Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
(I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
that /limited/ the CPU speed.

Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
or did it actually happen?

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

On 2023-05-06, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
> or did it actually happen?
s

I have a distant memory of all that. It, as I recall, happened several
times, as even now you can pay more than the basic price for a shiny
cover :)

It was the 386, I think.

There was a folklore story of a company that wanted to upgrade their
system, so a man came with a briefcase came, opened the machine, turned
a screw and left.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Where is out money gone, Dude?

> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> that /limited/ the CPU speed.

Since at least the 80s, many of IBMs machines have had more performance
built in than was necessarily available. Microcode replacements or
perhaps "magic" codes (crypto or whatever) have turned one model into a
higher performing one. In the 4381 family, when we did this to one of
ours, the IBM FE was required to kick us all out of the room to swap the
floppies containing the microcode.

These days, there's a complex licensing system that allows IBM to charge
by actual usage, or for customers to pay for processing power on demand.
If you need more oomph for a short term project, pay IBM more for those
hours, days or weeks. The machines phone home.

De

Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
> or did it actually happen?
>

It was fairly common. I think the IBM 1130 worked this way. Smart customers
might remove the jumper, and replace it before scheduled maintenance.

--
Pete

On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:10:38 -0000 (UTC)
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> that /limited/ the CPU speed.

I recall the tale - when I heard it the component was a link that
set the clock rate.

> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
> or did it actually happen?

It certainly does not seem unlikely, I recall seeing hard discs
where a link change could double the capacity (10Mb to 20Mb IIRC) - it was a
hack because the smaller ones were no longer available but service contracts
only allowed replacement not upgrade. The service engineer was usually
careful to mention that you should not change the link because then you'd
have to reformat the drive and reinstall the OS.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Sat, 06 May 2023 11:26:57 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>>
>> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>> or did it actually happen?
>>
>
> It was fairly common. I think the IBM 1130 worked this way. Smart customers
> might remove the jumper, and replace it before scheduled maintenance.

Thanks, that might be the lead I'm looking for: the story I remember talked about
the CSR removing a jumper or wire to enable the clock speedup.

I'll have to do some serious googling to track down the rumour, but your comment
gives me a place to start.

Thanks again
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

On Sat, 06 May 2023 19:16:38 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:10:38 -0000 (UTC)
> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>
>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> I recall the tale - when I heard it the component was a link that
> set the clock rate.

That agrees with my recollection of the rumour as well.

[snip]

Thanks for the confirmation :-)
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

On Sat, 06 May 2023 18:51:35 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote:

> On Sat, 06 May 2023 19:16:38 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:10:38 -0000 (UTC)
>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>>
>> I recall the tale - when I heard it the component was a link that
>> set the clock rate.
>
> That agrees with my recollection of the rumour as well.

I've found one reference to the Univac 1106, which (according to
the reference) could be "upgraded" to an 1108.
"This upgrade consisted in replacing a divide-by-two flip-flop
in the system clock circuit by a jumper."

This might be the rumour I was looking for, but the source is
not definitive. I'll keep looking

> [snip]
>
>
> Thanks for the confirmation :-)

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
> or did it actually happen?
>

IME it was standard practise in the early '70s; at least, it was on the
kit I worked with. When the customer buys a computer he buys a black
box with certain capabilities. From the manufacturer's point of view
it makes sense to build the best box they reasonably can and throttle
it. When the customer needs more power, charge him more and just take
out the throttling link. Not needing to phsically change the box makes
all sorts of good sense for everybody.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

On Sat, 06 May 2023 20:03:33 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:

> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>
>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> IME it was standard practise in the early '70s; at least, it was on the
> kit I worked with. When the customer buys a computer he buys a black
> box with certain capabilities. From the manufacturer's point of view
> it makes sense to build the best box they reasonably can and throttle
> it. When the customer needs more power, charge him more and just take
> out the throttling link. Not needing to phsically change the box makes
> all sorts of good sense for everybody.

Apparently, it is becoming standard practice again. But, this time
in the field of consumer goods.

I asked about the rumour because I just finished reading an article
(https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/05/mercedes-locks-better-ev-engine-performance-behind-annoying-subscription-paywalls)
about Mercedes planning to put "better engine performance" of their
EVs behind a subscription paywall.

You buy the car. If you want better engine performance, you pay
a subscription, and they /disable/ the "poorer engine performance"
component. In other words, the car that you purchased /already/ has
"better engine performance", and you pay a monthly ransom to get it
enabled.

The analogy struck me as apropos.
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

On Sat, 06 May 2023 17:31:35 +0000, greymaus wrote:

> On 2023-05-06, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer (I'm
>> guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two different clock
>> speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you could pay a licence fee
>> and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component that /limited/ the CPU
>> speed.
>>
>> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>> or did it actually happen?
> s
>
> I have a distant memory of all that. It, as I recall, happened several
> times, as even now you can pay more than the basic price for a shiny
> cover
>
>
> It was the 386, I think.

In the 1960s?

I remember IBM allegedly doing this on a pre-360 system.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 May 2023 20:03:33 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>
> > Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> >> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> >> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> >> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> >> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
> >
> > IME it was standard practise in the early '70s; at least, it was on the
> > kit I worked with. When the customer buys a computer he buys a black
> > box with certain capabilities. From the manufacturer's point of view
> > it makes sense to build the best box they reasonably can and throttle
> > it. When the customer needs more power, charge him more and just take
> > out the throttling link. Not needing to phsically change the box makes
> > all sorts of good sense for everybody.
>
> Apparently, it is becoming standard practice again. But, this time
> in the field of consumer goods.
>
> I asked about the rumour because I just finished reading an article
> (https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/05/mercedes-locks-better-ev-engine-performance-behind-annoying-subscription-paywalls)
> about Mercedes planning to put "better engine performance" of their
> EVs behind a subscription paywall.
>
> You buy the car. If you want better engine performance, you pay
> a subscription, and they /disable/ the "poorer engine performance"
> component. In other words, the car that you purchased /already/ has
> "better engine performance", and you pay a monthly ransom to get it
> enabled.
>
> The analogy struck me as apropos.
>

Indeed. It's the same with Teslas (for one example).
--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:10:38 -0000 (UTC)
> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>
>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> I recall the tale - when I heard it the component was a link that
> set the clock rate.
>
>> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>> or did it actually happen?
>
> It certainly does not seem unlikely, I recall seeing hard discs
> where a link change could double the capacity (10Mb to 20Mb IIRC) - it was a
> hack because the smaller ones were no longer available but service contracts
> only allowed replacement not upgrade. The service engineer was usually
> careful to mention that you should not change the link because then you'd
> have to reformat the drive and reinstall the OS.
>

360/20 had, I believe, a physical stop that prevented seeking to half the
disk.

--
Pete

Lew Pitcher wrote:

> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
> or did it actually happen?
>

Back in the 'good old days' of PC clones, there was a switch on the front
panel to select the faster or slower processor speed supposodly because some
programs needed a certain speed for correct operation. These often came
with a jumper settable front panel display to show the current clock speed.
The ones I usually selected were 30 or 60 MHZ i think.

Now the cheapest speed 'upgrade' you could make was tho set the display
jumpers to, oh, say 100 MHZ, then you could brag to your friends.

Freddy,
....Nah! That would never happen!

--
Accept no substitutes.

/|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\|
/| I may be demented \|
/| but I'm not crazy! \|
/|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\|
* SPAyM trap: there is no X in my address *

On 2023-05-06, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 May 2023 20:03:33 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>
>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.

The Univac 9300, introduced in 1965, was their answer to the IBM 360/20.
Its 16-bit memory addressing was almost but not exactly unlike that of
the 360/20, but it executed instructions at the speed of a 360/30
(for the limited subset of instructions that it supported).

To cater to the low end of the market, they also released the 9200,
a de-rated version of the 9300. Some changes were physical: the
printer ran at only 250 lpm as opposed to the 9300's 600 lpm because
it only had half as many hammers and needed two passes of the print
bar to generate a line of print. But other changes were electronic.
The 9300's memory had a cycle time of 600 nanoseconds. The 9200
inserted a rest cycle between each active memory cycle, increasing
the effective cycle time to 1200 nanoseconds. However, there was
a switch inside labeled "Test mode D"; if you threw it those rest
cycles were eliminated and the CPU would run at full speed.
However, it also disabled parity checking, so you used it at
your own risk. The slower cycle time did allow the use of
marginal memory that wouldn't work in a 9300. You couldn't
do this if you attached disks to the machine, since the disk
channel had to magically speed up the memory to keep up with
the data flowing to and from the disk.

> Apparently, it is becoming standard practice again. But, this time
> in the field of consumer goods.
>
> I asked about the rumour because I just finished reading an article
> (https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/05/mercedes-locks-better-ev-engine-performance-behind-annoying-subscription-paywalls)
> about Mercedes planning to put "better engine performance" of their
> EVs behind a subscription paywall.
>
> You buy the car. If you want better engine performance, you pay
> a subscription, and they /disable/ the "poorer engine performance"
> component. In other words, the car that you purchased /already/ has
> "better engine performance", and you pay a monthly ransom to get it
> enabled.
>
> The analogy struck me as apropos.

I heard recently that if you want to activate the heated seats
in a new BMW you have to sign up for a subscription.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | unless you're willing to
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Dogbert the green consultant

On Sun, 07 May 2023 05:02:34 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> I heard recently that if you want to activate the heated seats
> in a new BMW you have to sign up for a subscription.

Every large (listed) business wants to move their customers to a
subscription model because it makes growth easier and income more
predictable and Wall St. investors like you.

Some bright spark worked out that if you sell things and you want
to grow at (say) 10% then every year you have to do 110% of the selling you
did last year but if you sell subscriptions and you want to grow 10% then
every year you have only to find enough new customers to replace those
you've lost and another 10% which is much easier - especially if you're
good at keeping customers. This is now doctrine in the board rooms of
listed companies.

This is also why SAAS exists.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Sat, 06 May 2023 21:01:28 -0400, Freddy1X wrote:

> Back in the 'good old days' of PC clones, there was a switch on the
> front panel to select the faster or slower processor speed supposodly
> because some programs needed a certain speed for correct operation.
> These often came with a jumper settable front panel display to show the
> current clock speed. The ones I usually selected were 30 or 60 MHZ i
> think.

I did this on my Taiwanese clone in 1985.

I had to add a small switch on the front pane;, connected to an unmarked
jumper. This increased the clock speed from 4.77MHz to 8 MHz.

I got a further speed-up by using an NEC V20 instead of the 8088. This
benchmarked very well, and it was faster, but the benchmark made it look
better than it was in everyday use. That was because one of the main
improvements was a barrel shifter, which speeded up multiplication etc.
but didn't help much with most work.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 7 May 2023 10:47:11 GMT
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

> I got a further speed-up by using an NEC V20 instead of the 8088. This
> benchmarked very well, and it was faster, but the benchmark made it look
> better than it was in everyday use. That was because one of the main
> improvements was a barrel shifter, which speeded up multiplication etc.
> but didn't help much with most work.

Om of the most impressive clock hacks I recall was a rather
ingenious one for the 80286. Starting with a 12MHz product overclocked to
the usual 15Mhz they added a circuit that bumped the clock to 40MHz until
there was a bus cycle and then dropped it to 15MHz to keep the bus happy.

The resultant AT clones dramatically outperformed the 16MHz 80386
machines that were hitting the market at the time.

Also fun was Sinclair's clock stretch hackery to sync a Z80's
irregular timing to a video clock. I never did find out who came up with
that one.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> writes:
>Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>(I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
>Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>or did it actually happen?

Converting from a Burroughs B4925 to a B4955 was a jumper on the fetch
board to enable dual-issue and a firmware update.

greymaus <maus@darkstar.org> writes:
>On 2023-05-06, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>>
>> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>> or did it actually happen?
>s
>
>I have a distant memory of all that. It, as I recall, happened several
>times, as even now you can pay more than the basic price for a shiny
>cover :)
>
>It was the 386, I think.

Certainly nopt in 'circa 1960'.

On 6 May 2023 17:31:35 GMT, greymaus <maus@darkstar.org> wrote:
>On 2023-05-06, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>>
>> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>> or did it actually happen?
>s
>
>I have a distant memory of all that. It, as I recall, happened several
>times, as even now you can pay more than the basic price for a shiny
>cover :)
>
>It was the 386, I think.
>
>There was a folklore story of a company that wanted to upgrade their
>system, so a man came with a briefcase came, opened the machine, turned
>a screw and left.

The university I was at didn't have any 386 computers until about
1988. ran AutoCAD on them.
--
Jim

The difference between a GE-255 and a 265 was a delay loop in the OS.

In alt.folklore.computers Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
: Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
: (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
: different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
: could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
: that /limited/ the CPU speed.

: Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
: or did it actually happen?

: --
: Lew Pitcher
: "In Skills We Trust"

Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote in news:u361me$2rqog$1
@dont-email.me:

> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>
> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
> or did it actually happen?

CDC Cyber 72 was an example. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_Cyber:
" The Cyber-72 had identical hardware to a Cyber-73, but added additional
clock cycles to each instruction to slow it down. This allowed CDC to offer
a lower performance version at a lower price point without the need to
develop new hardware."

I was told by someone who had worked at CDC, that slower model actually cost
about %65 more to make. Another aspect of the lower cost was that the
slower cycle time allowed use of "reject" memory that did not perform
reliably at full speed.
There are lots of other examples of deliberate performance throttling for
marketing purposes, but also to allow sales of "reject" units. Intel's
binning of CPU's are an example.
I once worked on a Wang minicomputer that had a (IIRC) 20 MB disk that was
sold in 5, 10, 15, and 20 MB versions. Field upgrade to a larger size
involved inserting a small circuit board (a simple jumpter would be to easy
cheat) that enabled larger address range.

On 2023-05-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> greymaus <maus@darkstar.org> writes:
>>On 2023-05-06, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
>>> different clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you
>>> could pay a licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component
>>> that /limited/ the CPU speed.
>>>
>>> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>>> or did it actually happen?
>>s
>>
>>I have a distant memory of all that. It, as I recall, happened several
>>times, as even now you can pay more than the basic price for a shiny
>>cover :)
>>
>>It was the 386, I think.
>
> Certainly nopt in 'circa 1960'.

Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2 versions

On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
maus@smaus.org wrote:

> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
> versions

There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/