4 ms·

I researched Hollerith cards and 80-character lines in excessive detail while studying card sorters [1]. The Hollerith card is the root cause of 80-character li

by kens 10y ago

I researched Hollerith cards and 80-character lines in excessive detail while studying card sorters [1]. The Hollerith card is the root cause of 80-character lines, of course. Prior to 1928, Hollerith cards used round holes and 45 characters per card. IBM wanted to fit more data on a card and investigated two alternatives: binary coding so 90 characters could fit into 45 columns of holes, or rectangular holes which allowed narrower holes so 80 columns would fit. They chose the latter because it was more compatible with existing card sorting equipment, and the rest is history. Competitors used 90 column cards, but didn't achieve the same success as IBM. IBM later introduced 96-column cards, but they weren't as popular. Thus, it's just a historical accident that everyone uses 80 columns rather than 90 or 96. And 80 columns is used because that's how many could fit on a punched card the size of obsolete US currency. Note that ergonomics has nothing to do with the success of 80 columns: for the most part these cards held accounting data, not program code or text. (I wrote an article covering this in great detail but haven't posted it to my blog yet; hopefully I'll get it out soon.) [1] http://www.righto.com/2016/05/inside-card-sorters-1920s-data.html http://www.righto.com/2016/05/inside-card-sorters-1920s-data...

lisper 10y ago
The facts you cite are true, of course, but it does not follow that the H-card was the cause of 80-character lines. We've had plenty of opportunities to ditch that standard if we wanted to. The Apple II had 40 characters per line. That went by the wayside not because there was a compelling reason to be backwards-comatible with H-cards, but simply because 40 characters is too short. When longer lines were enabled by technology we went to 80 rather than (say) 132 because 132 is too long. We can quibble over 80 vs 90 or 96 (or 72), but it's pretty clear that the sweet spot is right in there somewhere. It is not at all like (say) electrical outlets where we really do have to do deal with all kinds of crazy incompatibilities when traveling for no reason other than historical accident.
- kens 10y ago
  The jump to 80-column video displays was due to late 1960s CRT-based computers for data entry such as Four Phase and Viatron, which allowed people to enter punched card data on a screen and edit it. These of course had 80-column input. These were followed by more general purpose video displays like the VT50, which also had 80 columns for compatibility with punched card systems. This led to terminal emulator windows such as xterm using 80 columns. It is a clear historical path. (I don't know why you're bringing the Apple II into this.)
- coredog64 10y ago
  You could buy an 80 column card for your Apple II. It usually needed to be turned off for games and such that were depending on the 40 column format, but that was hit or miss.
- int_19h 10y ago
  132 was too long given the resolution of displays at a time. I don't think it necessarily says anything about the easiness of parsing a string that long per se.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Note that ergonomics has nothing to do with the success of 80 columns I don't think that's true at all. While 80 columns becoming initially common for displays was no doubt a product of the H-card, the fact is that there was reasonably widespread support even fairly early in the pre-GUI PC era for alternatives -- both more and less, but probably most notably in use 132 columns -- for display, printing, etc., and they were used where they offered superior utility. But, outside of a few niches, 80 columns stuck even in the face of alternatives, and the reason it did so was ergonomics.
- mark-r 10y ago
  The vertical height of characters was dictated by the number of scan lines in the display. It was impractical to use displays that weren't compatible with TV standards, so that meant 240 non-interlaced scan lines. 10 pixels is about the smallest height you can make a font including line spacing, so that's how you get 24 rows. Once you have the number of rows, you want the number of columns to have a good balance. 80 columns gives you well proportioned characters, where other alternatives e.g. 132 do not. Add that to the historic precedence and you have the makings of a standard. Teletypes were in common use on the first time-sharing systems, and those were only 72 columns wide. Consider yourself lucky to have those extra 8 characters.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    It's 9 vertical pixels, actually. Standard CGA font was 8x8, using the last column for character spacing, and the last row for descenders: http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/Images/cga.png http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/Images/cga.png So then you need one more row to separate lines (or live with the occasional joined characters, as CGA did with its 640x200 resolution).
abraae 10y ago
Your article is fantastic. I had no idea that: > When the Type 80 sorter was introduced, standard AC power hadn't fully taken over and parts of the United States used DC or 25 Hertz AC.[9] Thus, the sorter needed to handle fifteen different line inputs including unusual ones such as 115V DC or 230V 25 Hertz AC.
BuildTheRobots 10y ago
Really enjoyable article, thank you -although, could I possible talk you into an honourable mention of the 1801 Jacqard Loom which used punch cards to store patterns? :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom

by kens 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

The facts you cite are true, of course, but it does not follow that the H-card was the cause of 80-character lines. We've had plenty of opportunities to ditch that standard if we wanted to. The Apple II had 40 characters per line. That went by the wayside not because there was a compelling reason to be backwards-comatible with H-cards, but simply because 40 characters is too short. When longer lines were enabled by technology we went to 80 rather than (say) 132 because 132 is too long. We can quibble over 80 vs 90 or 96 (or 72), but it's pretty clear that the sweet spot is right in there somewhere. It is not at all like (say) electrical outlets where we really do have to do deal with all kinds of crazy incompatibilities when traveling for no reason other than historical accident.

kens 10y ago
The jump to 80-column video displays was due to late 1960s CRT-based computers for data entry such as Four Phase and Viatron, which allowed people to enter punched card data on a screen and edit it. These of course had 80-column input. These were followed by more general purpose video displays like the VT50, which also had 80 columns for compatibility with punched card systems. This led to terminal emulator windows such as xterm using 80 columns. It is a clear historical path. (I don't know why you're bringing the Apple II into this.)
coredog64 10y ago
You could buy an 80 column card for your Apple II. It usually needed to be turned off for games and such that were depending on the 40 column format, but that was hit or miss.
int_19h 10y ago
132 was too long given the resolution of displays at a time. I don't think it necessarily says anything about the easiness of parsing a string that long per se.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Note that ergonomics has nothing to do with the success of 80 columns I don't think that's true at all. While 80 columns becoming initially common for displays was no doubt a product of the H-card, the fact is that there was reasonably widespread support even fairly early in the pre-GUI PC era for alternatives -- both more and less, but probably most notably in use 132 columns -- for display, printing, etc., and they were used where they offered superior utility. But, outside of a few niches, 80 columns stuck even in the face of alternatives, and the reason it did so was ergonomics.

mark-r 10y ago
The vertical height of characters was dictated by the number of scan lines in the display. It was impractical to use displays that weren't compatible with TV standards, so that meant 240 non-interlaced scan lines. 10 pixels is about the smallest height you can make a font including line spacing, so that's how you get 24 rows. Once you have the number of rows, you want the number of columns to have a good balance. 80 columns gives you well proportioned characters, where other alternatives e.g. 132 do not. Add that to the historic precedence and you have the makings of a standard. Teletypes were in common use on the first time-sharing systems, and those were only 72 columns wide. Consider yourself lucky to have those extra 8 characters.
- int_19h 10y ago
  It's 9 vertical pixels, actually. Standard CGA font was 8x8, using the last column for character spacing, and the last row for descenders: http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/Images/cga.png http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/Images/cga.png So then you need one more row to separate lines (or live with the occasional joined characters, as CGA did with its 640x200 resolution).

abraae 10y ago

Your article is fantastic. I had no idea that: > When the Type 80 sorter was introduced, standard AC power hadn't fully taken over and parts of the United States used DC or 25 Hertz AC.[9] Thus, the sorter needed to handle fifteen different line inputs including unusual ones such as 115V DC or 230V 25 Hertz AC.

BuildTheRobots 10y ago

Really enjoyable article, thank you -although, could I possible talk you into an honourable mention of the 1801 Jacqard Loom which used punch cards to store patterns? :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom