Computer Architecture : A Quantitative Approach
by John Hennessy, John L. Hennessy, David Goldberg, David A. Patterson
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; ISBN: 1558603298
This is mainly intended for studies of computer architectures and instruction sets, but goes into a fair amount of detail with additional reading suggestions on the history of the computer. It covers from early computers all the way up to the most recent (Pentium series). It is primarily devoted to teaching computer architecture using the MIPS instruction set, but has rich information throughout on practical aspects of computing, evolution of Intel's dominance in the PC chip market, downfalls of some of the many forgotten companies that were early innovators (and computing giants for that matter), evaluation benchmarks, comparisons between Intel and Motorola processors. The list goes on and I have only read up to chapter 6. I highly recommend looking at this as part if you can find it in a library. Otherwise it is fairly pricey...but it keeps on giving. Pretty light on the culture side though.
Other than that, I don't think that this class would be complete without the introduction to Moore's law and its predictive assertions as to the future of computing. His original paper is a good start.
Lastly, some mention of the current efforts being made to surpass the limitations observed by Moore's law in the fields of nanotechnology and molecular computing may be worthy.
In my experience as a chemical engineer, I find that engineers focus more on applications problems and scientists focus more on theoretical problems. There is a very close interplay between the two. It is said that engineers prefer to look things up (equations, solutions, etc) while scientists would rather derive things from the basics. This application to computer science would make me think that CSs would focus on new algorithms, programming languages, limits and design of new architectures for computers, whereas CEs will use these use current methods to solve some sort of application problem. I believe that in an engineer's work you will most likely be focused on some sort of product whether it is a hardware application or software. Whereas for scientists you may be more focused on software or theoretical work. Most of the CSs I know are doing programming or sysadmin type work. But that is at the BS level. Beyond the BSCS level, I know of people with PhDs from UW that are working on design of new chip technologies designing the architecture, compilers, and software support that make the chip work. I think in general that as a BS in any engineering field you can expect to be at the bottom of the barrel as far as design goes. You will more likely be doing the grunt work than doing the high level design. It is at the PhD level where companies are interested in your talents in designing their products. Not true in every case...just a generalization. Hope this helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer Architecture : A Quantitative Approach by John Hennessy, John L. Hennessy, David Goldberg, David A. Patterson Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; ISBN: 1558603298
This is mainly intended for studies of computer architectures and instruction sets, but goes into a fair amount of detail with additional reading suggestions on the history of the computer. It covers from early computers all the way up to the most recent (Pentium series). It is primarily devoted to teaching computer architecture using the MIPS instruction set, but has rich information throughout on practical aspects of computing, evolution of Intel's dominance in the PC chip market, downfalls of some of the many forgotten companies that were early innovators (and computing giants for that matter), evaluation benchmarks, comparisons between Intel and Motorola processors. The list goes on and I have only read up to chapter 6. I highly recommend looking at this as part if you can find it in a library. Otherwise it is fairly pricey...but it keeps on giving. Pretty light on the culture side though.
Other than that, I don't think that this class would be complete without the introduction to Moore's law and its predictive assertions as to the future of computing. His original paper is a good start.
Cramming more components onto integrated circuits
Gordon E. MooreElectronics, Volume 38, Number 8, April 19, 1965
Lastly, some mention of the current efforts being made to surpass the limitations observed by Moore's law in the fields of nanotechnology and molecular computing may be worthy.
In my experience as a chemical engineer, I find that engineers focus more on applications problems and scientists focus more on theoretical problems. There is a very close interplay between the two. It is said that engineers prefer to look things up (equations, solutions, etc) while scientists would rather derive things from the basics. This application to computer science would make me think that CSs would focus on new algorithms, programming languages, limits and design of new architectures for computers, whereas CEs will use these use current methods to solve some sort of application problem. I believe that in an engineer's work you will most likely be focused on some sort of product whether it is a hardware application or software. Whereas for scientists you may be more focused on software or theoretical work. Most of the CSs I know are doing programming or sysadmin type work. But that is at the BS level. Beyond the BSCS level, I know of people with PhDs from UW that are working on design of new chip technologies designing the architecture, compilers, and software support that make the chip work. I think in general that as a BS in any engineering field you can expect to be at the bottom of the barrel as far as design goes. You will more likely be doing the grunt work than doing the high level design. It is at the PhD level where companies are interested in your talents in designing their products. Not true in every case...just a generalization. Hope this helps.