Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!claris!apple!baum
From: baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for Computer Folklore
Message-ID: <25143@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 1 Feb 89 20:49:27 GMT
References: <7143@pyr.gatech.EDU> <532@geovision.UUCP> <4575@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> <1798@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>
Reply-To: baum@apple.UUCP (Allen Baum)
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 23

[]
>In article <1798@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> dela@ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) writes:
>In article <532@geovision.UUCP> geovision!pt writes:
>>
>>2) We had an IBM cluster controller controlling some 3270 terminals.  We
>>paid $5000 for an upgrade that would allow more users to be connected to
>>the controller.  The IBM service rep came in and REMOVED a board, that
>>was put there to deliberately slow things down.

I have been told that IBM has been guilty of this kind of thing more than once.
I know that microcode for the 360/25 (low end model) could be changed to give
it the performance of a 360/40. Supposedly the 370/145 had a microcode delay
loop that was put in there so that when the /148 was announced (with virtual
memory), it would not run slower than the otherwise identical /145.

Of course, IBM was not the only culprit. A friend who once worked for Burroughs
told me that in order to sell a reduced-cost version of one machine, they had
to add a whole board of logic to produce delayed versions and phases of clocks
just to slow the (original) fast machine down. Since it was slower, they could
sellit for less!
--
		  baum@apple.com		(408)974-3385
{decwrl,hplabs}!amdahl!apple!baum