Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[dwight via cctalk]

It was interesting, going looking at some of the youtube videos from some of 
the inventors.

It seems that the only reason it didn't have a machine writable program memory 
was cost.

It had the ability to do conditional flow and used an instruction decoder.

Previous computers were patched pieces like counters, adders, inverters and 
constants. Flow control was done with counters and data was passed to the next 
patch.

RAM was just becoming available with things like the William's tube. Otherwise 
RAM was a number of flipflops made with vacuum tubes. At two triodes per latch 
the cost per bit was quite high. A diode ROM array made sense.

The concept was there, only the implementation was different.

I was like that two with the thought of how the program was loaded but when one 
considers the leap from a number of patched elements to a cpu, the ability to 
have RAM loadable wasn't as relevant until until they got away from the 
Manchester architecture.

Dwight


Dwight


From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Paul Birkel via 
cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:52:15 PM
To: 'Noel Chiappa'; 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: Computing Pioneer Dies

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Noel
Chiappa via cctalk
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:00 PM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

> From: Brent Hilpert

> What about that little issue of writeable program storage?

Just to clarify my understanding of your position, is a system with a CPU
chip (say one of the 68K models) with only ROM not a 'stored program
machine'?

Noel

PS: You really should look at the book ("ENIAC In Action"), and not rely on
the articles; it's later, more coherent (not being split across a handful of
papers), and much more detailed (e.g. it includes the instruction set for
the
'programmed' version of the ENIAC).

-

Note that most of the BRL references in the three articles in the IEEE
Annals of the History of Computing are available online through DTIC.
Search using Google Scholar.

Unfortunately the referenced manuscripts located in private archives appear
to remain inaccessible to the general public.

Tables I thru III in the second paper, offering a set of side-by-side
comparisons for "ENIAC, EDVAC, and three other computers of the late 1940s"
are well worth contemplation.  The third paper puts a practical perspective
on the somewhat more theoretical perspectives of the first two papers. "1948
ENIAC" was a quite interesting reorganization/application of the computing
resources available in the "1945 ENIAC".

It looks like the somewhat less expensive paperback for "ENIAC in Action" is
due for publication in January.

Noel:  Does the book make any attempt to trace any technological/social
effects *from* the "1948 ENIAC" to other computer developments?  Or are we
to conclude that the "1948 ENIAC" was aa significant "existence proof" for
aspects of the First Report (and evidently quite productive as a
computational tool) but sterile with respect to direct progenitors and
impact on other computer developments of the late-1940's?  For example, do
they cite any evidence that either BINAC or early UNIVAC were other than
"from whole cloth" in nature?  Any of the "IACs"?  Perhaps more at the level
of "coding style/procedures" than hardware
architecture/design/implementation?

As an engineer, I like systems that "get stuff done" and the "1948 ENIAC"
certainly qualifies.

As a (computer) scientist I like what SSEM demonstrated and the fact that it
had direct (physical & intellectual) offspring.

As a practical person I like that the SSEM directly led to the "first
general-purpose commercially produced computer" (Ferranti Mark 1).

There's a lot to like in the span of 1945-1955!

-
paul

RE: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Paul Birkel via cctalk]

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Noel
Chiappa via cctalk
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:00 PM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

> From: Brent Hilpert

> What about that little issue of writeable program storage?

Just to clarify my understanding of your position, is a system with a CPU
chip (say one of the 68K models) with only ROM not a 'stored program
machine'?

Noel

PS: You really should look at the book ("ENIAC In Action"), and not rely on
the articles; it's later, more coherent (not being split across a handful of
papers), and much more detailed (e.g. it includes the instruction set for
the
'programmed' version of the ENIAC).

-

Note that most of the BRL references in the three articles in the IEEE
Annals of the History of Computing are available online through DTIC.
Search using Google Scholar.

Unfortunately the referenced manuscripts located in private archives appear
to remain inaccessible to the general public.

Tables I thru III in the second paper, offering a set of side-by-side
comparisons for "ENIAC, EDVAC, and three other computers of the late 1940s"
are well worth contemplation.  The third paper puts a practical perspective
on the somewhat more theoretical perspectives of the first two papers. "1948
ENIAC" was a quite interesting reorganization/application of the computing
resources available in the "1945 ENIAC".

It looks like the somewhat less expensive paperback for "ENIAC in Action" is
due for publication in January.

Noel:  Does the book make any attempt to trace any technological/social
effects *from* the "1948 ENIAC" to other computer developments?  Or are we
to conclude that the "1948 ENIAC" was aa significant "existence proof" for
aspects of the First Report (and evidently quite productive as a
computational tool) but sterile with respect to direct progenitors and
impact on other computer developments of the late-1940's?  For example, do
they cite any evidence that either BINAC or early UNIVAC were other than
"from whole cloth" in nature?  Any of the "IACs"?  Perhaps more at the level
of "coding style/procedures" than hardware
architecture/design/implementation?

As an engineer, I like systems that "get stuff done" and the "1948 ENIAC"
certainly qualifies.

As a (computer) scientist I like what SSEM demonstrated and the fact that it
had direct (physical & intellectual) offspring.

As a practical person I like that the SSEM directly led to the "first
general-purpose commercially produced computer" (Ferranti Mark 1).

There's a lot to like in the span of 1945-1955!

-
paul

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Evan Koblentz

> That's the dumbest thing I read today.

And that helped... how?

Noel

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Evan Koblentz via cctalk]

It's just another attempt to make an historical claim for the ENIAC, this time 
trying to steal the light away from the Manchester Baby.


That's the dumbest thing I read today.

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Brent Hilpert

> What about that little issue of writeable program storage?

Just to clarify my understanding of your position, is a system with a CPU
chip (say one of the 68K models) with only ROM not a 'stored program machine'?

Noel

PS: You really should look at the book ("ENIAC In Action"), and not rely on
the articles; it's later, more coherent (not being split across a handful of
papers), and much more detailed (e.g. it includes the instruction set for the
'programmed' version of the ENIAC).

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Brent Hilpert via cctalk]

On 2017-Nov-10, at 12:37 PM, Evan Koblentz wrote:
> https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary
>>> 
>>> I should point out there is a technical error in the Guardian. The Baby was 
>>> the first Electronically Stored Program in what today we would call RAM. 
>>> ENIAC had been configured in stored program mode earlier in the year and 
>>> had run a program stored in the function switches, e.g. ROM a couple of 
>>> months before baby. Despite the fact that when running stored programs 
>>> ENIAC's parallel processing features were not available, it was exclusively 
>>> in this mode from 1948 onwards. Note both machines are theoretically 
>>> "Turing Complete" but having only 32 words of 32 bits the Baby was not of 
>>> any practical use for a further 18 months whilst major surgery was carried 
>>> out to add extra store and instructions to the machine leading the 
>>> emergence of the Manchester MK1.
>> Funny, I didn't see a "technical error" in the article.
>> The best that can be said for your position is that you (and the 
>> ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd) have a particular opinion and definition regarding 
>> 'stored-program computer'.
> 
> Dave is correct.
> 
> Perhaps he should have said "over simplification" rather than technical error.
> 
> But what he wrote is well-documented. Tom Haigh and team of researchers 
> explained the origins and varying definitions of "stored program" in their 
> paper which you can freely read at 
> http://eniacinaction.com/the-articles/1-reconsidering-the-stored-program-concept/.
>  Tom, I'll point out, is British.

And a team of researchers, eh? Wow.

The Haigh, et al article (3 parts) does not disprove the Manchester Baby as the 
first stored-program machine, nor claim to do so.
And it neither shows nor claims the 48 ENIAC to be the first stored-program 
machine.
Well, it doesn't explicitly make the claims, but it is rather curious that 
people interpret it as doing so.

Quote from the article [pg5]:
Should ENIAC therefore be considered the first operational 
stored-program computer?
Well, it all depends on what we mean by “stored program.”

Which is what I said earlier.

The article proclaims a set of criteria they call the "modern code paradigm" and
claims the 48 ENIAC as the first machine to have fulfilled their criteria.

Quote [pg13]:
As we explained earlier, we do not view the modern code 
paradigm as a new name
for the “stored program concept”.

Using the article to make a claim vis-a-vis "stored program" for the 48 ENIAC 
as disproving the Baby's widely regarded status
is conflating the "stored-program concept" with some other meaning of "stored 
program", or creating your own definition
of "stored-program concept", and misrepresenting the (stated) claims of the 
article.


> Thanks to their research, there is no longer any gray area.
> ENIAC stored a program in what's now known as ROM, and very soon after the 
> Baby stored a program in what's now known as RAM.
> The timeline and facts are very clear.

The Harvard Mark I stored programs, as a sequence of instructions recorded in a 
storage medium,
and automatically executed them while reading from that medium, several years 
ahead of the 48 ENIAC,
not to mention the conceptualisation of such for the Analytical Engine.

That's not what you meant about storing a program? You mean you have other 
defining qualifiers?
Harken yonder! I see grey clouds on the horizon.


On 2017-Nov-10, at 6:16 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
>> From: Brent Hilpert
> 
>> The best that can be said for your position is that you (and the
>> ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd) have a particular opinion and definition
>> regarding 'stored-program computer'.
> 
> I'm harly a member of the "ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd" (in fact, I used to not
> have a good impression of them at all), but I thought Haigh et al made a
> pretty good case.


The article (or the latter parts) are an interesting examination of the 48 
ENIAC and it's programming.

As a claim of historical consequence for the 48 ENIAC however, it's just too 
much contrivance.

Here's an alternative abstract:
We look at the etymology of the phrase "stored program" and decide it's 
all so confusing,
so we dismiss all the previous historical assessments [pg8-11].
We note as others have that declaring firsts in history is problematic 
as it inevitably comes
down to providing a string of qualifying descriptors [pg9].
To avoid these problems, we define a set of conceptual elements from the
Draft Report on the EDVAC, to form a new set of criteria of assessment.
We call this set of criteria the "modern code paradigm" [pg12].
We find that the 48 ENIAC fulfills our set of criteria.
We now declare the 48 ENIAC to have been the first machine to fulfill 
the modern code paradigm [pg15].
(See page-long string of qualifying descriptors 

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Sam O'nella via cctalk]

Can ya blame him? Back in his day 2s were *real* 2s.. bigger and tougher. You 
try and add 'em up, assuming they'd stay still long enough and stop wrastlin' 
with ya and who knows how big they'd be.
 Original message From: Evan Koblentz via cctalk 

My own father does this and it drives me crazy. I'll say, "2+2=4" and 
he'll say, "I believe it's 5" ... DAD IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU 
FRIGGING BELIEVE, 2 PLUS 2 IS STILL 4!!

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Curious Marc via cctalk]

Fascinating talk
Marc

On Nov 10, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Jason T via cctalk  wrote:

>> I'm harly a member of the "ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd" (in fact, I used to not
>> have a good impression of them at all), but I thought Haigh et al made a
>> pretty good case.
> 
> Here's Prof. Haigh speaking on ENIAC at VCFMW last year:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O0pKPzJjEY

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Evan Koblentz via cctalk]

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary


I should point out there is a technical error in the Guardian. The Baby was the first 
Electronically Stored Program in what today we would call RAM. ENIAC had been configured 
in stored program mode earlier in the year and had run a program stored in the function 
switches, e.g. ROM a couple of months before baby. Despite the fact that when running 
stored programs ENIAC's parallel processing features were not available, it was 
exclusively in this mode from 1948 onwards. Note both machines are theoretically 
"Turing Complete" but having only 32 words of 32 bits the Baby was not of any 
practical use for a further 18 months whilst major surgery was carried out to add extra 
store and instructions to the machine leading the emergence of the Manchester MK1.


Funny, I didn't see a "technical error" in the article.

The best that can be said for your position is that you (and the 
ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd) have a particular opinion and definition regarding 
'stored-program computer'.



Dave is correct.

Perhaps he should have said "over simplification" rather than technical 
error.


But what he wrote is well-documented. Tom Haigh and team of researchers 
explained the origins and varying definitions of "stored program" in 
their paper which you can freely read at 
http://eniacinaction.com/the-articles/1-reconsidering-the-stored-program-concept/. 
Tom, I'll point out, is British.


Thanks to their research, there is no longer any gray area. ENIAC stored 
a program in what's now known as ROM, and very soon after the Baby 
stored a program in what's now known as RAM. The timeline and facts are 
very clear.


As I mentioned to Dave privately, this epitomizes why I wish people 
would discuss computer history in terms of "generations" not "firsts".


I banned the "F" word in the VCFed museum. :)

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Jason T via cctalk]

> I'm harly a member of the "ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd" (in fact, I used to not
> have a good impression of them at all), but I thought Haigh et al made a
> pretty good case.

Here's Prof. Haigh speaking on ENIAC at VCFMW last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O0pKPzJjEY

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Dave Wade

> ENIAC had been configured in stored program mode earlier in the year
> and had run a program stored in the function switches, e.g. ROM
> ...
> Despite the fact that when running stored programs ENIAC's parallel
> processing features were not available, it was exclusively in this mode
> from 1948 onwards.

This may have been mentioned here already, but if not, there's a good new
book out which covers this phase of ENIAC's existence in considerable detail:

  Thomas Haigh, Mark Priestley, and Crispin Rope, "ENIAC In Action: Making and
Remaking the Modern Computer", MIT Press, Cambridge, 2016

It's a very interesting and well-done book; I highly recommend it.


> From: Brent Hilpert

> The best that can be said for your position is that you (and the
> ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd) have a particular opinion and definition
> regarding 'stored-program computer'.

I'm harly a member of the "ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd" (in fact, I used to not
have a good impression of them at all), but I thought Haigh et al made a
pretty good case.

Noel

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Brent Hilpert via cctalk]

On 2017-Nov-10, at 9:35 AM, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Brian L. Stuart [mailto:blstu...@bellsouth.net]
>> Sent: 10 November 2017 15:45
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> <cctalk@classiccmp.org>; Dave Wade <dave.g4...@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: Computing Pioneer Dies
>> 
>> On Fri, 11/10/17, Dave Wade via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary
>> 
> 
> I should point out there is a technical error in the Guardian. The Baby was 
> the first Electronically Stored Program in what today we would call RAM. 
> ENIAC had been configured in stored program mode earlier in the year and had 
> run a program stored in the function switches, e.g. ROM a couple of months 
> before baby. Despite the fact that when running stored programs ENIAC's 
> parallel processing features were not available, it was exclusively in this 
> mode from 1948 onwards. Note both machines are theoretically "Turing 
> Complete" but having only 32 words of 32 bits the Baby was not of any 
> practical use for a further 18 months whilst major surgery was carried out to 
> add extra store and instructions to the machine leading the emergence of the 
> Manchester MK1. 

Funny, I didn't see a "technical error" in the article.

The best that can be said for your position is that you (and the 
ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd) have a particular opinion and definition regarding 
'stored-program computer'.

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Aaron Jackson via cctalk]

A few years back I wanted to study at Manchester uni, primarily so I
could apply to be a demonstrator for the SSEM.

Sad news.


Dave Wade via cctalk writes:

> https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary
>
>  
>
> Dave Wade
>
> G4UGM & EA7KAE
>
>  


-- 
Aaron Jackson
PhD Student, Computer Vision Laboratory, Uni of Nottingham
http://aaronsplace.co.uk

RE: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Dave Wade via cctalk]

> -Original Message-
> From: Brian L. Stuart [mailto:blstu...@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: 10 November 2017 15:45
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org>; Dave Wade <dave.g4...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Computing Pioneer Dies
> 
> On Fri, 11/10/17, Dave Wade via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> 
> > https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary
> 

I should point out there is a technical error in the Guardian. The Baby was the 
first Electronically Stored Program in what today we would call RAM. ENIAC had 
been configured in stored program mode earlier in the year and had run a 
program stored in the function switches, e.g. ROM a couple of months before 
baby. Despite the fact that when running stored programs ENIAC's parallel 
processing features were not available, it was exclusively in this mode from 
1948 onwards. Note both machines are theoretically "Turing Complete" but having 
only 32 words of 32 bits the Baby was not of any practical use for a further 18 
months whilst major surgery was carried out to add extra store and instructions 
to the machine leading the emergence of the Manchester MK1. 

> This raises the question, is there anyone still alive from those 
> first-generation
> projects?  I had guessed that at age 101, Harry Husky was the last one still
> alive when he passed away earlier this year.  To put a finer point on the
> question, is anyone who was involved with the original designs of the ENIAC,
> the Baby, the EDSAC, the Pilot ACE, the Z1, or the Harvard Mark I still with 
> us?

Whilst I am not sure that any of the designers are still alive, I am sure that 
there are perhaps one or two who physically worked on the machine still with 
us. 

> 
> BLS

Dave

Re: Computing Pioneer Dies

[Brian L. Stuart via cctalk]

On Fri, 11/10/17, Dave Wade via cctalk  wrote:

> https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary

This raises the question, is there anyone still alive from those
first-generation projects?  I had guessed that at age 101, Harry
Husky was the last one still alive when he passed away earlier
this year.  To put a finer point on the question, is anyone who
was involved with the original designs of the ENIAC, the Baby,
the EDSAC, the Pilot ACE, the Z1, or the Harvard Mark I still
with us?

BLS

Computing Pioneer Dies

[Dave Wade via cctalk]

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary

 

Dave Wade

G4UGM & EA7KAE