The AI-generated cat pictures thread
05-03-2011, 11:05 PM
#1074
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
I don't believe that it made coffee.
But it is really astounding just how much neat stuff those folks were able to do on what, by today's standards, were some astoundingly primitive machines. For instance, the Sixes had an 18-bit address space (and the high-moby / low-moby paging mechanism wasn't invented until the Ten) so the maximum memory on one was only 256k (where k = kiloword, slightly different from a kilobyte, but functionally similar) and most machines were configured with far less than that; RAM in those days was magnetic core- big, heavy, and obscenely expensive.
Performance-wise, a Six ran at about 0.25 MIPS. For comparison, the original IBM PC, running at 4.77 MHZ, did 0.33 MIPS. (The machine I'm typing this on tips the scales at a little over 4,000 MIPS.)
Anybody here think they can write a ball-catching routine in 256k on an 8086 machine? To me, that's a pretty damn big achievement. I'd love to know how much processing power the designers of that robot wasted to make it do the same thing.
And, since this is a picture thread, here is a PDP-6:
And here is the actual robot arm that caught the first ping-pong ball:
But it is really astounding just how much neat stuff those folks were able to do on what, by today's standards, were some astoundingly primitive machines. For instance, the Sixes had an 18-bit address space (and the high-moby / low-moby paging mechanism wasn't invented until the Ten) so the maximum memory on one was only 256k (where k = kiloword, slightly different from a kilobyte, but functionally similar) and most machines were configured with far less than that; RAM in those days was magnetic core- big, heavy, and obscenely expensive.
Performance-wise, a Six ran at about 0.25 MIPS. For comparison, the original IBM PC, running at 4.77 MHZ, did 0.33 MIPS. (The machine I'm typing this on tips the scales at a little over 4,000 MIPS.)
Anybody here think they can write a ball-catching routine in 256k on an 8086 machine? To me, that's a pretty damn big achievement. I'd love to know how much processing power the designers of that robot wasted to make it do the same thing.
And, since this is a picture thread, here is a PDP-6:
And here is the actual robot arm that caught the first ping-pong ball:
Reply
0
0
05-04-2011, 12:18 AM
#1075
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maryville TN
Posts: 878
Total Cats: 79
I don't believe that it made coffee.
But it is really astounding just how much neat stuff those folks were able to do on what, by today's standards, were some astoundingly primitive machines. For instance, the Sixes had an 18-bit address space (and the high-moby / low-moby paging mechanism wasn't invented until the Ten) so the maximum memory on one was only 256k (where k = kiloword, slightly different from a kilobyte, but functionally similar) and most machines were configured with far less than that; RAM in those days was magnetic core- big, heavy, and obscenely expensive.
Performance-wise, a Six ran at about 0.25 MIPS. For comparison, the original IBM PC, running at 4.77 MHZ, did 0.33 MIPS. (The machine I'm typing this on tips the scales at a little over 4,000 MIPS.)
Anybody here think they can write a ball-catching routine in 256k on an 8086 machine? To me, that's a pretty damn big achievement. I'd love to know how much processing power the designers of that robot wasted to make it do the same thing.
And, since this is a picture thread, here is a PDP-6:
And here is the actual robot arm that caught the first ping-pong ball:
But it is really astounding just how much neat stuff those folks were able to do on what, by today's standards, were some astoundingly primitive machines. For instance, the Sixes had an 18-bit address space (and the high-moby / low-moby paging mechanism wasn't invented until the Ten) so the maximum memory on one was only 256k (where k = kiloword, slightly different from a kilobyte, but functionally similar) and most machines were configured with far less than that; RAM in those days was magnetic core- big, heavy, and obscenely expensive.
Performance-wise, a Six ran at about 0.25 MIPS. For comparison, the original IBM PC, running at 4.77 MHZ, did 0.33 MIPS. (The machine I'm typing this on tips the scales at a little over 4,000 MIPS.)
Anybody here think they can write a ball-catching routine in 256k on an 8086 machine? To me, that's a pretty damn big achievement. I'd love to know how much processing power the designers of that robot wasted to make it do the same thing.
And, since this is a picture thread, here is a PDP-6:
And here is the actual robot arm that caught the first ping-pong ball:
sometimes simple can be good too.
Reply
0
0
05-04-2011, 12:30 AM
#1077
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Lastly, to keep up with the spirit of the forum, here is a naked man humping a PDP-11, which was the last series in the PDP family, and the progenitor of the VAX, one of the most popular large computers of the 1970s and 80s.
Reply
0
0
