Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #214308 > unrolled thread

A naked PDP11

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  A naked PDP11 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-16 13:11 +0100
    Re: A naked PDP11 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-16 15:06 +0000
      Re: A naked PDP11 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-16 11:28 -0500
      Re: A naked PDP11 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-16 17:42 +0000
    Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-16 16:24 +0000
      Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-16 13:49 -0400
        Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-16 22:20 +0100
        Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-09-16 20:29 -0400
        Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-17 01:01 +0000
          Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-16 21:56 -0400
      Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-16 11:12 -0700
      Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2020-09-17 04:15 +0000
        Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-17 08:14 +0100
        Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-17 11:29 -0700
          Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-17 13:49 -0500
          Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-18 11:48 -0700
            Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-18 17:08 -0400
    Re: A naked PDP11 Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-09-16 20:18 -0400
      Re: A naked PDP11 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-17 07:11 +0100
        Re: A naked PDP11 Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-09-17 11:26 -0400
        Re: A naked PDP11 Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2020-09-17 23:32 -0400
          Re: A naked PDP11 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-18 10:04 -0500
            Re: A naked PDP11 maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-09-18 16:44 +0000
            OT: sawing machines Re: A naked PDP11 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-18 11:22 -0700
              Re: OT: sawing machines Re: A naked PDP11 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-18 15:37 -0500
            Re: A naked PDP11 Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-09-19 02:24 -0300
          Re: A naked PDP11 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-18 11:49 -0700
          Re: A naked PDP11 David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2020-10-06 00:21 +0000
            Re: A naked PDP11 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-10-06 10:27 -0700
              Re: A naked PDP11 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-10-06 17:45 +0000
                Re: A naked PDP11 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-10-07 15:48 -0700
                  Re: A naked PDP11 Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-10-08 08:23 +0000
            Re: A naked PDP11 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-10-07 15:45 -0700
      Re: A naked PDP11 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-18 11:39 -0700
        Re: A naked PDP11 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-18 15:41 -0500
        Re: A naked PDP11 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-18 17:12 -0400
          Re: A naked PDP11 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-18 22:41 +0100
          Re: A naked PDP11 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-18 16:43 -0700
          Re: A naked PDP11 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-19 11:50 -0700
            Re: A naked PDP11 maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-09-19 19:06 +0000
            Re: A naked PDP11 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-19 15:30 -0400
            Re: A naked PDP11 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-20 10:47 -0500
      Re: A naked PDP11 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-18 11:41 -0700
    Re: A naked PDP11 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-22 10:07 -0700
      Re: A naked PDP11 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-22 15:39 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#214308 — A naked PDP11

I may have mentioned before (briefly, in passing :-)  ) that I
cut my teeth on a naked PDP11 in assembler and machine code during
a summer undergraduate internship in 1971. (45 minutes to load the
assembler via the 10cps tape reader of the Teletype  :-(  )

It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
radio broadcasting when the man-on-the-Clapham-Omnibus
(John Doe to the Yanks) knew nothing of electronics*****, and
certainly a decade and a half before electronic computers
were even considered. For most people (here in Brit, at least)
there were no telephones or motor cars.

What technical advances were made during that previous 49 years!

Perhaps even greater advances have been made in computing in the
next 49 years up till now such that those of us who were extant
in 1971 have now been described, somewhat unkindly, as dinosaurs.

Not during that internship, but in subsequent employment in the
same place, when the first Decwriter was delivered, the pallet
upon which it was attached was not some
conglomeration of roughly cut timbers but was a two sheets of
high quality 3/4" thick plywood. The pallet was scrapped and was
mde by me and the wife into our first bookcase which we still
have to this day.

I did have cause to panic on one occasion when the covers were off,
and I dropped a screwdriver onto the wire-wrapped backplane of the
DecTapes when power was applied. On another occasion, I was in the
processor box with a small screwdriver to adjust the clock that
drove the Teletype serial port.

***** I did read somewhere that the seminal background work
for the Field Effect Transistor happened in about 1910.

Is this post a wind-up?  Only to help your day go like clockwork! :-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#214310

gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes:

>It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
>49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
>radio broadcasting when the man-on-the-Clapham-Omnibus
>(John Doe to the Yanks) knew nothing of electronics*****, and
>certainly a decade and a half before electronic computers
>were even considered. For most people (here in Brit, at least)
>there were no telephones or motor cars.

I think the yanks would say 'Joe Sixpack'.   John Doe
is reserved for unidentified corpses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214313

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:06:52 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
>>49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
>>radio broadcasting when the man-on-the-Clapham-Omnibus
>>(John Doe to the Yanks) knew nothing of electronics*****, and
>>certainly a decade and a half before electronic computers
>>were even considered. For most people (here in Brit, at least)
>>there were no telephones or motor cars.
>
>I think the yanks would say 'Joe Sixpack'.   John Doe
>is reserved for unidentified corpses.

Sixpack is recent. John Doe was for anyone whose real name was
unknown. Even living people.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214314

On 2020-09-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
>> 49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
>> radio broadcasting when the man-on-the-Clapham-Omnibus
>> (John Doe to the Yanks) knew nothing of electronics*****, and
>> certainly a decade and a half before electronic computers
>> were even considered. For most people (here in Brit, at least)
>> there were no telephones or motor cars.
>
> I think the yanks would say 'Joe Sixpack'.   John Doe
> is reserved for unidentified corpses.

I seem to recall that 49 years ago "John Doe" was a much more
generic term than it is today.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214311 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

In article <rjsvdd$jji$1@dont-email.me>,
gareth evans  <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
>49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
>radio broadcasting ...

>What technical advances were made during that previous 49 years!

Well, the flip flop was invented in 1918 but for quite a while was
considered a curiosity.

There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from about 1945
to 1970. Since then you will have to look really hard to find anything
that isn't just working out the details.  Remember that Englebart's
Mother of All Demos, introducing us to windows and mice, was in 1968.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214317 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:24:12 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>In article <rjsvdd$jji$1@dont-email.me>,
>gareth evans  <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
>>49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
>>radio broadcasting ...
>
>>What technical advances were made during that previous 49 years!
>
>Well, the flip flop was invented in 1918 but for quite a while was
>considered a curiosity.
>
>There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from about 1945
>to 1970. Since then you will have to look really hard to find anything
>that isn't just working out the details.  Remember that Englebart's
>Mother of All Demos, introducing us to windows and mice, was in 1968.

But the first microprocessor shipped in 1971.  That's hardly "working
out the details.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214333 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:49:22 -0400
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:24:12 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <rjsvdd$jji$1@dont-email.me>,
> >gareth evans  <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
> >>49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
> >>radio broadcasting ...
> >
> >>What technical advances were made during that previous 49 years!
> >
> >Well, the flip flop was invented in 1918 but for quite a while was
> >considered a curiosity.
> >
> >There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from about 1945
> >to 1970. Since then you will have to look really hard to find anything
> >that isn't just working out the details.  Remember that Englebart's
> >Mother of All Demos, introducing us to windows and mice, was in 1968.
> 
> But the first microprocessor shipped in 1971.  That's hardly "working
> out the details.

	In a way it was even less because the microprocessor caused a
reprise of some early computer architectures until the circuit density got
up to putting state of the art CPU architectures on chip after which
smaller, cheaper, faster but nothing really new in the CPU (ok there's a
GPU too these days but there's nothing really new in there except scale).
At least until the core count started to rise, the very large core counts
are more than just incremental improvements there's some clever work in
there.

	I think one major area of understanding that has grown since the
1970s is distributed systems and the fault tolerance they require. I was
trying to pin down a date for two phased commit which I first came across
in the late 1980s being talked about as a new and exiting thing. There's
been a lot of work on atomic commits and group consensus since then. Then
there's all the store and forward on steroids stuff known as eventual
consistency.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214341 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:49:22 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:24:12 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, the flip flop was invented in 1918 but for quite a while was
>>considered a curiosity.
>>
>>There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from about 1945
>>to 1970. Since then you will have to look really hard to find anything
>>that isn't just working out the details.  Remember that Englebart's
>>Mother of All Demos, introducing us to windows and mice, was in 1968.
>
> But the first microprocessor shipped in 1971.

That shipped to the public. The first was the Central Air Data Computer
(MP944), used by the US Navy in the F-14 Tomcat jet fighter.
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214342 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

In article <gvj4mfhpvdfl280m5o5707dq52d7vu5udh@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke  <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Well, the flip flop was invented in 1918 but for quite a while was
>>considered a curiosity.
>>
>>There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from about 1945
>>to 1970. Since then you will have to look really hard to find anything
>>that isn't just working out the details.  Remember that Englebart's
>>Mother of All Demos, introducing us to windows and mice, was in 1968.
>
>But the first microprocessor shipped in 1971.  That's hardly "working
>out the details.

The idea of putting multiple components in one device goes back to
vacuum tubes in the 1920s. During the 1950s and 1960s, semiconductor
makers put increasing numbers of components on a chip each year, so
they needed fewer and fewer chips to make a working computer. In 1971
the number dropped to 1, but that was utterly predictable from what
had been going on for the previous decade. Sure sounds like working
out the details to me.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214343 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:01:45 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>In article <gvj4mfhpvdfl280m5o5707dq52d7vu5udh@4ax.com>,
>J. Clarke  <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Well, the flip flop was invented in 1918 but for quite a while was
>>>considered a curiosity.
>>>
>>>There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from about 1945
>>>to 1970. Since then you will have to look really hard to find anything
>>>that isn't just working out the details.  Remember that Englebart's
>>>Mother of All Demos, introducing us to windows and mice, was in 1968.
>>
>>But the first microprocessor shipped in 1971.  That's hardly "working
>>out the details.
>
>The idea of putting multiple components in one device goes back to
>vacuum tubes in the 1920s. During the 1950s and 1960s, semiconductor
>makers put increasing numbers of components on a chip each year, so
>they needed fewer and fewer chips to make a working computer. In 1971
>the number dropped to 1, but that was utterly predictable from what
>had been going on for the previous decade. Sure sounds like working
>out the details to me.


Call it what you want to.  It's more than "details".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214322 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <rjsvdd$jji$1@dont-email.me>,
> gareth evans  <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
>> 49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
>> radio broadcasting ...
> 
>> What technical advances were made during that previous 49 years!
> 
> Well, the flip flop was invented in 1918 but for quite a while was
> considered a curiosity.

Now, everyone wears them;-)

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214344 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:


>There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from
>about 1945 to 1970. Since then you will have to look really
>hard to find anything that isn't just working out the details.
>Remember that Englebart's Mother of All Demos, introducing us
>to windows and mice, was in 1968.

A friend noted his grandmother was born before the Wright
Brothers first flew, but lived to see Tranquility Base.

The times, they are a changen....
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214349 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 04:15:36 +0000 (UTC)
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:

> A friend noted his grandmother was born before the Wright
> Brothers first flew, but lived to see Tranquility Base.

	Neil Armstrong was 18 when Orville Wright died, they could just (but
didn't) have met as adults.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214360 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from
>> about 1945 to 1970. Since then you will have to look really
>> hard to find anything that isn't just working out the details.
>> Remember that Englebart's Mother of All Demos, introducing us
>> to windows and mice, was in 1968.
> 
> A friend noted his grandmother was born before the Wright
> Brothers first flew, but lived to see Tranquility Base.
> 
> The times, they are a changen....

Yes, if you think back on it. Someone who grew up in a house with no
electricity, running water, indoor plumbing or any form of transportation
not dependent on a horse lived to see all of that, two world wars, the
atomic bomb, jets and space flight.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214361 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:29:49 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>> There was a stupendous amount of progress in computing from
>>> about 1945 to 1970. Since then you will have to look really
>>> hard to find anything that isn't just working out the details.
>>> Remember that Englebart's Mother of All Demos, introducing us
>>> to windows and mice, was in 1968.
>> 
>> A friend noted his grandmother was born before the Wright
>> Brothers first flew, but lived to see Tranquility Base.
>> 
>> The times, they are a changen....
>
>Yes, if you think back on it. Someone who grew up in a house with no
>electricity, running water, indoor plumbing or any form of transportation
>not dependent on a horse lived to see all of that, two world wars, the
>atomic bomb, jets and space flight.

My mother, when she was a kid, would bicycle down to the blacksmith's
shop to get the battery charged for the radio. It used phenolic
headphones. Worked at the USO during WW2. Her brother went off to
fight, he came back. She lived long enough to have her own web site,
saw Halley's Comet, and the lunar landings. She also saw me survive a
hurricane at sea in the US Navy, get promoted, and finally wind up
with a good paying job repairing computers. And lived to see the
beginnings of this century.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214379 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 2:29:51 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

> Yes, if you think back on it. Someone who grew up in a house with no
> electricity, running water, indoor plumbing or any form of transportation
> not dependent on a horse lived to see all of that, two world wars, the
> atomic bomb, jets and space flight.

yes, I think of Eleanor Roosevelt who not only was born way
back, but came of age in a totally 'manual' world.  She
got to see it all come about, dying in the computer age.

They said she didn't like using the telephone, preferring
to communicate by letter.

For a short time NBC had old airings of Meet the Press On
Demand.  Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Nixon, etc.
from the 1950s.  Fascinating historical look.  The
interviewers asked tough questions, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214395 — Re: A naked PDP11 and not much new since

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 2:29:51 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Yes, if you think back on it. Someone who grew up in a house with no
>> electricity, running water, indoor plumbing or any form of transportation
>> not dependent on a horse lived to see all of that, two world wars, the
>> atomic bomb, jets and space flight.
>
>yes, I think of Eleanor Roosevelt who not only was born way
>back, but came of age in a totally 'manual' world.  She
>got to see it all come about, dying in the computer age.
>
>They said she didn't like using the telephone, preferring
>to communicate by letter.

She _was_ an inveterate letter-writer.  My mother had a couple from
her (now lost).

>For a short time NBC had old airings of Meet the Press On
>Demand.  Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Nixon, etc.
>from the 1950s.  Fascinating historical look.  The
>interviewers asked tough questions, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214340

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:11:18 +0100, gareth evans wrote:
>
> I may have mentioned before (briefly, in passing :-)  ) that I
> cut my teeth on a naked PDP11 in assembler and machine code during
> a summer undergraduate internship in 1971. (45 minutes to load the
> assembler via the 10cps tape reader of the Teletype  :-(  )
>
> It is salutary to muse that this is now 49 years ago, and that
> 49 years previously it was 1922, before the days of regular
> radio broadcasting when the man-on-the-Clapham-Omnibus
> (John Doe to the Yanks) knew nothing of electronics*****, and
> certainly a decade and a half before electronic computers
> were even considered. For most people (here in Brit, at least)
> there were no telephones or motor cars.

Had a similar feeling about Back To The Future. It was set (and on the
big screen for the first part) in 1985. Then they went back 30 years to
1955. 2015 marked the 15th anniversary. 1985 doesn't felt so different to
2015 regarding existing 1985 technology. But technology made a big leap
between 1955 and 1985.
-- 
Andreas

https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214346

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:18:45 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:

> Had a similar feeling about Back To The Future. It was set (and on the
> big screen for the first part) in 1985. Then they went back 30 years to
> 1955. 2015 marked the 15th anniversary. 1985 doesn't felt so different to
> 2015 regarding existing 1985 technology. But technology made a big leap
> between 1955 and 1985.

	Take a recent cellphone, throw a handful of movies on it (include
some Pixar animations) throw a 50" flatscreen smart TV in the back of your
DeLorean and head off to 1985 and see if *they* think technology has made
big leaps. Then tell them how much international bandwidth that phone
represents in 2020 and watch them cry over their 2400bps modem that is so
troublesome.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214357

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:11:14 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:18:45 -0400
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> Had a similar feeling about Back To The Future. It was set (and on the
>> big screen for the first part) in 1985. Then they went back 30 years to
>> 1955. 2015 marked the 15th anniversary. 1985 doesn't felt so different to
>> 2015 regarding existing 1985 technology. But technology made a big leap
>> between 1955 and 1985.
>
> 	Take a recent cellphone, throw a handful of movies on it (include
> some Pixar animations) throw a 50" flatscreen smart TV in the back of your
> DeLorean and head off to 1985 and see if *they* think technology has made
> big leaps. Then tell them how much international bandwidth that phone
> represents in 2020 and watch them cry over their 2400bps modem that is so
> troublesome.

That's just updates to existing technology, developed before
1990. Firescreens existed 1985, just not that big.

My guess is that the invention of the microprocessor was "the thing",
starting the (micro) computer revolution. That's 70s tech still used
today (just updated).
-- 
Andreas

PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web