 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> 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
Depends on whether you are using American billions or European billions.
--
- Warp
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
>
> Depends on whether you are using American billions or European billions.
NAAAAAARGH!! >_<
I never did like Americans... (Then again, they probably don't like me
either.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> 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...
Timing was just as innacurate as the original post. All for the sake of
a good joke. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
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...
>
> Timing was just as innacurate as the original post. All for the sake of
> a good joke. :)
Hey, *I* had to look it up.
It still slightly frightens me that Haskell is actually this old... Just
think how much better the world could be today if its ideas had caught
on back then?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> 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.
that's not quite what Hollerith found with the American 1890's census. ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
