21 Oct
2010
21 Oct
'10
1:54 p.m.
Something that's fun reading, in spite of the redactions is the 1986
National Security report on "General and Special-Purpose Computers: a
Historical Look and Some Lessons Learned":
http://tinyurl.com/2dt5egq (PDF)
--Chuck
21 Oct
21 Oct
2:09 p.m.
Something that's fun reading, in spite of the
redactions is the 1986
National Security report on "General and Special-Purpose Computers: a
Historical Look and Some Lessons Learned":
A similar study from 1964 circulated a couple of months ago, in case
anyone missed it. Might be interesting to compare.
http://www.governmentattic.org/3docs/NSA-HGPEDC_1964.pdf
De
5:23 p.m.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 14:09, Dennis Boone wrote:
A similar study from 1964 circulated a couple of
months ago, in case
anyone missed it. Might be interesting to compare.
http://www.governmentattic.org/3docs/NSA-HGPEDC_1964.pdf
One of the interesting notes in the sea of redactions in the 1986
document was the mention of the useful of the 77 (octal) instruction
on the CDC 1604. This is not something that I'm familiar with, as
it's not a used opcode on the standard 1604.
Was this perhaps the so-called "pop count" instruction? (count the
number of one bits in a word; seen as the Cxi Xj instruction on the
CDC 6000 series).
Will, you've got a 1604; do you know anything about this?
--Chuck
5000
days inactive
5000
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
drb＠msu.edu -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com