Slashdot Mirror


50 Year Old Computer Still Going

The Angry Mick writes "Geek.com is running a blurb on a 50 year old CSIRAC computer that is apparently still functional, if lurking in an Australian museum. Sporting a whopping 2K of RAM and screaming along at a blistering 300 khz(!) it proves the adage that they really don't make 'em like they used to . . ." Yes, because if they did, they'd be really, really slow.

26 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine... by Russellkhan · · Score: 5, Funny

    A Beowuld cluster of- oh never mind, where would you fit it?

    --
    Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
  2. built to last by nath_o_brien · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and linking that to yesterday's discussion about the lack of quality these days, i bet we won't have any/many of today's computers around in another 50 years time... or 50 days for some of them...

    --
    - Welcome the coming of the New World Odour
    1. Re:built to last by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...i have no doubt that i will be married and with children before my 12 yr old 486-33 hits the dumpster...

      Haven't been married before have you? (Pictures of ex wife seeing my junky old 486 sitting in the corner and exclaiming, "What's that???" flash through my mind) Basically you can kiss anything over 10 years old goodbye (with the possible exception of family heirlooms studded with diamonds).

  3. Running eh? by Fizzl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By reading the horde of nested articles, I got the impression that the machine hasn't run in decades, and probably would not if powered.



    Correct me if I'm wrong. But please quote a piece that says it is actually running now.

    1. Re:Running eh? by Fizzl · · Score: 5, Informative

      The original source even says it cannot run.
      It was the hairbrained TheInquirer article writer who somehow got the impression that it was still running.

    2. Re:Running eh? by Epsillon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Someone's comment, your quote. It's actually more likely that if they were to power it up/were powering it up, they apply voltage gradually to allow the electrolytic capacitors to re-form and the getter rings/compounds in the thermionic devices to restore vacuum.

      It's not unusual for thermionic equipment to survive long periods of time without use. There is still radio equipment from this era running strongly in museums and private collections and, dare I say, in everyday use. The odd capacitor may fail short once in a while, resistors may fail _high_ (they gradually increase resistance with time - a knownphenomenon) or valves/tubes may lose a heater or go "soft" but I think it's stretching the imagination somewhat to expect it to burst into flames.

      Incidentally, designers from this era often made their chassis live (high potential with respect to ground) so the only thing I'd expect to catch fire would be the young PFY geek leaning on it to get a better view of the thermionics powering up and starting to glow...;o)

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
  4. CSIRAC played the world's first computer music by jki · · Score: 5, Informative
    From here: CSIRAC's first programmer, Geoff Hill, came from a musical family and he programmed the computer to play popular musical melodies which could be heard through a loudspeaker originally installed for a quite different purpose - to indicate with audible "beeps" when particular points of interest in the program had been reached.

    Not bad for a living dinosaur. Listen to it yourself :)

  5. lies, all lies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's not running anymore, as stated here:

    Sadly, it's not an option to make CSIRAC operational again today. Time has taken a toll on this fragile dinosaur.

    So what exactly would happen if anyone tried to relive the magic by switching it on?

    "A lot of its components would not stand having voltages applied to them again," says Thorne. "I think it would probably catch fire."

  6. These computers are not to be laughed at by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It does annoy me that people , even though its in good humour , snigger at these old machines with their "paltry" 2K memory and slow speed. Yeah , sure they're not exactly a Cray. But look at what was done with this one. Skyscraper design , cloud droplet simulation, antenna design! Lets see even the best programmers used to point and drool GUI interfaces and hand holding wizards try and do that in 2K now using little more than paper tape! The people who designed, built and programmed these machines REALLY knew what they were doing and probably forgot more about efficient programming and code compression than todays "top" coders ever knew in the first place.

    1. Re:These computers are not to be laughed at by Krokus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Lets see even the best programmers used to point and drool GUI interfaces and hand holding wizards try and do that in 2K now using little more than paper tape! The people who designed, built and programmed these machines REALLY knew what they were doing

      I'm pretty sure they would not have snubbed their nose at the idea of being given a machine that had a GUI interface and piles of RAM and storage. Oh, to be able to focus on the problem at hand and not have to be distracted by the limitations of a 64 byte stack!

      To belittle the programmers of today because they have not suffered the restrictions of yesteryear is a bit silly. Even today, there are embedded systems programmers who still deal with such restrictions. Do we elevate them to deity status? No, we just sit back and wait for Carmack to speak.

    2. Re:These computers are not to be laughed at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah? Well at least you HAD ones. We had to make do with zeros. Ever code in unary?

    3. Re:These computers are not to be laughed at by fusiongyro · · Score: 5, Insightful
      To back up the parent of the previous post, I know someone who has been programming since the late sixties or early seventies. While that may not be quite 50 years ago, it certainly means he has had some experience with tape storage, even punch card FORTRAN initially, and probably worse though he doesn't talk about it very often.

      What does he do now? He is still an application writer, his language of choice being Python and his file format of choice being XML. Frankly, I think this is quite telling: his opinion if I understand it correctly is that since we have the power, we shouldn't waste time writing things lower level than necessary. By using Python and XML he's far, far removed from the ordinary perils of yesteryear like memory management, pure procedural programming, even memory and disk size limitations.

      And frankly, while those things are difficult to deal with, they're also very rote and don't leave much expression to the software engineer. People who favor C and to some extent C++ usually admit that there is some pleasure in the sheer amount of control in using the language; it's my opinion that people using Perl, Python and to some extent Java are the people reading books with "Practical" or "Design" in the title, and that's really a better way to do things.

      In reply I would merely point you to the bloatware that exists today on all systems. You call that the work of efficient (read good) coders? I don't.

      It's an easy attack to make, with some degree of merit. The qualifications for being a coder these days are certainly less strict than they were at one time. However, the observation of the post you were replying to was that the older systems had less to do than modern ones. When you resize your browser window you're doing an operation that, as far as a 386 would be concerned, is non-trivial. Add to that the sheer size of the parsed webpage which generates the pretty view you see, and you've got yourself a lot of graphical things to do, and a huge datastructure in RAM. This is not the kind of problem that can be solved simply by being able to manually manage memory from assembler. This is the kind of problem that requires an intelligent design from the get-go, so that optimizations can be placed in the places where they are required as needed.

      Bloatware? Probably. People who needed computers for whatever reason seemed to be getting along with them just fine without GUIs, or multiprocessing, or realtime 3D games. All of these additions is going to consume resources both when written and when used. I won't argue with you that Windows would have been better if it were based on a clean design. Clearly it would have, and on Linux we now have many desktop systems based on (if not a good deal more forethought) at least the trial-and-error process that produced the early GUIs done with a faster turnaround. Unfortunately, the users have come to rely on GUIs, pretty widgets, and browsers that resize. If they were not, perhaps we could cut down on the code quite a bit.

      Also, one thing about my friend I mentioned earlier: while his code is extremely well-designed, he seems to have a fundamental lack of understanding of ideas such as UI design and concurrency. None of his programs as far as I have seen have used threading, even the GUI ones, and the few GUI programs I have seen were beyond the ugliness I expect from TK. He wrote an abstraction layer for a database that implemented foreign key constraints, and was at a bit of a loss when I first tried to explain to him that it wouldn't carry over necessarily if multiple copies of his application were running simultaneously. So we all have these problems, and we all try to get better.

      If you want to see well designed and implemented code, I recommend you pick up a copy of BeOS. By sacrificing backwards compatibility, they managed to create an operating system from scratch based on object-oriented principals. It's quite amazing when you realize the things that you could do with it that you couldn't do with Windows, yet it was a tiny fraction of the size of Windows when fully installed. For example:

      1. Active queries. Linux acquired something similar via FAM but you need application support for it. Basically, you could search for files based on their attributes, and as files were removed or added to the system they would disappear or appear in the query. The query could be used like a directory for all programs that could access one (AFAICT).
      2. Device drivers took effect immediately upon placing them in the appropriate system directory (except display drivers).
      3. Applications were tiny - the HTML 3.0 compliant browser came in at under a meg for the whole binary. I never saw an app larger that 5 MB.
      4. A full install came in at about 300 MB (comparable to OpenBSD) IIRC.


      Now I'm going to get some sleep and try to forget about the sorry state of computing we're in right now.

      --
      Daniel
    4. Re:These computers are not to be laughed at by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lets see even the best programmers used to point and drool GUI interfaces and hand holding wizards try and do that in 2K now using little more than paper tape! The people who designed, built and programmed these machines REALLY knew what they were doing and probably forgot more about efficient programming and code compression than todays "top" coders ever knew in the first place.

      I remember the good ol' days before lawn mowers were invented. We would stoop over the lawn for weeks with tweezers in hand. Each grass blade was skillfully cut by a true craftman. Now your "best" lawn mowers simply buzz through a yard, never even seeing individual grass blades.

  7. Re:That has more ram than my present CPU has by ottffssent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    *laugh*

    I don't even notice unless an app is using over 100M (technically, 100,000KB, but who's counting?)

    But it sure would be nice if Windows would notice I have gobs of RAM lying around and start using it for something productive like caching the disk subsystem, rather than the other way around. There is no excuse for a system with >512M of free RAM paging to disk! What ass-backwards VM got stuck into Windows, anyway?

  8. It's dead and gone ( unfortunately ) by h4mmer5tein · · Score: 4, Informative
    The original story appears to have come from Australia's ABC Televison and reports that :

    " Sadly, it's not an option to make CSIRAC operational again today. Time has taken a toll on this fragile dinosaur.

    So what exactly would happen if anyone tried to relive the magic by switching it on?

    "A lot of its components would not stand having voltages applied to them again," says Thorne. "I think it would probably catch fire."

  9. Not as slow as it sounds by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Funny

    300kHz may not sound like much, but with overclocking and a decent watercooling setup you could crank it as high as 334kHz!

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  10. Unclear by Russellkhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Geek.com article says:
    " A half-century old computer, called CSIRAC, is still operating in Australia. The computer, which was Australia's first, ran at a blistering 300 kilohertz, had 2 KB RAM, and 2.5 KB storage."

    But the Inquirer article linked by the above Geek.com article says:
    "The machine was the fourth computer to be built anywhere in the world, ran at 0.001MHz, and had a massive 2000 bytes of memory and a behemothic 2500 bytes of storage."

    Which, by my calcuations, would be 1000 hertz or 1 kilohertz. I tend to believe the Inquirer, since they're running the source article. And besides, the 1977 Apple ][ was only 1 MHz, Don't you think there was a bit more progress than less than doubling in processor speed from 1949 to 1977?

    --
    Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
  11. The computer is dismantled and stored... by heytal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out this page which tells us the history of the said computer. In the end, it says the following:

    Following the University of Melbourne's purchase in 1964 of a Control Data 3200 from the USA, CSIRAC was donated to the Museum of Victoria. At this time it was realised that CSIRAC was the oldest computer still in operation, and worthy of preservation so it was carefully dismantled and stored.
    CSIRAC is now the centre-piece of the IT display at the Museum in Melbourne.

  12. CSIRAC will never run again... by Goonie · · Score: 5, Informative
    Though CSIRAC is still basically complete, it will never be turned on again. To get it working again would require much wiring to be fixed and a whole bunch of vacuum tubes to be replaced - otherwise, it would be a huge fire risk. However, in the process, you'd destroy much of the historical value of the thing. There's not much point to turning it on again anyway. An emulator was written for it some time ago, and all the old programs that could be located have been transferred and can now be run on the emulator. Ah, the wonders of the Church-Turing thesis...

    As I understand it, the music was recorded by building a replica of the sound hardware and connecting it to the emulator. People who heard the music have confirmed it sounds pretty much like the original in 1955 (IIRC, it was around that time).

    Perhaps the coolest thing that they did with CSIRAC was build a HLL and compiler for it, which they called Autocoder IIRC. It looked like a cross between FORTRAN and BASIC and avoided some of the thinkos of FORTRAN, as far as I could tell.

    CSIRAC is now permanently on display at the museum in Melbourne, Australia. It's the only complete, original machine of its generation in existence, and well worth a look if you come down our way. There is also a book on CSIRAC called "The Last of the first", which is a fascinating read if you can get your hands on a copy.

    One of my university lecturers, Peter Thorne, got his start in computers as an operator for the machine. He met his wife there - she was a fellow computer operator!

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  13. Re:Impressive // dollars? by Tune · · Score: 5, Informative

    Moore's Law includes price. Did you take into account, that you might have payed less when purchasing your 1982 C64 than was spent on CSIRAC, 20 years earlier?

    Btw, C64's feature 64kB which is 32 times 2kB, so at least memory size doubled five times in 20 years, that is: it doubled every four years.

    --
    In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. But in practice there is -- Jan L.A. van Snepscheut

  14. It wasn't that reliable... by Goonie · · Score: 5, Funny
    I wouldn't get too excited about CSIRAC's reliability. The memory in particular had a pretty high error rate, so they often ran programs twice and compared the results to make sure they got the same answer...

    On one occasion, they gave a demo to an organisation called the Institute of Radio Engineers (IRE), but apparently a memory error occurred and the thing printed "CSIRAC welcomes the members of the IRA) :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:It wasn't that reliable... by linuxelf · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've seen a lot of modern computers have similar "Memory Errors." Right here on /., as a matter of fact. How many times have you seen a Memory Error turn a 'Then' into a 'Than' or a 'Their' into a 'There' It happens all the time. I guess some things just never change.

      --
      - "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
  15. Re:500 hz initially, 1 khz later by heikkile · · Score: 5, Informative
    That is instruction times, not clock pulses. My first computer, (way later in 1977) had a clock of 1.75MHz, but it took 16 clock pulses for most instructions and 24 for the rest... It too had 2KB of memory, and room to add another 2K, "if someone could find use for all that memory" as it said in the instruction book...

    I sold a few programs for the beast on 2KB EPROMS. There can be quite much stuff in 2K. (for example an editor + assembler + disassembler). Once I added almost 500 bytes in a 2K program, and optimized it back into a 2K chip. Talk of ugly coding, used all the tricks I knew (reusing jump addresses for instructions, self-modifying code (written backwards in the rom to save a byte in copying it into ram), jumping into unrelated routines to reuse 4 bytes of the exit code, you name it. All done in pure hex... Man, those were the days...

    --

    In Murphy We Turst

  16. Re:Impressive // dollars? by dmaxwell · · Score: 5, Informative

    The C64 was a CONSUMER item. When the CSIRAC was built there was no such thing as a computer for consumers. It would be more appropriate to compare the CSIRAC to the so-called supercomputers that were availiable in 1982. Machines like the Cray X-MP and Cyber 205 were availiable in 1982. The costs to own and operate them are comparable to what it took to operate the CSIRAC in it's day.

    The UK's weather bureau give specs on the Cyber 205 they were using in '82:

    http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/nwp/numeri ca l/computers/history.html

    CDC Cyber 205

    200Mhz Clock
    1 MegaWord of memory
    The Cyber had a 64 bit word size so that amounted to 8 MB of ram. So clockspeed has increased over 600 times and memory has increased over 4000 times in that time frame. This is just confining myself to the 205. I didn't look for the specs on other large machines like the Crays that were availiable then.

    Computers as something just anyone could play with were pretty much nonexistant prior to 77 (true you could build something ENIAC-like anytime in the seventies if you were REALLY good with electronics). It's more instructive to see what the kind of money they had to spend on the CSIRAC will get you as time moves forward. Power comparable to the C64 was availiabe in the early sixties for that kind of money.

  17. how do you replace vacuum tubes? by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would have thought many of them would no longer be manufactured. (Computers went solid state- discrete transistors- in the late 1950s and integrated circuits in the early 1970s.)

  18. Re:50 years at 300KHz by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Funny
    And of course, this machine ISN'T still running, and would likely execute an HCF instruction (Halt and Catch Fire) if powered on...

    So might your Athlon, son... So might your Athlon.

    --
    That is all.