Saturn V guidance CPU board

here you go:

IBM never sold a single mainframe computer (except to the DOD, PCs don't count) they leased them. And required a support contract (where the real money is).

?-)

"David Eather = retard "

Follow the WHOLE thread - idiot.

You're about 30 years out of date.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

That was certainly true in 1965-1968 or so, but they got sued for antitrust and had to unbundle and sell anything the customer wanted. They also needed to open the architecture and even ASSIST competitors in building plug-compatible gear.

I know that Washington University OWNED their entire 360/50 system (although possibly some of the earliest 360 system may have been under lease at the beginning). They never bought any major IBM gear new after that, it was all bought used. Those machines (360/50, then 360/65 and 370/145 times 2) may have originally started life as leased machines, no way to know. Even still, they ended up with almost all the peripherals from Memorex, it was cheaper to get them new from MRX than used from IBM (comparing performance for performance, that is).

Jon

But you really *needed* support. Those computers broke about once a week, so even if one were given a computer for nothing, maintaining it would bankrupt you.

Joe Gwinn

I replied to this, but it didn't show up. Back in the late 1960's this was true. The US government sued and won an antitrade suit against IBM, it hurt them big time, and they had to unbundle and sell anything the customer wanted. As part of the suit, they had to help customers make plug-compatible peripherals and even CPUs. You can look all this up, it is in the trade mags of the day and also in a number of memoirs and histories of the day.

So, by 1970 or so, everything was for sale. And, MANY leased systems were leased from 3rd party brokers, not directly from IBM. That was a RISKY business, if you bought the wrong machine and put it under lease at the wrong time, your customer might exchange it for a newer model and leave you with a boat anchor. And, this certainly happened and left a bunch of brokers in deep trouble.

Jon

I meant anti-TRUST

Oh, and you are RIGHT, the money IS in the maintenance contract, for sure. IBM was right not to sell them as long as they could get away with that scheme. But, then, they still got to service them ANYWAY! Who else could repair a machine that was totally made out of custom parts like the 360's SLT modules?

Jon

Well shucks and darn, i have been corrected. And not only by you. But that makes it a good day; as i have learned something.

?-)

OK, glad you can take in in good spirit. Our university had a 7094, then a 360/50, upgraded to a 360/65, and then added two 370/145's. The only machine that MIGHT have been leased was the original 360/50, and I'm not sure about that. The later machines were all bought USED, and they made a big deal of how much money they saved by buying used mainframes. I think the savings were close to the depreciation of a new car when you drive off the showroom floor. But, as long as IBM would maintain it, what's the big difference in buying new or used? By the time they got rid of the /65, it was basically an entirely new machine, there were probably pretty few original parts in in, except for the control store.

Jon

Yeah I know about IBM and their leasing. Of course that game is pretty much up now.

Not quite. There was a hard mandate for the CSM+LM to be able to self-navigate. It was based on the fear that the Commies would jam the comms back to NASCOM. As it turned it, nothing was further from reality. It was also the case the Doppler ranging ended up far more accurate than first thought.

There's an excellent book "Digital Apollo" that I highly recommend.