Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Edsac Goes Live, At UK's National Museum of Computing

Posted by timothy on from the sometimes-things-get-lost-in-the-mail dept.

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Britain's National Museum of Computing has flipped the switch on the venerable Edsac computer. The arduous task of reconstructing the 1949 behemoth, fraught with little in terms of the original hardware or documentation, was brought to fruition on Wednesday. As project lead Andrew Herbert is quoted as saying, "We face the same challenges as those remarkable pioneers who succeeded in building a machine that transformed computing." A remarkably shaky video of the event, replete with excellent views of the floor at the videographer's feet, can be found here."

37 comments

  1. This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    We all know that only space has the spinoffs to create technology like computers.

    How is it possible to have a "computer" from 1949?

    FAKE!

    1. Re:This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you suggesting space did not exist before 1950?

    2. Re:This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...what? I'm suggesting that no technology existed before we went into space. This is the main belief of the space fans on Slashdot. Is this not correct?

      Only space has spinoffs, only space inspires scientists. Right?

    3. Re: This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually there are two things that inspire: space and WAR. War is awesome for progress. We need more and more wars to fuel advancement.

    4. Re:This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is there was no technology until after we got into space, THEN WHO IS SPACE?

    5. Re: This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? So Philo T Farnsworth developed electronic TV because of space or war? We invented the transistor because of space or war?

      How about all of human history up to and including the Industrial Revolution? We developed the loom because of space or war?

    6. Re:This is impossible by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Nah, space isn't for silly things like computers - it's for important things like non-stick frying pans and biros that write upside down*.

      (The comms satellites, GPS, remote sensing and general coolness of landing robots on comets and stuff might count for something, too)

      * Don't bother with the snopes links - I'm being silly.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    7. Re:This is impossible by PPH · · Score: 1

      Space did not exist until the Soviets discovered it in 1957.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re: This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Architecture? Castles and fortresses: war. Chemistry? Incendiaries, explosive and poison gas: war. Treatments for extensive burns? War. Airplanes? Bombers and fighters: war. Jet engines? Faster of the above: war. Computers? Artillery and cryptoanalysys: war. Nuclear power? Bombs and nuclear wessels: war. Even margarine was developed for war. Now grab a rifle and go shooting up people for science, or you're a luddite shit.

    9. Re: This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But no space, right? Good, because it got real tiresome trying to explain to delusional, naive nerds that technology came FIRST, then we used it in space.

      Nerds think that because NASA painted its logo on something that it invented it.

    10. Re: This is impossible by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      space: V2 missiles: WAR!

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  2. Fraught? by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The arduous task of reconstructing the 1949 behemoth, fraught with little in terms of the original hardware or documentation

    So, the word 'fraught' doesn't appear in TFA. And there's probably a reason for that.

    Fraught doesn't mean "without the benefit of".

    fraught
    frÃt/
    adjective
    adjective: fraught

            1.
            (of a situation or course of action) filled with or destined to result in (something undesirable).
            "marketing any new product is fraught with danger"
            synonyms: full of, filled with, rife with; More
            attended by, accompanied by
            "their world is fraught with danger"
            2.
            causing or affected by great anxiety or stress.
            "there was a fraught silence"

    So, to continue this egregiously bad bit of writing ....

    Wiff his trusty condoms, Ralph fraught he'd be safe, but, alas, he fraught wrong and got the clap anyway.

    Bereft, perhaps. But, fraught??? Really???

    Come on guys. Don't just use words you don't know what they mean because they sounded cool in another context.

    Oh, wait, I'm assuming editors have a grasp of the language and actually read the submissions. My bad.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Fraught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Fraught doesn't mean "without the benefit of".

      Well obviously it doesn't... and if it did the sentence wouldn't make any sense.

      Oh, wait, I'm assuming editors have a grasp of the language and actually read the submissions. My bad.

      You seem to be struggling a lot with reading the summary. Your grasp of the language is clearly a lot weaker than you seem to think it is.

    2. Re:Fraught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      From merriam-webster.com (boldface is mine):

      Full Definition of FRAUGHT
      1 archaic
      a : laden
      b : well supplied or provided
      2: full of or accompanied by something specified —used with with <a situation fraught with danger>
      3: causing or characterized by emotional distress or tension : uneasy <a fraught relationship>

      So you're wrong. Back you go to amusing yourself with your condoms, if you must.

    3. Re:Fraught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "filled with little"? I mean that's what you do to your Mom every night....

    4. Re:Fraught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are using 'fraught' to imply that the lack of documention made the task more stressful and anxiety inducing.

      It could be better. "Fraught with problems caused by the lack of the original hardware or documentation" feels more natural. As it is the setence feels somewhat fragmented. I read 'fraught with little', which feels like there is little to be fraught about.

    5. Re:Fraught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      who the fuck cares, you are grading a fucking paragraph on the internet... how pathetic is that?

    6. Re:Fraught? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Whatever Merriam-Webster may say, I've never seen fraught used with something good or desirable.

      Fraught with danger - yes.

      Fraught with a ton of burgers, a case of beer, and more minge than you could shake a stick at - no.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Fraught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here because I was going to ridicule his misuse of that word too.

      In this case, you're wrong. The important part of "fraught" is that it is an analog for "full of and surrounded by".

      You will probably notice that "well supplied or provided" is archaic, but even in that context, it doesn't make a ton of sense, because it is very very strange to say "we are well supplied with little documentation"

      It also makes little sense to say "this situation was full of little documentation"

      I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. How does "fraught with little documentation" make sense in any of the context or definitions you just listed?

    8. Re:Fraught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Fraught with a ton of burgers, a case of beer, and more minge than you could shake a stick at - no.

      While hillarious, that is an archaic usage and therefore marginally usable, but not really in a modern journalistic sense.

      Generally fraught means/implies "being surrounded by an undesirable thing", rather than "being full of" or "laden with" as in the archaic use.

      But NEITHER case makes any sense in the context of "being full of little documentation".

  3. 512 bytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ought to be enough for anybody.

    The EDSAC's main memory consisted of 1024 locations, though only 512 locations were initially implemented. Each contained 18 bits, but the first bit was unavailable due to timing restrictions, so only 17 bits were used... Internally, the EDSAC used two's complement, binary numbers. These were either 17 bits (one word) or 35 bits (two words) long.

    - Wikipedia

    1. Re:512 bytes by _merlin · · Score: 2

      It's 512 words, not bytes. Each word was over two bytes long. Memory was word-addressable.

    2. Re:512 bytes by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Each word was over two bytes long.

      True, each 18 bit word was a little over three bytes long - the EDSAC used 5 bit characters.

      A byte is the amount of memory used to store a character, not 8 bits.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  4. aw, c'mon coach, put in the mercury! by swschrad · · Score: 1

    just don't vacuum up the spills, let the kiddies roll it around in their palms like we did. probably be a more efficient way to pick it up.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:aw, c'mon coach, put in the mercury! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, they could use alcohol - Turing calculated that ethyl alcohol could be used in delay lines when he was designing the ACE.

      His colleagues suggested he wanted to fill them with gin.

      Safer and much cheaper than mercury.

  5. These guys rule by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Colossus and Bombe replicas were amazing achievements, and they just keep going. Building complex machines with nothing but some photographs to go on.
    Where's my 'we're not worthy' emoticon? _o_

    1. Re:These guys rule by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Building complex machines with nothing but some photographs to go on.

      Actually, there are real people still alive who remember it.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:These guys rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the last living person to work on Colossus - "Jerry" Roberts - died in March 2014.

    3. Re:These guys rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed! A visit is an absolute must if you get the chance. I would have happily volunteered for a week last time I went to England, but my wife had other ideas :(

  6. Not working yet by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not finished yet. They have the clock and the delay line memory working, but it can't run programs.

  7. Case revisionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Edsac" doesn't sound very 1949-like. I'm pretty sure it was called EDSAC.

    1. Re:Case revisionism by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The BBC's style guide says that if an acronym is to be pronounced as a word (Nasa, for example) then it is to be capitalised like a proper noun. If the acronym is not pronounced as a word (BBC, NSA), then it is written in all upper-case. The more you know!

  8. Rambo Tribble is an illiterate imbecile. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of submitting articles, this retarded bag of shit should be
    sent to a camp for "re-education", where the first step will be sterilization
    for the protection of society.

  9. Thank jeezbus The US saved the world by inventing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computers! Oh wait ....

  10. Then as now by Circlotron · · Score: 1

    That computer really was an earthshaking milestone, as the video clearly shows.

  11. But what about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the Binary Arithmetic Linear Logic Storage Automatic Calculator?

    1. Re:But what about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I once worked on a computer called CRUMPET (Computer for Radio Using a Microprocessor for Evaluation and Training). Hi to Dr Mike Cook G8HBR if you're reading this.

      Peter Jones