Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Updating the Computer, Circa 1969

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the first-move-the-larger-stone-doorstop dept.

Coudal points out a "Swell article from UK Magazine 'Design' from 1969," excerpting "Designing a computer is a continuous process in which technological breakthroughs must be matched by new hardware, and new hardware by new software, without invalidating the systems already in use."

3 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, sure by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    without invalidating the systems already in use.

    Everyone knows that Intel and Microsoft have never invalidated a system already in use.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Re:Conversational Computing by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

    So you don't subscribe to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?

    No, nor do most linguists.

    For example, even though the Pirahã (and others) have no words for numbers over two and resultingly cannot grasp even basic arithmatic

    The Piraha situation has recently been attacked as wishful thinking on behalf of its major researcher. There's plenty out there that's critical of it.

    Or to gain a deeper understanding of any writings in a language derived frm it - Including English

    Yes, this was included in my professing the usefulness of Latin for understanding culture influenced by Latin.

    though it has too much from the Germanic side of the family, with a Greek uncle sneaking in the mix somewhere along the way, to count as a proper Romance language

    A language's genetic affiliation is decided by phonological correspondences in the morphology, so English would be a Germanic language no matter how many French words it absorbed. To give a similar situation as an example, Armenian is still in its own branch even though most of its lexicon was replaced by Persian loans.

  3. Re:Let's not forget the user-interface... by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

    "That Olivetti unit looks like it was made 20 years later..."

    Probably because the Olivetti extensively used plastic or die-cast white metal in the case. If you look at the old ugly stuff like the KSR, the cases were _steel_ which is why they look so bland. You can't get the same shapes by stamping steel like you can with plastic-injection molding or die-casting and the style of the Olivetti simply screams "molded parts".

    Back then it was a cultural thing. Plastic was "cheap" and steel meant quality. If the case wasn't heavy enough to kill someone with, it wasn't quality.

    --
    BMO