1 |
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Peter Humphrey |
2 |
<peter@××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> On Friday 29 June 2012 21:46:20 Grant Edwards wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Things have been going steadily downhill since the days of V7 on a |
6 |
>> PDP-11 with 256K words of RAM, a 20MB hard drive and uucp via dial-up |
7 |
>> modems for "networking". Real programmers didn't _need_ more that |
8 |
>> 64k of text and 64k data to get the job done. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Sorry, but that's just bloat. When I joined the software development |
11 |
> effort on the national grid control system in 1980 (I was the third of |
12 |
> three) we had two Ferranti Argus 500 computers, one on-line and one |
13 |
> standby, each with 32KB RAM (twice as much as the same machines had at |
14 |
> the newly commissioning AGR power stations); 24-bit word length with |
15 |
> hardware key switches on the control panel (holy of holies). The three |
16 |
> disks were 2MB monsters, three feet six tall, five feet long and eighteen |
17 |
> inches wide, with air filtering systems we were supposed to know about |
18 |
> but Never Touch. Each disk could be connected to either CPU under |
19 |
> software control. The displays were graphic stroke writers, as used in |
20 |
> submarines and other warships - none of that nasty raster technology. I |
21 |
> think the display drivers were more complex than the CPUs - all that D-A |
22 |
> conversion of multiple values at once. Can you imagine X and Y amplifiers |
23 |
> to drive a spot in a circle - and meet up? Then a display full of them. |
24 |
> Those devices occupied as much cubicle space as the CPUs. Oh, and there |
25 |
> was a third machine (you wouldn't call it a box) for software |
26 |
> development. Paper tape for program I/O - not punched cards I'm glad to |
27 |
> say. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> My boss was often called on to escort parties of power utility visitors, |
30 |
> mostly American, around the control centre. Their most common question |
31 |
> was "yes, I see the display drivers, but now where is your mainframe?" |
32 |
> Of course we didn't have one nor need one; we used subtle engineering in |
33 |
> those days rather than throwing money at the problem. That changed |
34 |
> later, but that's another story, and so is the use of PDP-11s in a minor |
35 |
> role. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Then the time came to replace that ageing technology. The man in charge |
38 |
> of the project complained to me once that, although he admired what we |
39 |
> were achieving, he couldn't freeze a user spec while we kept on making |
40 |
> the machine jump through ever-higher hoops. A proud moment for me - |
41 |
> there was still life in the old dogs yet, so why must they be replaced? |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Not now, but I'll tell you some day about my proudest achievement in |
44 |
> assembler programming. Perhaps also what happened at three a.m. after |
45 |
> most bank holiday Mondays. Cyril might not like me telling you though. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> As I said in the subject: OT. |
48 |
|
49 |
I'm going to put a reminder in my calendar to poke you about this. :) |
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
-- |
53 |
:wq |