[HN Gopher] How the World's First Computer Was Rescued from the ...
___________________________________________________________________
How the World's First Computer Was Rescued from the Scrap Heap
(2014)
Author : 8bitsrule
Score : 59 points
Date : 2021-02-15 08:35 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| marcan_42 wrote:
| This is quite sad. It seems the person who was tasked with doing
| something with the panels they had quickly gave up on doing
| anything with them other than making them into a visual prop.
|
| It's not ENIAC any more, it's a bunch of DMX blinkenlights
| mounted on an ENIAC frame. If you're going to do that, what's the
| point of using the original hardware? That's just destroying it
| further.
|
| Making the whole machine work like it originally did is obviously
| not going to happen without, well, the rest of the machine. But
| we can fit a whole ENIAC in a fingertip these days. What _I_
| would have done is attempted to reverse engineer the logic of the
| available pieces, collected any existing documentation, and then
| made it _do_ something. Real calculations. Wire it up to a
| virtual reproduction of the rest of the machine.
|
| Sure, maybe there isn't enough existing documentation to do it
| faithfully. Maybe it would all be a giant pile of guesses. But at
| least it would be _computing_ something, even if it 's just our
| best guess of how it was supposed to work, instead of just
| flashing lights randomly.
|
| It just feels really sad knowing that not a single one of those
| vacuum tubes is actually performing any logic functions, the way
| they wired it up.
| aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote:
| Is there even a source for replacement vacuum tubes? I thought
| they burned out on a consistent basis.
| retrac wrote:
| Most vacuum tube computers used extremely common pentode and
| dual triode tube types as their primary logic elements; ENIAC
| made extensive use of the 6SN7 for example, which is still
| manufactured today for guitar amplifiers. One caveat is they
| were a subtype specifically burned in and selected for
| computer reliability, which is not done anymore obviously.
|
| For the types where that's not an option, surprisingly (at
| least to me), most tubes commonly used historically still
| have ample new old stock tucked away in warehouses across the
| US and Europe. There was no major problem finding all the
| tubes required to recreate EDSAC in the UK:
| https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-
| museum/2013/1/9/product... for example.
| jlg23 wrote:
| apparently there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tub
| e#Vacuum_tubes_in_th...
| crispyambulance wrote:
| I think it's really amazing to see old computers work. The
| Computer History Museum has managed to do that with some 50's
| and 60's era computers-- you can actually see them in action,
| teletype and everything.
|
| But it's really just a curiosity to have the physical machine
| literally running. It's merely a nostaghic artifact. We have
| photos, stories, documentation, and historians writing books
| and articles. That's what matters-- not the blinky lights even
| if they're running 70 year old "code" on an emulator or
| miraculously preserved vintage electronics.
|
| I think programming up an raspberry pi (or whatever) to run a
| mainframe emulator and hooking it up to old iron panels is
| something akin to building animatronic dinosaurs. It's great to
| do for some representative artifacts, but it can be overdone.
|
| Keeping the IBM 1401 running at the computer history museum is
| fine too. The room even smells great, it's a spectacle for
| geeks. It's feasible for as long as some old-timers can keep
| replacing the components that age-out. But at some point it's
| going to be a better idea to unplug the thing, remove the leaky
| caps, and keep the dust off it.
|
| It will be interesting what happens to VM's and Containers in
| the future. Are these things going to be preserved and
| displayed like a "brain-in-a-jar"? Will people in the future
| marvel at our convoluted code from 2020, our turgid (but
| quaint) frameworks. Will our API's be comparable to crazy
| victorian contraptions?
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| The ENIAC was not the world's first computer.
|
| Konrad Zuse's Z1 was first:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)
|
| Even if you want it to be electrical, not mechanical, then Zuse's
| Z3 was first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer)
| kleiba wrote:
| Wikipedia says that the Z3 was "electromechanical", though,
| while the ENIAC is described as "electronic".
|
| You can always play the "who was first" game if you just add
| enough distinguishing categories.
| Rochus wrote:
| Yes, the Z3 used relays and the Eniac used tubes. Relays were
| more reliable but slower.
| sebastos wrote:
| Without electronic speeds, it's kind of like inventing a
| printing press that's slower than writing by hand.
|
| The invention isn't much of an invention until the whole
| thing is electronic. Reading off a tape doesn't cut it.
| That's why, you'll notice, the entire computer industry
| bloomed out of the work done on the ENIAC. In other words, if
| your client had invented facebook, they would have invented
| facebook.
| alangibson wrote:
| The Manchester Baby was the first stored program computer. IMHO
| that makes it the first computer and not just a giant digital
| calculator.
| twic wrote:
| AIUI, the Z3 has no conditional branches. Without those, it's
| not much like a computer as we understand it. Rather, i think
| the Z3 is an "automatic calculator" - it can carry out a fixed
| sequence of operations, but it can't do arbitrary computation.
| In that respect, it is like the Atanasoff-Berry computer and
| the Harvard Mark I.
|
| The prehistory of computing has a bunch of really interesting
| machines like this (and Colossus, and early ENIAC really) which
| are technical marvels, but miss at least one of the key things
| which make a computer really a computer.
|
| People often focus on the electrical vs mechanical distinction,
| but that's a red herring. If you made a 386 out of Lego, it
| would still be a computer. Similarly, binary vs decimal is
| irrelevant.
|
| To me, there are three key characteristics:
|
| 1. There is a program comprising a sequence of symbols which
| are interpreted by the machine (so not Colossus or early ENIAC,
| which were controlled by plugboards)
|
| 2. There are symbols for conditional branches, or some
| equivalent construct, and the language is Turing-complete, or
| some practical projection of it (so not the Z3, ABC, or ASCC)
|
| 3. The program is stored in a memory which can be modified by
| the program
|
| Once you have those things, you can do anything. The first two
| points are the most important, but i think the third is also
| really significant: it is what allows things like operating
| systems and linkers to arise. If the first two are the
| definition of life, the third is the definition of
| multicellular life.
| ncmncm wrote:
| 3 is not necessary. OSes and linkers are not necessary. We
| did without for many years.
|
| The program should be in some kind of more-or-less
| addressable memory, to support conditional branching. That's
| all.
| retrac wrote:
| It's not necessary in a strict theoretical sense to be
| Turing complete, yes. But in practice? Most of the magic of
| modern computing is in programs which can themselves
| manipulate, translate, and even write new programs. Nearly
| all we've built up depends on that. You can only get so far
| in practice by flipping switches to encode binary numbers.
| twic wrote:
| No you didn't. You can't even write a bootloader without 3.
| All practical computers have always had 3.
| kleiba wrote:
| _it can carry out a fixed sequence of operations, but it can
| 't do arbitrary computation_
|
| This is incorrect. The Z3 is Turing-complete, as has been
| shown by Raul Rojas in 1998 [1]. It requires some hacking
| though.
|
| [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/707574
| twic wrote:
| That is a cool paper (and there is an unpaywalled PDF [1]),
| but what that it shows is not that the Z3 is Turing
| complete, but that a larger machine comprising a Z3 and a
| piece of sticky tape is Turing complete. The Z3 as built
| and used was not Turing complete.
|
| Moreover, the technique in the paper is purely a stunt. You
| couldn't do practical branching computation that way. It is
| definitely cool, but it doesn't change the fact that the Z3
| was a calculator, not a computer.
|
| [1] http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/inst/ag-
| ki/rojas_home/documents/...
| ff10 wrote:
| Obligatory comment that the Z3 was the world's first digital
| computer. Not sure what the "real" refers to in the headline, but
| it turns out that the Z3 was indeed Turing complete.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer)
| usrusr wrote:
| Who knows, perhaps if the minds behind Paperclip had been a
| little more data-minded:
|
| * today, Z3 might be considered "first real"
|
| and
|
| * today, we might be stuck writing code in a fossilized
| language lovingly called Plankalkul 58 by its inventors that
| had so much inertia back then that it stifled all further
| development in the 1960ies, with the result that all of our
| 2021 computing would be about as fresh as the 2021 B52.
| retrac wrote:
| > we might be stuck writing code in a fossilized language
| lovingly called Plankalkul 58 by its inventors
|
| Substitute ALGOL 58 and that's pretty much what happened. You
| can't trust those Germans with language design!
| jcranmer wrote:
| It's... complicated. The title of first digital computer can be
| argued to be ABC, Z3, Colossus, or ENIAC, and which one you
| give it to is going to be decided on the basis of how precisely
| you define "first digital computer." Given that there is also
| an element of nationalism to the decision (is the first
| computer German, British, or American?), it's not entirely
| unreasonable to suppose that the criteria is partially
| determined by the desire of whom to crown.
|
| Personally, I don't think the fact that the Z3 and the Colossus
| were discovered to be Turing-complete _long_ after they were
| last used should really qualify them for a title based on
| "first Turing-complete machine." The long time it took to
| establish Turing-completeness indicates that they weren't
| _designed_ to be Turing-complete, and that they are is more a
| reflection of just how low a bar it is to be Turing-complete
| than the capabilities of the machines themselves. In other
| words, I would submit that the phrase "first Turing-complete
| machine" should really be understood as "first _intentionally_
| Turing-complete machine. "
|
| Another framework that makes sense to understand is the role
| that the computers had on later development of the field. ENIAC
| _clearly_ has a massive influence, since it 's the one that
| spawned more recognizable computers as its progeny. The
| influence of ABC on ENIAC only came out much later (and is
| still somewhat debated). Z3 had little impact on the field
| later because it was on the wrong side of WW2. Colossus I
| believe did influence the Manchester machines, but this link
| was not known at the time because of the secrecy around
| Colossus.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Not sure what the "real" refers to in the headline
|
| We all know what they mean - they mean it was American.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| Well, Britain decided to hide everything behind the Official
| Secrets Act, which workers proudly maintained.
|
| And the US didn't, and here we are today on HN from
| California.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| > Well, Britain decided to hide everything behind the
| Official Secrets Act, which workers proudly maintained.
|
| Fun fact: GCHQ _still_ refuses to talk about some of the
| earliest computing work on Colossus and enigma decryption.
| I was quite surprised to hear this when I was on a tour of
| The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park[0].
|
| I hope that if/when they do decide to declassify that
| information that they'll hand it over to TNMOC.
|
| [0] https://www.tnmoc.org/ - It's well worth a visit so
| when they're open again post-COVID see if you can get down
| there.
| ncmncm wrote:
| GCHQ are embarrassed because they lost / destroyed it.
| "Refusing" is less embarrassing than "ooopsie!".
| sep_field wrote:
| do you have a source for this? I imagine you are right,
| but is there an interesting story about it you've seen?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| If you didn't know, you're been hell-banned for months.
| That's why so few people reply to your comments.
|
| But anyway, keeping something secret doesn't mean it didn't
| happen. And it's now public knowledge for anyone who cares
| to look outside the history of the US.
| hoseja wrote:
| Didn't know HN has shadowbanning.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| You have to have a certain level of karma to be able to
| see shadow-banned people. Otherwise... yeah not knowing
| about it is kind of the point, isn't it?
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > If you didn't know, you're been hell-banned for months.
|
| Of course I'm banned on HN - I'm not a leftist, right
| dang?
|
| I stand by what I say, and won't appease moderators.
|
| > But anyway, keeping something secret doesn't mean it
| didn't happen.
|
| My point was that Britain missed out on most of the IT
| industry growth because of the OSA. Instead that success
| went first to Boston, then SV.
|
| I do understand that all Britain has left is its past
| glory, which its citizens continually remind the US
| about, while we're busy doing.
| mellosouls wrote:
| _Of course I 'm banned on HN - I'm not a leftist, right
| dang?_
|
| Very unfair. As somebody who has regularly commented here
| against the excesses of the left, while sometimes the
| silent downvoting has often been telling as to the
| sympathies of some, the moderation has always been
| scrupulously fair.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > I do understand that all Britain has left is its past
| glory, which its citizens continually remind the US
| about, while we're busy doing.
|
| Not sure why you needed to turn snide there after I took
| the time to vouch for your comment and reply to you in
| good faith.
|
| You can be happy about making a success of current
| technology, without pretending what other people did
| before you never existed.
| Animats wrote:
| The Smithsonian had a few panels. They had a working counter. At
| one time, they had a visitor control panel where you could push
| buttons and watch it count. But in time they had to power it off.
|
| It's well documented. I once saw schematics. The counters really
| are decimal, with 10 tubes per digit, set up so that only one at
| a time is conducting. It's not even binary-coded decimal.
| oceanician wrote:
| Glad it was saved. Other early contenders for the 'first' title
| include the ones from Manchester:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Mark_1
| bmauchly wrote:
| ENIAC was the first general-purpose electronic computer. You can
| argue about "first computer" for years, as people have, but the
| term computer is not well enough defined to have one answer. (And
| as if battered monster reached out from the grave, the ENIAC just
| slapped down the Manchester Baby. Recent research by Haigh,
| Crispen and Rope has revealed that the ENIAC, not the Baby, was
| the first computer to run a stored program.)
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| In addition to ENIAC being built after the German Z1 (1938) and
| Z3 (1941), as others here have stated, it was also built after
| the UK's Colossus[0] (1943).
|
| If we're talking "first _real_ computer ", though, and depending
| on your definition of "real", the Manchester Baby[1] (1948) was
| the first stored-program computer. The Colossus and ENIAC
| machines all needed to be re-wired to change what computations
| they could make and the Z3's instructions came only from the
| input tape.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Baby
| mhh__ wrote:
| Colossus was (while extremely important and criminally
| underutilized after the war) not turing complete by itself.
| Animats wrote:
| Right. Colossus wasn't a general purpose computer at all. It
| was a key-tester, like a Bitcoin miner.
|
| The big problem in the early days was memory. ENIAC had
| nothing writable that could hold a stored program. IBM had
| electronic arithmetic in R&D before WWII, and that came out
| as a product after the war, the IBM 603 (1946) and 604
| (1948). Those were plugboard programmed machines with
| electronic arithmetic. Workarounds for memory cost,
| basically. Everybody involved recognized that with enough
| memory, they could get rid of the plugboards, but the
| hardware wasn't ready.
|
| Many memory devices were tried. Delay lines. (Slow, not
| random access) Williams tube electrostatic storage. (Big and
| expensive.) High speed drums. (Slow, not random access.)
| Finally core memory was developed, the first thing that went
| fast and had random access.
| kens wrote:
| Yes, the difficulty of implementing memory back then often
| isn't appreciated. Core memory was a really important
| technology for making the modern computer possible.
| (Everyone I've talked to who used Williams tubes mentions
| how unreliable they were.) As for ENIAC, it was upgraded to
| core memory (built by Burroughs) in 1953.
| fsagx wrote:
| <quote> In addition to ENIAC being built after the German Z1
| (1938) and Z3 (1941), as others here have stated, it was also
| built after the UK's Colossus </quote>
|
| Don't forget the ABC computer (1937-1942) which also pre-dates
| ENIAC
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff%E2%80%93Berry_comput...
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| > The Z3 [...] needed to be re-wired to change what
| computations they could make.
|
| Sure? Wikipedia says:
|
| > Program code was stored on punched film.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| Oops, yeah, you're right. I've updated my comment, thanks for
| pointing that out.
| alephnil wrote:
| The ENIAC was originally not Turing complete, and as you say,
| had to be rewired for each new problem. In 1948 it was rewired
| to a stored program computer, which made it Turing complete in
| the sense that it was essentially programmed to emulate a von
| Neuman machine. This made it considerably slower, but was much
| more practical, as it was now possible to change programs
| frequently. Previously it took weeks to do so. This
| configuration was used until it was retired.
|
| Betty Jean Jennings Bartik, one of the original ENIAC
| programmers was leading this work, which was one of the main
| reasons she got the computer pioneer award for in 2008. Better
| late than never I guess.
|
| https://www.computer.org/profiles/betty-jean-bartik
|
| The Manchester Baby was the first computer that was built to be
| Turing complete from the start.
| kens wrote:
| A few thoughts: The historian view is that ENIAC is the "first
| electronic, general purpose, large scale, digital computer" (with
| all those adjectives required). The paradoxical thing is that
| ENIAC is clearly the first in an important way, but it's really
| hard to nail down how. You really can't overstate the importance
| of ENIAC: it's the machine that triggered the construction of
| numerous other computers and started the computer revolution,
| while earlier systems had very little impact.
|
| Another paradox is that although ENIAC directly caused the modern
| computer, ENIAC was completely different architecturally from
| modern computers and missing most of the things you'd think of as
| necessary. It wasn't stored-program or really Turing-complete
| (although I think those properties are overrated). It didn't have
| RAM or even use binary or have instructions or programs in the
| normal sense. Even its inventors recognized that ENIAC's
| implementation was the wrong approach. But despite all this,
| modern computers are offspring of ENIAC.
|
| My view is that ENIAC's important "first" is that it was the
| first to show the world that computers were both practical and
| revolutionary, so much faster that it could solve entirely new
| classes of problems.
|
| As far as the Zuse Z3, the historian view is that the proof that
| it was Turing-complete "was an impressive party trick, but
| diverged entirely from the way the machine was designed, how it
| was actually used, or indeed from anything that would have made
| sense in the 1940s."
|
| If you're interested in ENIAC, the book to read is "ENIAC in
| Action: Making and Remaking the Modern Computer".
| heyuji78 wrote:
| If the internal workings will be simulated, why not just build
| fake panels that look like the original machine. The ENIAC can be
| emulated. A few years ago, they did a VLSI version of it. Why did
| they have to hack up the original hardware?
| bmauchly wrote:
| Parts of the ENIAC are in at least six different museums around
| the world. For ENIAC's 75th birthday (yesterday) I collected a
| short video from the curators of each.
| https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0IDvwajM_78t0VKt3tatNejX...
| The multiplier had a wild ride getting to the University of
| Michigan.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-16 23:02 UTC)