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