28 May
1999
28 May
'99
6:35 a.m.
Here's an interesting announcement from the British Science Museum that
might interest some of the folks in the UK (Tony, now you can get a job!)
OPERATE THE BABY COMPUTER
Would you like to work on the rebuilt 'Baby' computer? This rebuild
of the original which ran for the first time on 21 June 1948 is on
display in the Futures gallery at the Museum of Science and Industry
in Manchester. The Museum needs help to keep the computer in
working order and to demonstrate it to visitors.
You should have some experience in and knowledge of electronics. An
interest in the history of computing would be desirable. You should
also be available once during the week for training and, if possible,
at the weekends for demonstrations.
You will join the Museum's volunteer programme and will receive
training on the computer's operation and maintenance, on its
background history and on talking about the computer to Museum
visitors.
The Museum is the only place where you can have this opportunity to
work with the first computer. You will be able to learn from the
people who rebuilt the computer and benefit from the experience of
explaining it to visitors.
If you are interested in helping, please contact Jenny Wetton at the
Museum, telephone 0161-832-2244, or email: j.wetton(a)msim.org.uk
---
What's funny is the state in the second to last paragraph:
"The Museum is the only place where you can have this opportunity to
work with the first computer."
Konrad Zuse might have a problem with this.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 04/22/99]
28 May
28 May
9:42 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1264 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990528/8db5dc64/at…
11:54 a.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Except that Zuse's Z3 also had random-access memory, just not for the
program. IIRC the Z3 had/has 64 data registers.
In fact (as Sellam might remember since this was presented at a speech at
last year's VCF) there is a way to give the Z3 random read-only access to
its program. The Z3 reads its opcodes from a strip of 35mm movie film; the
film can of course be looped together; most importantly the Z3 will _stop_
if it encounters an arithmetic exception. So the "only" work left is to
partition the program into sections and explode each arithmetic operation
into a conditional operation based on the current value of the section
counter. It's possible to do the exploding without causing any more
exceptions. I think the section counter needs to go in one of the registers.
Hans Franke might know more about this.
-- Derek
"The
Museum is the only place where you can have this opportunity to
work with the first computer."
Konrad Zuse might have a problem with this.
_At_ the musuem they advertise the machine as the first electronic
computer with random-access memory. I have far less of a problem with
that statement :-)
12:40 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1301 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990529/90402493/at…
1:16 p.m.
_At_ the musuem they advertise the machine as the
first electronic
computer with random-access memory. I have far less of a problem with
that statement :-)
Except that Zuse's Z3 also had random-access memory, just not for the
program. IIRC the Z3 had/has 64 data registers. I would claim that was 'faking' a random
access of a sequential access
store (in much the same way that you can address a particular block on a
TU58 cartridge, but tape is certainly a seqeuntial device).
You are right. But if one just wanted the effect, one could get it from the
Z3 -- well, get it after waiting a horribly long time for the program to
run, anyway. :)
-- Derek
28 Jun
28 Jun
8:47 a.m.
(Shure, not exactly new, but I'v still some 300 unread mails...)
It was implied (if not explicitly
stated) that the _program_ was in
random-access memory as well.
> In fact (as Sellam might remember since this was presented at a speech at
> last year's VCF) there is a way to give the Z3 random read-only access to
> its program. The Z3 reads its opcodes from a strip of 35mm movie film; the
> film can of course be looped together; most importantly the Z3 will _stop_
> if it encounters an arithmetic exception. So the "only" work left is to
> partition the program into sections and explode each arithmetic operation
> into a conditional operation based on the current value of the section
> counter. It's possible to do the exploding without causing any more
> exceptions. I think the section counter needs to go in one of the registers.
_At_ the musuem they advertise the machine as the
first electronic
computer with random-access memory. I have far less of a problem with
that statement :-)
Except that Zuse's Z3 also had random-access memory, just
not for the
program. IIRC the Z3 had/has 64 data registers. I would claim that was 'faking' a random
access of a sequential access
store (in much the same way that you can address a particular block on a
TU58 cartridge, but tape is certainly a seqeuntial device).
So when does fake start - in fact, almost any system views program
storage as sequential (unless a jump is encountered) - and when
using the look-trick on the Z3 I cant see a big difference compared
to lets say a modern CPU/RAM system, where you may need a real lot
of set up cycles if you want to access a different cell (shure, you
can argue, that the 'streaming' mode is just an enhancement to the
basic random access, but the architectures cange). When it comes
to a short jump (one or just a few memory words away), adressing
and skiping the locations inbetween might be the way of choice.
On the other hand: When is a device random ? What viewpoint is
to be taken - the CPUs view of instructions, or the memory view
of memory words (aka bytes in an byte wide memory) ? Depending
on that, the term 'random' becomes 'unscharf' (unclear/fuzzy/vague -
I can't find an exact translation).
Third: If random is 'unscharf', maybe sequential isn't ? So,
when is an (memory) access sequential - do I have to process
all the data inbetween, or is it enough just to address them ?
Is advancing the media (or a pointer) already a sequential
access ?
Third: Again: when becomes a device 'random accesible' ? I a disk
drive random ? First impression: yes - but if you come closer you'll
find just a bunch of sequential access: First, the heads have to move:
sequential, not random (and, depending of the technology, the tracks
have to be read to assure the possition) - next, the track has to be
read until the needed block is found (sequential - not random), and
then the block had to be read - no random actions at all.
And last: the media is rotating, so if we have assumed that
advancing the media is already sequential access, a disk is
performing a permanent sequential access.
Now, if we admit that different (CPU/Mem interface-)designs
are using different, more or less obscure ways to address
the program storage, Raul's Loop-Trick doesn't look _very_
strange.
Postscriptum: I don't try to put the Z1/Z3 where they don't belong,
and I know that there's a difference between them and a machine
_with_ conditional instructions, but the Loop-Trick pushes the
line again further - in fact, this is like the question where
(in biological, not biblical sense) lifeless nature and life
is diverted. Again, the gap is way smaler then we may assume.
Gruss
H.
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
9313
days inactive
9344
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
dpeschel＠u.washington.edu -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de