"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.06.03.19.08.32.485000@nowhere.com...
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:26:41 +0930, Chris Burrows wrote:
>
>>
>>>They add software to make it convenient.
>>
>> Exactly! It is the computer's ability to process that 'convenient
>> software'
>> and communicate with the user with alphanumeric information that
>> differentiates it from a programmable calculator. A calculator accepts
>> numeric data, processes it and returns numeric results.
>
> So do a lot of computers.
>
Sure. But that is NOT what they are ONLY capable of doing.
>> a) What non-numeric information was the DAC-512 able to display to the
>> operator?
>
> Plenty of "real" computers don't have any ability to display *any* data to
> the operator. They just receive data from computers and send the results
> to computers.
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:26:41 +0930, Chris Burrows wrote:
>>>> But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a
>>>> calculator". I don't see what's missing.
>>>
>>> The 'alpha' out of 'alphanumeric' perhaps? As far as I can see it
>>> could only process numeric data.
>>
>> So? I know of no computers that treat chars as other than special
>> integer values.
>
> True but irrelevant.
>
>>They add software to make it convenient.
>>
>
> Exactly! It is the computer's ability to process that 'convenient software'
> and communicate with the user with alphanumeric information that
> differentiates it from a programmable calculator. A calculator accepts
> numeric data, processes it and returns numeric results.
So do a lot of computers.
> a) What non-numeric information was the DAC-512 able to display to the
> operator?
Plenty of "real" computers don't have any ability to display *any* data to
the operator. They just receive data from computers and send the results
to computers. Many supercomputer applications simply take arrays of
numbers as input and return arrays of numbers as output, with interfacing
to humans delegated to lesser systems. But I don't recall anyone referring
to Crays et al as "calculators".
> b) How would you define the difference between a programmable calculator and
> a personal computer?
Personally, I would make the distinction according to whether it can
execute unbounded loops. A conventional calculator either lacks loops
altogether or only uses bounded loops (i.e. iterating over the digits).
This makes them not Turing-complete (e.g. there's no halting problem, as a
bounded loop cannot fail to terminate).
Reply by Chris Burrows●June 2, 20092009-06-02
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A25D2D6.3FA73531@yahoo.com...
> Chris Burrows wrote:
>>>
>>> But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a
>>> calculator". I don't see what's missing.
>>
>> The 'alpha' out of 'alphanumeric' perhaps? As far as I can see it
>> could only process numeric data.
>
> So? I know of no computers that treat chars as other than special
> integer values.
True but irrelevant.
>They add software to make it convenient.
>
Exactly! It is the computer's ability to process that 'convenient software'
and communicate with the user with alphanumeric information that
differentiates it from a programmable calculator. A calculator accepts
numeric data, processes it and returns numeric results.
a) What non-numeric information was the DAC-512 able to display to the
operator?
b) How would you define the difference between a programmable calculator and
a personal computer?
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
Reply by CBFalconer●June 2, 20092009-06-02
Chris Burrows wrote:
> "Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> Chris Burrows wrote:
>>
>>> "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital
>>> Computer", it was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable
>>> programmable machine. At the time it was introduced (mid-1965),
>>> it was arguably the most powerful desktop electronic calculating
>>> machine available."
>>>
>>> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html
>>
>> But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a
>> calculator". I don't see what's missing.
>
> The 'alpha' out of 'alphanumeric' perhaps? As far as I can see it
> could only process numeric data.
So? I know of no computers that treat chars as other than special
integer values. They add software to make it convenient.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Reply by CBFalconer●June 2, 20092009-06-02
Chris Burrows wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Try: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/firstpc/>
>>
>> for a machine available in 1965. Floating point arithmetic.
>> Nested subroutines. Non-volatile memory. 1000 transistors, 3000
>> diodes.
>>
>> $9,000. Closest competition was DEC PDP11S at $18,000
>
> Not disputing the extent of your technical achievement here - but
> "First PC"? I thought the 1973 Micral was the leading contender
> for that title.
>
> http://www.feb-patrimoine.com/projet/micral/micral.htm
>
> "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital
> Computer", it was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable
> programmable machine. At the time it was introduced (mid-1965),
> it was arguably the most powerful desktop electronic calculating
> machine available."
>
> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html
I am prepared to argue that classification. I concede that it was
not a conventional computer. For example, it could invert
matrices.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Reply by Chris Burrows●June 2, 20092009-06-02
"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.06.02.13.43.20.188000@nowhere.com...
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:38:23 +0930, Chris Burrows wrote:
>
>> "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital Computer",
>> it
>> was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable programmable machine.
>> At
>> the time it was introduced (mid-1965), it was arguably the most powerful
>> desktop electronic calculating machine available."
>>
>> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html
>
> But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a calculator". I
> don't see what's missing.
>
The 'alpha' out of 'alphanumeric' perhaps? As far as I can see it could only
process numeric data.
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
Reply by Nobody●June 2, 20092009-06-02
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:38:23 +0930, Chris Burrows wrote:
> Not disputing the extent of your technical achievement here - but "First
> PC"? I thought the 1973 Micral was the leading contender for that title.
>
> http://www.feb-patrimoine.com/projet/micral/micral.htm
>
> "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital Computer", it
> was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable programmable machine. At
> the time it was introduced (mid-1965), it was arguably the most powerful
> desktop electronic calculating machine available."
>
> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html
But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a calculator". I
don't see what's missing.
Reply by Chris Burrows●June 2, 20092009-06-02
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A2475F2.36149E53@yahoo.com...
>
> Try: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/firstpc/>
>
> for a machine available in 1965. Floating point arithmetic.
> Nested subroutines. Non-volatile memory. 1000 transistors, 3000
> diodes.
>
> $9,000. Closest competition was DEC PDP11S at $18,000
>
Not disputing the extent of your technical achievement here - but "First
PC"? I thought the 1973 Micral was the leading contender for that title.
http://www.feb-patrimoine.com/projet/micral/micral.htm
"Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital Computer", it
was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable programmable machine. At
the time it was introduced (mid-1965), it was arguably the most powerful
desktop electronic calculating machine available."
http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
Reply by CBFalconer●June 1, 20092009-06-01
ssubbarayan wrote:
>
> Just was going through this video from Howstuff works and I got
> amazed by the invention of the Intel4004 in the companies earlier
> days way back in 1969.Quite a remarkable work I believe. Share
> your thoughts....
>
> http://videos.howstuffworks.com/intel-corporation/865-4004-intels-first-microprocessor-video.htm
>
> Just wondered how much technology has changed from those days
> till date....
Try: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/firstpc/>
for a machine available in 1965. Floating point arithmetic.
Nested subroutines. Non-volatile memory. 1000 transistors, 3000
diodes.
$9,000. Closest competition was DEC PDP11S at $18,000
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Reply by Paul Keinanen●June 1, 20092009-06-01
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:31:25 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
wrote:
>On 2009-05-31, Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com> wrote:
>
>> The iAPX 432 was elegant in some ways, though just about as
>> far from RISC as anyone's every gone, and not a commercial
>> success.
>
>It seemed very VAXesque to me.
VAX had a single 4 GiB virtual address space, but iAPX432 had multiple
variable sized address spaces for each "object", so IBM AS400 would be
a better example.
The 8086 had only four (up to 64 KiB) segmented address spaces (CS:,
DS:, SS:, ES:), while PDP-11 had up to eight up to 8 KiB virtual
memory segments.
>Not that the instruction sets
>lined up that exactly, but the feeling of "no matter what you
>want to do, it can be done in a single instruction." I also
>heard that it was intended specifically as an Ada target. I
>don't know if I believe that, but it seemed clearly designed to
>map well into high-level-languages.
For typical application programs, 8-16 bit offsets in a multiple
segmented environment is not a bad idea, however, accessing large
tables is a real PITA.
>It was also reputed to be extrememly slow.
Some urban legend claim that the slowest instruction took 1 ms, so the
processor could execute only about 1000 such instructions each
second:-), so no multiple kIPS nor MIPS.
Paul