if you DO NOT think that is silly (and non-scientific), then I have just PROVEN to you that Titor is a hoax! You CAN'T HAVE it both ways! Either you stick to the scientific method (by which YOU are the one who proves statements you rely upon), OR you throw science away and now you must admit I have PROVEN Titor was a hoax, based on nothing more than an unverifiable statement made by OvrLrdLegion.

But I did NOT say I can definitely prove TITOR is REAL.
And for the thousandth time, I AM NOT ADDRESSING THAT AT ALL. I am addressing the following claim you made:

Hercules:I can definitely prove the interpretation is correct
You can end this thread very quickly by simply admitting that not only have you NOT proven this interpretation is correct, but you will NEVER be able to "definitely" prove it is correct without also proving the the other claims you (or Dubke) has made upon which your "proof" is based.

And once again, the reason I take this seriously is because science is serious. And I must again remind you that YOU were the one whining about only sticking to SCIENCE and FACTS. You should applaud me for doing so, I would think.


RMT
 
Point of order, this thread.

Please' I would like to know two things.

One, is what Herc or others saying, that there is a key archetypical point, in where the 360 emulator was made, so that access into the ROM could have been established?

Two, does anyone agree, since there were literally thousands of technicians out there, who could have contrived hack programs to get into this logic, could the invention possibly been made, before 1998, via someone else?

If so, then in some either technical or trades publication, there would be a reporting of this breakthrough.
 
I have sent e-mail to Mr. Bowler and I talked with him. I asked Bowler to comment on the Y2K issue, how he claimed it is very easy in his website and pointed to him the Titor story and IBM 5100. He did respond but he hasn’t responded about Y2K yet.

My question: In those times, programmers were more into conversion techniques to rectify Y2K, while you said by learning assembler it was much easier to get to the source and patch it. Can you comment on how you fixed Y2K in OS/360?

Something I “assumed” MIGHT happen has happened. You can call it “CO- INCIDENCE”!!

Ever since I sent it, this site where he wrote about Y2K wouldn’t work. The server’s down temporarily or permanently or he is editing it, I don’t know. But if you recall in this thread I have given this link and his statements quite a number of times.

Just another interesting “event”. See it for yourself:

Unfortunately, OS/360 was not Y2K clean. IBM never provided patches for it. So I decided to learn assembler to fix OS/360, while ignoring people telling me, that a fix is impossible. It was much easier than thought. The affected parts of the source sometimes had comments with 'please patch here', if one is used to read between the lines.
http://open360.copyleft.de/Open360/OS_360_Y2K.html

http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fopen360.copyleft.de%2FOpen360%2FOS_360_Y2K.html&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Might be the SAME page could come up again, which means nothing “unusual”. I have waited enough, and the page hasn’t been offline for this long before.

Titor wrote:

For a change, I have a question for all of you. I want you to think…think very hard. What major disaster was expected and prepared for in the last year and a half that never happened?

Yes, the Pearl Harbor example relates to Y2K. Have you considered that I might already have accidentally screwed up your worldline?

Your worldline met those conditions. What amazes me is why no one here wonders why Y2K didn’t hit them at all?

Thank you for trying to answer those questions but I really do not expect that anyone can. I thought I would share with you things we wonder about. Your logic about me is quite correct but again I must state that I am not trying to get you or anyone else to believe or buy anything.

As far as evidence goes…I have however decided to try an experiment with you that may be more convincing. It involves the travel of information at faster than light. In fact, I have dropped at least three little gems like this that no one else has picked up on.

You said you are confused by the 5100 story. I will explain further. In 2036, it was discovered (or at least known after testing) that the 5100 computer was capable of reading and changing all of the legacy code written by IBM before the release of that system and still be able to create new code in APL and basic. That is the reason we need it in 2036. However, that information was never published by IBM because it would have probably destroyed a large part of their business infrastructure in the early 70s. In fact, I would bet the engineers were probably told to keep their mouth’s shut.

Therefore, if I were not here now telling you this, that information would not be discovered for another 36 years. Yet, I would bet there is someone out there who can do the research and discover I am telling the truth. There must be an old IBM engineer out there someplace that worked on the 5100. They just might not have ever asked if I hadn’t pointed it out.
 
In autumn 2000, IBM announced a new 64-bit z/Architecture (also known as ESAME or ESA Modal Extensions). Using publicly available information together with his deep knowledge of the evolution of S/360/370/390, Jan Jaeger was able to predict the likely form that the 64-bit architectural extensions would take. This enabled him to design preliminary support for the new architecture, and to implement many of the new instructions in advance of the publication of the full technical details in January 2001. During some busy weekends which followed, I added support in Hercules for 64-bit mode IDAW, Cross Memory and DAT, with the result that at the end of February 2001, only 5 weeks after publication of the z/Architecture Principles of Operation manual, Hercules became the first (and, for 18 months, the only) non-IBM implementation of the new 64-bit mainframe architecture

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler/hercules.htm

Notice Feb 2001. When did Titor actually leave from here? And how was Jan Jaeger able to PREDICT the likely form that the 64-bit architectural extensions would take?

Please read these links carefully. They can easily go Offline.
 
I would be so happy is someone could please explain to me what precisely happened in April 1998 that made possible this software emulation for a S/360?
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
I would be so happy is someone could please explain to me what precisely happened in April 1998 that made possible this software emulation for a S/360?

I can tell what the interpretation is, but I don’t claim or guarantee that Titor is REAL based on this interpretation. Again I repeat, this is just an INTERPRETATION relating events with the Titor story that I find interesting.

One can emulate the other parts, but the difficult or the impossible part is duplicating the
privileged instructions of the s/360.

According to Bob Dubke:

An imprint of a hook on the outside of the 5100 symbolized the ability of Dubke's interface to drop into what Titor called "legacy code," and scoop out any necessary operating instructions.

What I find interesting is a statement made by Bowler regarding Titor’s mission:

However, this does not mean that IBM 5100 could run all and any legacy code. To run any significant legacy application, it would also need to have the capability to run the operating system and any necessary subsystems such as HASP and TCAM. For this you would need to emulate all of the S/360 architecture including privileged instructions, interrupts, timers, Initial Program Loading, I/O devices and channels.

From Bowler’s statements it is clear that emulating the s/360 architecture is necessary for reading and changing all of the Legacy Code in 2036 in Titor’s worldline. This could be the reason for the “side trip” of Titor to 1998 and then to 2000-2001.

So if a programmer got a “tweaked” IBM 5100 in 1998, he can access the ROM and get the necessary code to build an emulator very easily. While there were no s/360 emulators or disassemblers made before Roger Bowler did it.

But in Bowler’s personal messages to me, Bowler clearly DENIED it and said he made the emulator by himself.

Another very interesting part is the Y2K issue. Bowler was avoiding the Y2K question in my first two mails, and in the third and last mail I particularly STRESSED on that question and asked him to comment on it. That is before when the site went offline and he never replied after that.

Another thing is he said, “Your comments about the IBM 5100 are interesting. I did not know that it emulated parts of the S/360 instruction set.”

After that, I sent him this link,

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/304/ibmsj3004C.pdf

In that journal, it is clearly mentioned that IBM 5100 emulated s/360. But I saw this link of IBM journals listed in one of his own sites(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler/) and I can’t understand how he never knew it.
 
Again I repeat, this is just an INTERPRETATION relating events with the Titor story that I find interesting.
And again I point out that you have not "definitely" proven this interpretation... like you said you would. In fact, why not admit that you CANNOT ever "definitely prove" this interpretation is correct!

One can emulate the other parts, but the difficult or the impossible part is duplicating the privileged instructions of the s/360.
Difficult would be the appropriate word. Impossible it is not. You'd have a hard time proving ANYTHING is impossible, because that would be trying to prove a negative!

But in Bowler’s personal messages to me, Bowler clearly DENIED it and said he made the emulator by himself.
There you go. Since you like to use quotes from what people say without ever having to prove them true, then this should satisfy you that your interpretation is NOT correct. But of course, if it keeps your little story going, then it serves you to claim that he might be lying.... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

In that journal, it is clearly mentioned that IBM 5100 emulated s/360.
Too bad that link you posted redirects you to the IBM main research page. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/cry.gif

RMT
 
Too bad that link you posted redirects you to the IBM main research page.

But that isn’t a big issue. It should be online in a few days. This link was already provided before and I cut and pasted the information in that journal in this thread before.

The production machine was designed at IBM’s General Systems Division laboratory at Rochester, Minnesota, and was made available as a product, the IBM 5100 machine, in 1974-less than a year and a half from the start. This remarkably short development cycle for such a complex new product can be attributed in large part to the fact that emulation was used again, even in the final product. This time, however, although the same Palm internal engine was used, System/360 architecture was emulated rather than 1130 architecture, so that the up-to-date APLSV product system could be used as the APL facility with virtually no modification. There were some changes, however, that anticipated later developments in personal computers.

this should satisfy you that your interpretation is NOT correct. But of course, if it keeps your little story going, then it serves you to claim that he might be lying....

I find many of his statements in his site vague and relating to the Titor story and there is no reason for him to reveal it even if he knew something. Most important of it being the OS/360 Y2K. The other thing I already pointed out:

In autumn 2000, IBM announced a new 64-bit z/Architecture (also known as ESAME or ESA Modal Extensions). Using publicly available information together with his deep knowledge of the evolution of S/360/370/390, Jan Jaeger was able to predict the likely form that the 64-bit architectural extensions would take. This enabled him to design preliminary support for the new architecture, and to implement many of the new instructions in advance of the publication of the full technical details in January 2001. During some busy weekends which followed, I added support in Hercules for 64-bit mode IDAW, Cross Memory and DAT, with the result that at the end of February 2001, only 5 weeks after publication of the z/Architecture Principles of Operation manual, Hercules became the first (and, for 18 months, the only) non-IBM implementation of the new 64-bit mainframe architecture.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler/hercules.htm
 
Back
Top