History of ENIAC
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
May 21St at the Time, the EDSAC Used IBM 726 Three Small Cathode Ray Tube Börje Langefors Screens to Display the State of Its Announced Memory
it played tic-tac-toe (known as Noughts and Crosses in the UK). May 21st At the time, the EDSAC used IBM 726 three small cathode ray tube Börje Langefors screens to display the state of its Announced memory. Each one could draw a May 21, 1952 Born: May 21, 1915; grid of 35 x 16 dots. Douglas re- purposed one of them for his Ystad, Sweden The IBM 726 was the company’s game, and obtained input (i.e. Died: Dec. 13, 2009 first magnetic tape unit, where to place a nought or intended for use with the Langefors developed the cross) via EDSAC’s rotary recently announced IBM 701 ‘infological equation’ in 1980, controller. [April 7], the company’s first which describes the difference electronic computer. between information and data in terms of additional semantic The 726 utilized half-inch tapes background and a with seven tracks. Six were for communication time interval. the data and the seventh was employed as a parity track. Langefors joined SAAB, the Some tapes were 1,200 feet long, Swedish aerospace and defense could store 2.3 MB of data, and company, in 1949 where he IBM claimed that just one could utilized analog devices for replace 12,500 punch cards. calculating wing stresses. The need for more powerful tools The drive could write 100 became evident, and the only characters per inch on a tape Swedish computer of the time, EDSAC CRT Tubes. Computer and read 75 inches per second. the BESK [April 1], was Lab, Univ. of Cambridge. CC BY To withstand the system’s fast insufficient for the task. -
Early Stored Program Computers
Stored Program Computers Thomas J. Bergin Computing History Museum American University 7/9/2012 1 Early Thoughts about Stored Programming • January 1944 Moore School team thinks of better ways to do things; leverages delay line memories from War research • September 1944 John von Neumann visits project – Goldstine’s meeting at Aberdeen Train Station • October 1944 Army extends the ENIAC contract research on EDVAC stored-program concept • Spring 1945 ENIAC working well • June 1945 First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC 7/9/2012 2 First Draft Report (June 1945) • John von Neumann prepares (?) a report on the EDVAC which identifies how the machine could be programmed (unfinished very rough draft) – academic: publish for the good of science – engineers: patents, patents, patents • von Neumann never repudiates the myth that he wrote it; most members of the ENIAC team contribute ideas; Goldstine note about “bashing” summer7/9/2012 letters together 3 • 1.0 Definitions – The considerations which follow deal with the structure of a very high speed automatic digital computing system, and in particular with its logical control…. – The instructions which govern this operation must be given to the device in absolutely exhaustive detail. They include all numerical information which is required to solve the problem…. – Once these instructions are given to the device, it must be be able to carry them out completely and without any need for further intelligent human intervention…. • 2.0 Main Subdivision of the System – First: since the device is a computor, it will have to perform the elementary operations of arithmetics…. – Second: the logical control of the device is the proper sequencing of its operations (by…a control organ. -
Technical Details of the Elliott 152 and 153
Appendix 1 Technical Details of the Elliott 152 and 153 Introduction The Elliott 152 computer was part of the Admiralty’s MRS5 (medium range system 5) naval gunnery project, described in Chap. 2. The Elliott 153 computer, also known as the D/F (direction-finding) computer, was built for GCHQ and the Admiralty as described in Chap. 3. The information in this appendix is intended to supplement the overall descriptions of the machines as given in Chaps. 2 and 3. A1.1 The Elliott 152 Work on the MRS5 contract at Borehamwood began in October 1946 and was essen- tially finished in 1950. Novel target-tracking radar was at the heart of the project, the radar being synchronized to the computer’s clock. In his enthusiasm for perfecting the radar technology, John Coales seems to have spent little time on what we would now call an overall systems design. When Harry Carpenter joined the staff of the Computing Division at Borehamwood on 1 January 1949, he recalls that nobody had yet defined the way in which the control program, running on the 152 computer, would interface with guns and radar. Furthermore, nobody yet appeared to be working on the computational algorithms necessary for three-dimensional trajectory predic- tion. As for the guns that the MRS5 system was intended to control, not even the basic ballistics parameters seemed to be known with any accuracy at Borehamwood [1, 2]. A1.1.1 Communication and Data-Rate The physical separation, between radar in the Borehamwood car park and digital computer in the laboratory, necessitated an interconnecting cable of about 150 m in length. -
An Early Program Proof by Alan Turing F
An Early Program Proof by Alan Turing F. L. MORRIS AND C. B. JONES The paper reproduces, with typographical corrections and comments, a 7 949 paper by Alan Turing that foreshadows much subsequent work in program proving. Categories and Subject Descriptors: 0.2.4 [Software Engineeringj- correctness proofs; F.3.1 [Logics and Meanings of Programs]-assertions; K.2 [History of Computing]-software General Terms: Verification Additional Key Words and Phrases: A. M. Turing Introduction The standard references for work on program proofs b) have been omitted in the commentary, and ten attribute the early statement of direction to John other identifiers are written incorrectly. It would ap- McCarthy (e.g., McCarthy 1963); the first workable pear to be worth correcting these errors and com- methods to Peter Naur (1966) and Robert Floyd menting on the proof from the viewpoint of subse- (1967); and the provision of more formal systems to quent work on program proofs. C. A. R. Hoare (1969) and Edsger Dijkstra (1976). The Turing delivered this paper in June 1949, at the early papers of some of the computing pioneers, how- inaugural conference of the EDSAC, the computer at ever, show an awareness of the need for proofs of Cambridge University built under the direction of program correctness and even present workable meth- Maurice V. Wilkes. Turing had been writing programs ods (e.g., Goldstine and von Neumann 1947; Turing for an electronic computer since the end of 1945-at 1949). first for the proposed ACE, the computer project at the The 1949 paper by Alan M. -
The Advent of Recursion & Logic in Computer Science
The Advent of Recursion & Logic in Computer Science MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Karel Van Oudheusden –alias Edgar G. Daylight (born October 21st, 1977 in Antwerpen, Belgium) under the supervision of Dr Gerard Alberts, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: November 17, 2009 Dr Gerard Alberts Prof Dr Krzysztof Apt Prof Dr Dick de Jongh Prof Dr Benedikt Löwe Dr Elizabeth de Mol Dr Leen Torenvliet 1 “We are reaching the stage of development where each new gener- ation of participants is unaware both of their overall technological ancestry and the history of the development of their speciality, and have no past to build upon.” J.A.N. Lee in 1996 [73, p.54] “To many of our colleagues, history is only the study of an irrele- vant past, with no redeeming modern value –a subject without useful scholarship.” J.A.N. Lee [73, p.55] “[E]ven when we can't know the answers, it is important to see the questions. They too form part of our understanding. If you cannot answer them now, you can alert future historians to them.” M.S. Mahoney [76, p.832] “Only do what only you can do.” E.W. Dijkstra [103, p.9] 2 Abstract The history of computer science can be viewed from a number of disciplinary perspectives, ranging from electrical engineering to linguistics. As stressed by the historian Michael Mahoney, different `communities of computing' had their own views towards what could be accomplished with a programmable comput- ing machine. -
Analytical Engine, 1838 ALLAN G
Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine, 1838 ALLAN G. BROMLEY Charles Babbage commenced work on the design of the Analytical Engine in 1834 following the collapse of the project to build the Difference Engine. His ideas evolved rapidly, and by 1838 most of the important concepts used in his later designs were established. This paper introduces the design of the Analytical Engine as it stood in early 1838, concentrating on the overall functional organization of the mill (or central processing portion) and the methods generally used for the basic arithmetic operations of multiplication, division, and signed addition. The paper describes the working of the mechanisms that Babbage devised for storing, transferring, and adding numbers and how they were organized together by the “microprogrammed” control system; the paper also introduces the facilities provided for user- level programming. The intention of the paper is to show that an automatic computing machine could be built using mechanical devices, and that Babbage’s designs provide both an effective set of basic mechanisms and a workable organization of a complete machine. Categories and Subject Descriptors: K.2 [History of Computing]- C. Babbage, hardware, software General Terms: Design Additional Key Words and Phrases: Analytical Engine 1. Introduction 1838. During this period Babbage appears to have made no attempt to construct the Analytical Engine, Charles Babbage commenced work on the design of but preferred the unfettered intellectual exploration of the Analytical Engine shortly after the collapse in 1833 the concepts he was evolving. of the lo-year project to build the Difference Engine. After 1849 Babbage ceased designing calculating He was at the time 42 years o1d.l devices. -
Law and Military Operations in Kosovo: 1999-2001, Lessons Learned For
LAW AND MILITARY OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO: 1999-2001 LESSONS LEARNED FOR JUDGE ADVOCATES Center for Law and Military Operations (CLAMO) The Judge Advocate General’s School United States Army Charlottesville, Virginia CENTER FOR LAW AND MILITARY OPERATIONS (CLAMO) Director COL David E. Graham Deputy Director LTC Stuart W. Risch Director, Domestic Operational Law (vacant) Director, Training & Support CPT Alton L. (Larry) Gwaltney, III Marine Representative Maj Cody M. Weston, USMC Advanced Operational Law Studies Fellows MAJ Keith E. Puls MAJ Daniel G. Jordan Automation Technician Mr. Ben R. Morgan Training Centers LTC Richard M. Whitaker Battle Command Training Program LTC James W. Herring Battle Command Training Program MAJ Phillip W. Jussell Battle Command Training Program CPT Michael L. Roberts Combat Maneuver Training Center MAJ Michael P. Ryan Joint Readiness Training Center CPT Peter R. Hayden Joint Readiness Training Center CPT Mark D. Matthews Joint Readiness Training Center SFC Michael A. Pascua Joint Readiness Training Center CPT Jonathan Howard National Training Center CPT Charles J. Kovats National Training Center Contact the Center The Center’s mission is to examine legal issues that arise during all phases of military operations and to devise training and resource strategies for addressing those issues. It seeks to fulfill this mission in five ways. First, it is the central repository within The Judge Advocate General's Corps for all-source data, information, memoranda, after-action materials and lessons learned pertaining to legal support to operations, foreign and domestic. Second, it supports judge advocates by analyzing all data and information, developing lessons learned across all military legal disciplines, and by disseminating these lessons learned and other operational information to the Army, Marine Corps, and Joint communities through publications, instruction, training, and databases accessible to operational forces, world-wide. -
Ada Lovelace the first Computer Programmer 1815 - 1852
Ada Lovelace The first computer programmer 1815 - 1852 Biography Ada Lovelace Day I Born on December 10th, 1815 in London as Augusta Ada Byron Each second Tuesday in October is Ada Lovelace Day. A day to raise the I Parents separated when she was a baby profile of women in science, technology, engineering, and maths to create new role models for girls and women in these fields. During this day the I Father Lord Byron was a poet and died when she was 8 years old accomplishments of those women are celebrated. I Mother Lady Wentworth was a social reformer I Descended from a wealthy family I Early interest in mathematics and science, encouraged by her mother Portrait I Obtained private classes and got in touch with intellectuals, e.g. Mary Sommerville who tutored her and later introduced Lovelace to Charles Babbage at the age of 17 I Married in 1835 William King at the age of 19, shortly after becoming the Countess of Lovelace I By 1839, she had given birth to 3 children I Continued studying maths, supported among others by Augustus De Morgan, a math professor in London who taught her via correspondence I In 1843, she published a translation of an Italian academic paper about Babbage's Analytical Engine and added her famous note section (see Contributions) I Died on November 27th, 1852 at the age of 36 Contributions I First computer programmer, roughly a century before the electronic computer I A two decade lasting correspondence with Babbage about his idea of an Analytical Engine I Developed an algorithm that would enable the Analytical Engine to calculate a sequence of Bernoulli numbers, unfortunately, the machine was never built I First person to realize the power of computer programs: Not only used for calculations with numbers I Combined arts and logic, calling it poetical science Figure 3:Ada Lovelace I First reflections about artificial intelligence, but she rejected the idea Bernoulli Numbers Quotes I Play an important role in several domains of mathematics, e.g. -
Herman Heine Goldstine
Herman Heine Goldstine Born September 13, 1913, Chicago, Ill.; Army representative to the ENIAC Project, who later worked with John von Neumann on the logical design of the JAS computer which became the prototype for many early computers-ILLIAC, JOHNNIAC, MANIAC author of The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann, one of the earliest textbooks on the history of computing. Education: BS, mathematics, University of Chicago, 1933; MS, mathematics, University of Chicago, 1934; PhD, mathematics, University of Chicago, 1936. Professional Experience: University of Chicago: research assistant, 1936-1937, instructor, 1937-1939; assistant professor, University of Michigan, 1939-1941; US Army, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, Md., 1941-1946; Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, 1946-1957; IBM: director, Mathematics Sciences Department, 1958-1965, IBM fellow, 1969. Honors and Awards: IEEE Computer Society Pioneer Award, 1980; National Medal of Science, 1985; member, Information Processing Hall of Fame, Infornart, Dallas, Texas, 1985. Herman H. Goldstine began his scientific career as a mathematician and had a life-long interest in the interaction of mathematical ideas and technology. He received his PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1936 and was an assistant professor at the University of Michigan when he entered the Army in 1941. After participating in the development of the first electronic computer (ENIAC), he left the Army in 1945, and from 1946 to 1957 he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), where he collaborated with John von Neumann in a series of scientific papers on subjects related to their work on the Institute computer. In 1958 he joined IBM Corporation as a member of the research planning staff. -
The ABC of Computing
COMMENT BOOKS & ARTS teamed up with recent graduate Clifford DEPT Berry to develop the system that became S ON known as the Atanasoff–Berry Computer I (ABC). Built on a shoestring budget, the ECT LL O C simple ‘breadboard’ prototype that emerged L A contained significant innovations. These I included the use of vacuum tubes as the com- B./SPEC puting mechanism and operating memory; I V. L V. binary and logical calculation; serial com- I putation; and the use of capacitors as storage memory. By the summer of 1940, Smiley tells us, a second, more-developed prototype was UN STATE IOWA running and Atanasoff and Berry had writ- ten a 35-page manuscript describing it. Other people were working on similar devices. In the United Kingdom and at Princeton University in New Jersey, Turing was investigating practical outlets for the concepts in his 1936 paper ‘On Comput- able Numbers’. In London, British engineer Tommy Flowers was using vacuum tubes as electronic switches for telephone exchanges in the General Post Office. In Germany, Konrad Zuse was working on a floating-point calculator — albeit based on electromechani- cal technology — that would have a 64-word The 1940s Atanasoff–Berry Computer (ABC) was the first to use innovations such as vacuum tubes. storage capacity by 1941. Smiley weaves these stories into the narrative effectively, giving a BIOGRAPHY broad sense of the rich ecology of thought that burgeoned during this crucial period of technological and logical development. The Second World War changed every- The ABC of thing. Atanasoff left Iowa State to work in the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in Washing- ton DC. -
The UNIVAC System, 1948
5 - The WHAT*S YOUR PROBLEM? Is it the tedious record-keepin% and the arduous figure-work of commerce and industry? Or is it the intricate mathematics of science? Perhaps yoy problem is now considered im ossible because of prohibitive costs asso- ciated with co b methods of solution.- The UNIVAC* SYSTEM has been developed by the Eckert-Mauchly Computer to solve such problems. Within its scope come %fm%s as diverse as air trarfic control, census tabu- lakions, market research studies, insurance records, aerody- namic desisn, oil prospecting, searching chemical literature and economic planning. The UNIVAC COMPUTER and its auxiliary equipment are pictured on the cover and schematically pre- sented on the opposite page. ELECTRONS WORK FASTER.---- thousands of times faster ---- than re- lavs and mechanical parts. The mmuses the in- he&ently high speed *of the electron tube to obtain maximum roductivity with minimum equipment. Electrons workfaster %an ever before in the newly designed UNIVAC CO~UTER, in which little more than one-millionth of a second is needed to deal with a decimal d'igit. Coupled with this computer are magnetic tape records which can be read and classified while new records are generated at a rate of ten thousand decimal- digits per second. f AUTOMATIC OPERATION is the key to greater economies in the 'hand- ling of all sorts of information, both numerical and alpha- betic. For routine tasks only a small operating staff is re- -qured. Changing from one job to another is only a matter of a few minutes. Flexibilit and versatilit are inherent in the UNIVAC methoM o e ectronic *contro ma in9 use of an ex- tremely large storage facility for ttmemorizi@ instructions~S LOW MAINTENANCE AND HIGH RELIABILITY are assured by a design which draws on the technical skill of a group of engineers who have specialized in electronic computing techniques. -
Platform Systems Vs. Step Processes—The Value of Options and the Power of Modularity by Carliss Y
© Carliss Y. Baldwin Comments welcome. Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations Chapter 13 Platform Systems vs. Step Processes—The Value of Options and the Power of Modularity By Carliss Y. Baldwin Note to Readers: This is a draft of Chapter 13 of Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations. It builds on prior chapters, but I believe it is possible to read this chapter on a stand-alone basis. The chapter may be cited as: Baldwin, C. Y. (2019) “Platform Systems vs. Step Processes—The Value of Options and the Power of Modularity,” HBS Working Paper (January 2019). I would be most grateful for your comments on any aspect of this chapter! Thank you in advance, Carliss. Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to contrast the value structure of platform systems (e.g. a computer) with step processes (e.g. an assembly line). I first review the basic technical architecture of computers and argue that every computer is inherently a platform for performing computations as dictated by their programs. I state and prove five propositions about platform systems, which stand in contrast to the propositions derived for step processes in Chapter 8. The propositions suggest that platform systems and step processes call for different forms of organization. Specifically, step processes reward technical integration, unified governance, risk aversion, and the use of direct authority, while platform systems reward modularity, distributed governance, risk taking, and autonomous decision-making. Despite these differences, treating platform systems and step processes as mutually exclusive architectures sets up a false dichotomy. Creating any good requires carrying out a technical recipe, i.e., performing a series of steps.