Talk:Keypunch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article could use more expansion and tech-editing by someone who knows exactly when each feature was rolled-out in any given keypunch. For example, I'm pretty sure that the '029 didn't have any tubes in it but with the comment about the '129, the article leaves that ambiguous. I believe that the necessary logic was all electromechanical (relays).

And I only sat down at an '026 once or twice; I don't remember much about them except that they were "rounded". :)

Atlant 21:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I filled in the implementation details you wanted for the various machines. I have seen them all (and used all except the 129). -- 205.175.225.5 04:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!
Atlant 12:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The 026 was, in fact much more rounded than the square cornered 029, and even had round buttons instead of square keys like modern keyboards. There was also an 023 that was numeric only.

Correction on the 129 - there was no 129 Verifier. The 129 could do both, and had a switch on the keyboard to toggle between the two.

New section "The Keypunch Operator"[edit]

I have added a new section to this article on the sometimes-ignored human side of technology.

Please note that the source for this section is "oral history" and treat it as you see best. I was a keypunch operator, a supervisor of keypunch operators, a programmer, and a data center manager in the early 1970s.

203.218.232.205 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Added the verifier part. I can add data relating to the mechanical/electrical workings of the keypunch family if anyone deems it interesting. Repaired them for years as a customer engineer with IBM.Surryroger 01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

UNIVAC 90 column keypunches[edit]

These machines were designed slightly later than the IBM 129, and incorprated electronic memory. This allowed them to store the user's keystrokes and then punch the entire card all at once (and hence allowed correction of errors before the card was punched).

I removed the text shown above, because UNIVAC 90 column keypunches always punched all 90 columns at once, even when they were entirely mechanical. See the section on 90 Column Cards (quoted below).

"Remington Rand, which acquired the UNIVAC computer family from the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation, had a well-established line of tabulating machinery that dodged the IBM Hollerith patents by using 90 column cards with round holes, punched by mechanical punches that punched the entire card at once" (Emphasis added)

These punches far predated the IBM 129 as they were already in production by Remington Rand when EMCC was acquired on February 15,1950. -- RTC 22:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of characters on the IBM-26 character-generator ROM?[edit]

  I'm feeling strangely dissatisfied with the terse explanation I was able to fit in the provided space for my edit concerning the number of characters stored on this plate.  Before this edit, a sentence in the article read…

The character was printed using a 5x7 dot matrix array of wires; the device from which it derived the shape of the character was a metal plate, called the "code plate," with space for 1680 pins (35 pins times 48 printable characters).

  Having one of these plates in my possession, and having carefully examined it, I count fifty-six (56)—and not forty-eight (48)—rows of thirty-five (35) bits, for a total of 1960 rather than 1680 bits.  Examining the image Image:IBM-026_wireplate.jpg, I find the same thing.  I have, therefore, edited this article to reflect this count. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

changes in the data input paradigm[edit]

A recent edit to the reasons for the keypunch's decline adds "changes in the data input paradigm." Please elaborate--as it stands the words have little content.--agr (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no WP page for Direct Data Entry, so I suggest refining this last section a little, so it can be more sensibly linked from various places that refer to DDE, key-to-disk, etc. jxm (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 19, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Keypunch

A woman using a Hollerith pantograph, a machine developed by Herman Hollerith for the punching of cards, providing data which could then be processed. Such tools were used in the 1890 United States Census, the first time the country's census was tabulated by machine.

Picture: Unknown; restoration: Mmxx
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


Requesting a bad link be fixed -- I don't seem to be able to do this. Specifics given.[edit]

On this page:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keypunch

I tried to correct the outdated link in Reference 10:

  "Fierheller, George A. (2006). Do Not Fold..."

When I clicked [edit] there was no code to edit -- all I saw was:

  = = References = =
  { { Reflist|2 } }
  < references / >
  { { Refend } }

The outdated Reference 10 link on the /Keypunch/ page is:

  http://gfierheller.ca/books/pdf/do_not_fold.pdf

The correct link is:

  http://www.gfierheller.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/do_not_fold.pdf

I don't seem to be able to see the code in the Reference section to fix the bad link. Would someone please fix this for me?

Thanks!

Done! Thank you for noting this problem. Here's how it works: The code in the Reference section itself is only a placeholder, so if you click 'Edit' next to that heading, you see almost nothing. The actual content for each reference item is included at the appropriate location within the main text body. It's easier to select 'Edit' at the top of the whole page and work with the text there. Look out for the ref and /ref delineation marks. Tnx again for your help - and keep on editing! jxm (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)