Slashdot Mirror
Historians Recreate Source Code of First 4004 Application
mcpublic writes "The team of 'digital archaeologists' who developed the technology behind the Intel Museum's 4004 microprocessor exhibit have done it again. 36 years after Intel introduced their first microprocessor on November 15, 1971, these computer historians have turned the spotlight on the first application software ever written for a general-purpose microprocessor: the Busicom 141-PF calculator. At the team's web site you can download and play with an authentic calculator simulator that sports a cool animated flowchart. Want to find out how Busicom's Masatoshi Shima compressed an entire four-function, printing calculator into only 1,024 bytes of ROM? Check out the newly recreated assembly language "source code," extensively analyzed, documented, and commented by the team's newest member: Hungary's Lajos Kintli. 'He is an amazing reverse-engineer,' recounts team leader Tim McNerney, 'We understood the disassembled calculator code well enough to simulate it, but Lajos really turned it into "source code" of the highest standards.'"
Somewhere around 1975 or 1976 I wrote software for a 4004 (using a teletype connected to a modem connected to a mainframe someplace that had the assembler) to run a X-Y table. You would place a wafer with thick-film resistors on it and it would test each one to make sure it was within tolerance and if it wasn't it would mark it with magnetic ink. I think we were probably still using the infamous 1702 EPROMs but there might have been something newer at that time.
You can still run it on the latest Intel x86 chips. ;)
"Historians Recreate Source Code of First 404 Error Message"
(truth be told, quick scanning the headlines, that's what my brain registered)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It'd be an improvement if MS did either.
Your hand?
zing!
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Quick, someone send this over to the folks who wrote Excel!
58008
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I once reverse engineered the classic id software game Commander Keen. John Carmack did some cool stuff in that code.. each sprite had two function pointers in it, one was called when the sprite came into contact with another sprite, the other was called every frame to animate the sprite (he called it the "think" function). When you killed a monster the sprite was replaced with a "body" which was just like a sprite but had a few less fields (so it took up less memory). One of the neatest things he did was use this exact same framework of sprites and bodies to animate the "static" parts of the game. For example, the color coded doors that you have to get the key cards to open were sprites with a contact function that checked if the player had the right key card, at which time they would "die" and be replaced by a body that had a think function would make them slide out of the way.
For anyone who would like to take a look, I've put the re-engineered source code up.
How we know is more important than what we know.
'He is an amazing reverse-engineer,' recounts team leader Tim McNerney, 'We understood the disassembled calculator code well enough to simulate it, but Lajos really turned it into "source code" of the highest standards.'
No disrespect to Lajos, but have we really fallen so far in programming standards that it's considered "amazing" to disassemble a 1024 byte program? Back in my day (and stay the hell off my lawn!) we used to disassemble programs all the time. I reverse engineered the operating system for a computer I developed for because we wanted to hook into places that weren't accessible.
Disassembly is apparently a lost art in these decadent days of some programmers never using anything but scripting languages (e.g., Java, Python, Perl) and having no clue what goes on under the hood.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I found a buffer overflow. Exploit code to follow...
Of course if you had bothered to read the article, you'd know that it doesn't work like todays calculators but like the old adding machines:
"The electronic calculators that accountants used 35 years ago worked differently than the familiar four-function calculator we use today. These were designed to behave much like mechanical adding machines of the 1960's. After every number you want to add to the total, you need to press +, so = doesn't work like you'd expect. Here are some examples:
To add three numbers: 61 + 79 + 83 + = (if you forget the last +, the 83 won't get added)
To subtract two numbers: 2007 + 1971 - =
To multiply two numbers: 125 x 5 = (this is more like we're used to)
To divide two numbers: 625 / 5 = "