 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> in other words: mainframes were never supercomputers. They were
> commerce-oriented machines rather than scientific number-crunchers.
Some were. Of course, "supercomputer" at the time had somewhat different
connotations. But the mainframe I learned on had the optional "business
unit" (i.e., support for COBOL instructions like BCD and block move) and the
"scientific unit" (i.e., floating point hardware). You maxed that sucker out
with four CPUs all with floating point hardware, and you could (and did)
calculate orbits to the moon and such. It was a Sigma-9 Scientific Data
Processor (aka Xerox-650 aka Honeywell <mumble>).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 6:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>>> The first computer I ever saw was in 1997 at Glasgow University. It
>>> was an analogue machine that used valves.
>>
>> 1997? o_O
>
> just in time for the first version of GHC... :-)
>
I thought that Andrew was the only one allowed to mention the "H" word. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 4:44 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> As I recall about 60 characters per second. The tape was paper, was 8
>> holes
>> wide, and easily broken or scrunched.
>
> Mmm, that's fairly fast for an optical system.
Was it optical? I seem to remember it was mechanical with spring loaded
teeth.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 1997? o_O
>
> just in time for the first version of GHC... :-)
Actually about ten years *after* the first version of GHC.
Yes, I realise that sounds utterly absurd...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So the concept of a filesystem storing named files already existed at
>> this time?
>
> Generally, yes. But you usually wound up pre-allocating files, and they
> were contiguous on disk.
OK.
Files only on disk? Or on tape too? (From what I've seen, punch cards
didn't have this level of abstraction. It wouldn't be terribly necessary
I guess...)
>> Interesting. So the system actually "knows" where each field of a
>> record is then?
>
> Records were fixed size, so it was trivial to calculate.
OK. But does the system know where the *fields* in a record are? Or just
what size the records are?
>> Really? I didn't think anybody had mainframes any more... just big
>> server farms.
>
> The people who want to do lots of I/O have machines where instead of
> GPUs they have IOPs. A 800,000 line phone switch, for example, is
> pretty much all IOP, with something like a 68000 running the actual
> switching part.
>
> Of course, what one might call a "PC" nowadays has a terabyte of RAM and
> 96 quad-core processor chips, so the lines blur.
Yeah, I think the term "mainframe" is probably obsolete now. There are
probably more exact ways to describe what type of computer you mean.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It still somewhat blows my mind that you could do anything useful with
>> so little memory. Presumably for processing large datasets, most of
>> the data at any one time would be in secondary storage?
>
> Large datasets then were also very tiny compared to large datasets of
> today. :)
Sure. But 1MB is such a tiny amount of memory, it could only hold a few
thousand records (depending on their size). It would almost be faster to
process them by hand then go to all the trouble of punching cards and
feeding them through a computer. So it must have been possible to
process larger datasets than that somehow.
> see the revolution that were programs like ed (and its successor vi) in
> bringing flexible terminal text editing rather than wasting tons of
> paper... :)
...not to mention card...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> There were no children many hundred billion years ago.
>
>> I was waiting for that one... *sigh*
>
> It's a so-called mathematician's answer.
Technically, 1 hundred billion years is about 7.3 times the estimated
age of the universe, and would thus predate the Big Bang... if ou
*really* wanted to split hairs. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does anybody know approximately when this time was?
>
> 1970's. By about 1980 most of those machines were likely retired.
Right, OK.
>> For that matter, does anybody have
>
> Yes. Google.
Oh goodie.
>> Was there ever a time when programs were entered into memory via
>> switches rather than some other medium?
>
> Yes.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_panel
Wow, OK. Looks like they have a dedicated switch for every individual
memory register. o_O I was expecting a set of switches to punch in an
address, and another set to input a datum. But I guess there are several
designs possible... And hey, if you're spending £2,000,000 on a
computer, what's a few thousand extra rocker switches?
> The first personal computers worked that way.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800
Mmm, interesting.
>> Was there ever a "punched tape" medium similar to punch cards?
>
> Yes. That's why DEL is up at 127. Think about it.
Oh... oh dear god. You *are* kidding me, right??
>> Similarly, you hear people talk about the VAX, the PDP, the varouis
>> IBM mainframes and Cray supercomputers. Does anybody know the timeline
>> for these, the technologies used and the basic design and performance
>> details?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_history
Finally, a usable summary...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOT com> wrote:
> On 18/05/2010 4:44 PM, Invisible wrote:
> >> As I recall about 60 characters per second. The tape was paper, was 8
> >> holes
> >> wide, and easily broken or scrunched.
> >
> > Mmm, that's fairly fast for an optical system.
>
> Was it optical? I seem to remember it was mechanical with spring loaded
> teeth.
>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards,
> Stephen
I was thinking it was optical. I don't ever remember having maintenance on the
read head. But that's been over 35 years ago. Now I sometimes have a hard time
remembering what I had for breakfast.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Mmm, that's fairly fast for an optical system.
>
> Was it optical? I seem to remember it was mechanical with spring loaded
> teeth.
It wouldn't surprise me if both optical and mechanical systems have been
devised at one time or another...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
