 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2015 1:11 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.10.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Stephen:
>
>>> I for one wouldn't use 7400-family chips anyway, and instead go for a
>>> CPLD (or, more likely, a collection thereof). Makes it much easier to
>>> make minor design changes even after the circuitry has been wired.
>>
>> How about a LM8560? Or if you want to push the boat out and spend USD 4
>> http://www.ecyberspaces.com/productsview.asp?id=3179
>
> Nah, I'm talking about re-inventing the computer here, not throwing
> together a device intended to be mistaken for a suitcase bomb.
>
>
That thought had crossed my mind too. When I worked on the rigs I got
the job of replacing all the batteries in the Bed Head Units every year.
(A bad job given to me by a small minded boss. Little did he think that
it gave me carte blanche to order hundreds of AA batteries and the
opportunity to skive in the accommodation module for days on end. That
showed me who was boss. :-) )
>>
>> That raises the question. If Pov will not contemplate using a GPU. How
>> about using a printer to do some calculations? :-P
>
> Using the printer as a coprocessor is a rather moot idea, unless you
> also include a scanner in the system design; there's no other way to get
> data from the printer back into the computer.
>
No problem for me there. :-)
> You /could/ of course make a PostScript printer do some raytracing
> entirely on its own. But I was a bit disappointed by the computing
> performance of the printer I once used for generating a printout of the
> Mandelbrot set, so I'll probably not pursue this project any further...
>
> Also, I guess we won't get real-time raytracing capabilities out of a
> printer anytime soon ;)
>
I did not think that it would be a runner. ;)
It takes forever for my printer to start printing after I've sent a page
over WiFi.
But good to know that the IoT will sometime be a rendering farm.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/27/2015 11:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Web hosting is the most obvious example. Music streaming, controlling
>> home automation - lots of IoT-related things, actually.
>
> Disturbing. You are looking to the future and I looked to the past.
> I must watch out for that.
Hehehehehe.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2015 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2015 11:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Web hosting is the most obvious example. Music streaming, controlling
>>> home automation - lots of IoT-related things, actually.
>>
>> Disturbing. You are looking to the future and I looked to the past.
>> I must watch out for that.
>
> Hehehehehe.
>
Just you wait. It comes to us all. :-P
Wait one.
Thinking about it. I'm glad that my time is when it is. I despair when I
see the way the world is going.
If I am asked what I want to be on the next turn of the wheel. I will
say. "A rock." And I don't mean St. Peter.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:36:08 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/28/2015 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2015 11:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Web hosting is the most obvious example. Music streaming,
>>>> controlling home automation - lots of IoT-related things, actually.
>>>
>>> Disturbing. You are looking to the future and I looked to the past.
>>> I must watch out for that.
>>
>> Hehehehehe.
>>
>>
> Just you wait. It comes to us all. :-P
>
> Wait one.
Waiting. ;)
But in technology, I see this all the time - IoT isn't a new thing,
really - I remember seeing networked coffee makers, VCRs, and microwave
ovens back in the 90's. It didn't catch on then, but the demo was pretty
cool.
The idea of on-demand programming was something I was first introduced to
by someone who worked at NBC back in the mid 90's as well. He described
pretty much what we see now with Netflix and other streaming/on-demand
video services.
> Thinking about it. I'm glad that my time is when it is. I despair when I
> see the way the world is going.
I think we all reach that point eventually.
> If I am asked what I want to be on the next turn of the wheel. I will
> say. "A rock." And I don't mean St. Peter.
I wouldn't have guessed that. Or maybe I would have. ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/10/2015 07:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/27/2015 8:31 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Qui-binary...?
>>
>> My mind is blown.
>>
> I know and I thought BCD was strange.
BCD is one thing. LSD...?!
>> As an aside, Hackaday.io seems to be full of people building computers
>> "from scratch", using only individual logic gates. One guy claimed to be
>> building a computer from nothing but 7400s...
>>
>> ....until you realise that he means the members of the 7400 family that
>> implement entire counters, encoders, decoders, latches, etc.
>>
>
> I hope he has a big power supply and lots of fans.
Heh, yeah, well...
>> It's interesting to me that the IBM 1401 appears to be a *real* computer
>> made only from discrete transistors. I'd always assumed that such a
>> thing would fill an entire warehouse. But it doesn't actually look all
>> that big...
>
> That is a media exaggeration. They were forever showing images of
> computer systems in enormous clean rooms with technicians in white coats.
> One company I worked for had an old PDP 8. It fitted inside a 19 inch
> cabinet. I only once opened the door to look at the guts. I then prayed
> it would never break. ;-)
I often wonder... like, how much did [famous obsolete computer] actually
cost? What did it physically look like? What were its technical
capabilities? It's very hard to gather a general overview of this type
of data.
For that matter, how many FLOPS can you get out of an Inter Core i7? I
have absolutely no idea; it seems very hard to find data for this...
>> Only just finished reading this.
>>
>> Man, that is some special brand of craziness, right there. Mental stuff.
>
> Funnily enough. His project reminded me of you. Did you not once write
> programs in PostScript or Printer Command Language?
PostScript. And it wasn't *once*. ;-)
Actually, I did start trying to write a PostScript *interpreter*, to
make debugging this stuff easier! It turns out the language has a lot
more edge-cases than you'd think though...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That raises the question. If Pov will not contemplate using a GPU. How
>> about using a printer to do some calculations? :-P
Oh God, think of the massacre...! O_O
> Using the printer as a coprocessor is a rather moot idea, unless you
> also include a scanner in the system design; there's no other way to get
> data from the printer back into the computer.
You know, PostScript does actually have file I/O capabilities. Sure,
I've never seen any system that actually *implements* them... but it
literally does have commands for reading and writing files, doing
terminal access, etc.
> You /could/ of course make a PostScript printer do some raytracing
> entirely on its own. But I was a bit disappointed by the computing
> performance of the printer I once used for generating a printout of the
> Mandelbrot set, so I'll probably not pursue this project any further...
The last printer I looked at was powered by a 200 MHz Pentium II. This
was in the days when the Pentium IV was considered obsolete... (We all
know parts never stop being used, they just move down the food chain.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/10/2015 06:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But in technology, I see this all the time - IoT isn't a new thing,
> really - I remember seeing networked coffee makers, VCRs, and microwave
> ovens back in the 90's. It didn't catch on then, but the demo was pretty
> cool.
HTTP 418: I'm a teapot.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324
Seriously. There is a defined HTTP status code for interacting with an
IoT teapot.
> The idea of on-demand programming was something I was first introduced to
> by someone who worked at NBC back in the mid 90's as well. He described
> pretty much what we see now with Netflix and other streaming/on-demand
> video services.
Some day, maybe I'll try that.
Ah, who am I kidding? I'll just sit here surfing YouTube...
(I'm still puzzled as to why YouTube can actually exist. But that's
another story.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2015 6:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Just you wait. It comes to us all.:-P
>> >
>> >Wait one.
> Waiting.;)
>
Your custom is important to us.
Please listen to this elevator musak...
> But in technology, I see this all the time - IoT isn't a new thing,
> really - I remember seeing networked coffee makers, VCRs, and microwave
> ovens back in the 90's. It didn't catch on then, but the demo was pretty
> cool.
>
> The idea of on-demand programming was something I was first introduced to
> by someone who worked at NBC back in the mid 90's as well. He described
> pretty much what we see now with Netflix and other streaming/on-demand
> video services.
>
If you read any amount of SF the infinite monkeys got there first.
Mobile (cell) phones excepted.
Strange how that got missed by everyone except Dick Tracy.
>> >Thinking about it. I'm glad that my time is when it is. I despair when I
>> >see the way the world is going.
> I think we all reach that point eventually.
>
So it seems. Just glad I'm normal in one aspect. ;-)
>> >If I am asked what I want to be on the next turn of the wheel. I will
>> >say. "A rock." And I don't mean St. Peter.
> I wouldn't have guessed that. Or maybe I would have.;)
You have a head start. :-)
I was talking about Edinburgh Rock. The best thing to come out of
Edinburgh, the road to Glasgow, excluded. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2015 6:08 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> I often wonder... like, how much did [famous obsolete computer] actually
> cost? What did it physically look like? What were its technical
> capabilities? It's very hard to gather a general overview of this type
> of data.
>
PDP-8 1965 $18,500 12 ~50,000 The smallest and least expensive PDP
http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/pdp8/faqs/
> For that matter, how many FLOPS can you get out of an Inter Core i7? I
> have absolutely no idea; it seems very hard to find data for this...
>
So it is.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/262886-28-core-gflops-benchmark
>>
>> Funnily enough. His project reminded me of you. Did you not once write
>> programs in PostScript or Printer Command Language?
>
> PostScript. And it wasn't *once*. ;-)
>
> Actually, I did start trying to write a PostScript *interpreter*, to
> make debugging this stuff easier! It turns out the language has a lot
> more edge-cases than you'd think though...
One edge-case is more than I ken.
I would ask what an edge-case is but then you would say that I can't
Google. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2015 6:11 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> That raises the question. If Pov will not contemplate using a GPU. How
>>> about using a printer to do some calculations? :-P
>
> Oh God, think of the massacre...! O_O
Think of the Amazon Rain Forests devastated as it outputs its
calculations to hardcopy.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
