dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) (04/29/89)
I have just received several books (in Russian) on Soviet microcomputers. I don't have time to read them all and would be willing to loan them to anyone who wants to read them (you must know Russian). By 1991 the USSR expects to have about one million microcomputers (MC) in use. Not only are there far fewer MC's in the USSR than in the US, but the capabilities are also much lower. As of a year or so ago, they were still making 8-bit MC's with 64K of memory (maximum). These would be considered to be obsolete in the US. It wasn't until 1986 that they started making 16-bit MC's. 32 bit MC's are discussed but the only examples of them shown in these Russian books are for US MC's. One might expect that the USSR would standardize on one or two families of MC's but this is not the case. The families include: Agat, Elektronika-60, DVK, Elektonika-K1, EC-1840, CM-1800, Neyron, and Iskra. Books that cover only one MC make few (if any) comparisons with US MC's but the books which cover MC's in general make many comparisons between Russian (and East block) MC's and US MC's. For example, I read in another magazine about certain MC's being installed in Soviet railroad offices. When I checked the results of benchmark tests (in a Russian MC book which contains comparisons of Soviet and US computers) one of the newly installed models was 50 times slower than an IBM-AT at 6 MHz. In fact all of the Russian MC's tested fared worse than the IBM-XT. Glasnost! :-) This was a couple of years ago so today they likely have improved somewhat. Roughly speaking, one might say that they are making the transition from 8 to 16 bit MC's while we are going from 16 bits to 32. Many of the East-block computers are IBM-PC compatible with CPU chips which are analogs of Intels 8080A or 8086. Thus they could use US software. As of a year ago little software was available in the USSR except for that developed for special purposes by individual industries. A section of the Academy of Sciences was established a year or so ago to develop general purpose software. I don't know what they have released so far. Operating systems on some of their MC's are similar to CP/M, MS-DOS, or Unix (rare). One of their Unix-like system is called Demos and my books give no information about it. Of course there are many other Russian computer books which I don't have --one of which likely describes it. If Russians use our software, why shouldn't we use theirs? One problem is the alphabet: ascii vs "rascii" :-) used by the Russians. All three versions of "rascii" (=Russian-American Standard Code for Information Interchange :-) ) put the Cyrillic characters into "above ascii" codes (128-256 dec.). The lower codes (32-127) are the same as ascii. Thus US software will work on Soviet computers but not conversely unless the "above ascii" codes have been modified to display (or print) the appropriate Cyrillic characters (3 "standards" for this).
mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) (04/29/89)
In article <1805@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes: > >One might expect that the USSR would standardize on one or two families >of MC's but this is not the case. The families include: Agat, >Elektronika-60, DVK, Elektonika-K1, EC-1840, CM-1800, Neyron, and >Iskra. I was visiting the Space Research Institute in Moscow a little over a year ago. At least there, they have standardized on one kind of computer: IBM clones. I asked to see a Russian computer, and they laughed, saying something like "We don't use those; we have real work to get done around here!" Most of the compters there were PC-XT and a few AT compatibles. Roald Sagdeev had a laser printer, even. Matt Kennel mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu
darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) (05/02/89)
>I was visiting the Space Research Institute in Moscow a little over >a year ago. At least there, they have standardized on one kind >of computer: IBM clones. At least we don't have to worry them getting any technical advantage over us. Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com) We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (05/03/89)
In article <528@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson) writes: >>I was visiting the Space Research Institute in Moscow a little over >>a year ago. At least there, they have standardized on one kind >>of computer: IBM clones. > >At least we don't have to worry them getting any technical >advantage over us. Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the American one can't? Nick Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Fais que ton reve soit plus long que la nuit.
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (05/04/89)
In article <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR >have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the >American one can't? I thought it could, except for the landing gear. And the landing gear was chosen to be that way because once it's down it can't be raised and someone was afraid the computer would foul up or something. I've read that it only takes one button push to bring a shuttle home. But then, why listen to me when NASA is online? -- Darren
rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (05/04/89)
In article <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the American one can't? Because the American one was designed quite a while ago, and uses repackaged IBM System/360 machines as its computers. NASA has too small a budget to design a new shuttle with more modern computers, and rewrite all the software (I believe that quite a lot of the shuttle's software is actually left from Apollo days). At least, that's the short answer. I just wish we were still supporting NASA at the level we used to.... +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "VMS Forever!" | VOTE on | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | rec.music.newage! | +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Send votes for/against rec.music.newage to "rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu". | +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
dwight%halftone@Sun.COM (Dwight Wilcox) (05/04/89)
(An exchange about US superiority in micro computers) > >Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR >have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the >American one can't? > > Nick >Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. > nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick >~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ > Fais que ton reve soit plus long que la nuit. See Richard Feynman's report on the Shuttle disaster. The shuttle can land itself; the only "pilot" actions absolutely necessary in a normal landing are: 1) Push a button to select Edwards or Kennedy. 2) Push a button to lower the landing gear. Maybe I'm cynical, but I think that the reason that these buttons are there is so a NASA publicist can talk about how absolutely necessary the man in the machine is.
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/05/89)
In article <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: }Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR }have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the }American one can't? I think ours has the capability, but it's reserved for emergency use because of safety considerations. I helped with some of the initial testing and development of the Heads Up Display (HUD). It provides a zero-zero landing capability, among other things, but, for obvious reasons, they avoid using it in that capacity. (Would you fly several billion dollars worth of hardware blind if you didn't have to?) -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/06/89)
In article <2829@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: }In article <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: } } Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR } have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the } American one can't? Not true. See other postings. }Because the American one was designed quite a while ago, and uses }repackaged IBM System/360 machines as its computers. ... Not quite. The AP-101 computers on the Shuttle have a similar, but not identical, architecture to the System/370. (The major difference is two sets of 8 general purpose registers instead of one set of 16). The way I heard it, NASA originally went to IBM, saying "We want an S/370 in orbit." IBM replied: "You can't have one. They're too big." The AP-101 was the best compromise at the time. The Shuttle contains a lot of hardware that's outright archaic by today's standards (some of it was pretty weird, even then). They had to freeze the technology at some point so they could start construction without continuous design changes. Otherwise, they'd never have completed it. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) (05/06/89)
In article <4366@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: >In article <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >}Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR >}have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the >}American one can't? > >I think ours has the capability, but it's reserved for emergency use >because of safety considerations. I helped with some of the initial >testing and development of the Heads Up Display (HUD). It provides a >zero-zero landing capability, among other things, but, for obvious >reasons, they avoid using it in that capacity. > >(Would you fly several billion dollars worth of hardware blind if you >didn't have to?) > So, the USSR tests their shuttle with computer controlled landing, and the USA tests theirs with people. This says either the USSR trusts their computers more, or values their pilots more. To send pilots up on the first flight sounds to me a little "gutsy", especailly when you have computer that can land the shuttle. BTW, what are the obvious reasons for avoiding the zero-zero landing capabiltiy? I can understand avoiding *to have* to use it, but to never use it altogether? How can it be tested? (I assume zero-zero is some kind of automatic system that can land even in zero visibility etc). Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public I am just a small cog in a big machine. I don't represent nobody.
nobody@tekecs.GWD.TEK.COM (-for inetd server command) (05/08/89)
In article <476@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow) writes:
.So, the USSR tests their shuttle with computer controlled landing,
.and the USA tests theirs with people.
.
.This says either the USSR trusts their computers more, or values their
.pilots more. To send pilots up on the first flight sounds to me a little
."gutsy", especailly when you have computer that can land the shuttle.
especially
It may mean that the USSR trusts their hardware less that the US trusts
theirs. Whether the US trust in the hardware is misplaced is another issue.
-Alan Jeddeloh (503) 685-2991
Tektronix ITD Networking; D/S 61-201; PO Box 1000; Wilsonville, OR 97070
{decvax|ucbvax}!tektronix!orca!alanj -or- alanj@orca.wv.tek.com
This space available for Bush's first blunder.larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) (05/09/89)
From article <476@bnr-fos.UUCP>, by schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow): > In article <4366@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: [all sorts of stuff] > > So, the USSR tests their shuttle with computer controlled landing, > and the USA tests theirs with people. > > This says either the USSR trusts their computers more, or values their > pilots more. To send pilots up on the first flight sounds to me a little > "gutsy", especailly when you have computer that can land the shuttle. > Their are lots of reasons that can be read into this. Maby the USSR doesn't have any pilots that trust their computers! :-) The USSR has had a history of controlling their space craft from the ground and involving their pilots more as passengers or cargo then anything else. This is a reflection that they were in the past incapable of developing computing systems that could fit in a spacecraft. That their present space craft is still remotly piloted by computers on the ground is an extension of their past history of spacecraft control, and their continuing lack of computing power. -- Larry Taborek ..!uunet!grebyn!macom1!larry Centel Federal Systems larry@macom1.UUCP 11400 Commerce Park Drive Reston, VA 22091-1506 703-758-7000
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/09/89)
In article <476@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow) writes: }So, the USSR tests their shuttle with computer controlled landing, }and the USA tests theirs with people. } }This says either the USSR trusts their computers more, or values their }pilots more. To send pilots up on the first flight sounds to me a little }"gutsy", especailly when you have computer that can land the shuttle. Alternatively, it may say the USSR has a _lot_ of open land to bring a shuttle down in and doesn't care if it wipes out the odd farming village. They bring their space capsules in on land, too. Trivial statistic: The STS-1 landed within 30 seconds and 12 _inches_ of nominal plan. Now _that's_ precision! }BTW, what are the obvious reasons for avoiding the zero-zero landing }capabiltiy? I can understand avoiding *to have* to use it, but to never }use it altogether? How can it be tested? (I assume zero-zero is some kind }of automatic system that can land even in zero visibility etc). Zero-zero refers to ceiling zero, visibility zero (i.e.: Dense fog on the runway). I believe the self-landing program has been tested, with a pilot ready to take over if need be. The HUD displays a pseudo-runway with vector graphics and the pilot shoots his landing on that. In a normal landing, the pilot can see if the pseudo runway matches the real runway, thus testing the system. The pilots practice zero-zero landings in simulators. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) (05/10/89)
In article <4366@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: >In article <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >}Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR >}have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the >}American one can't? > >I think ours has the capability, but it's reserved for emergency use >because of safety considerations. I helped with some of the initial >testing and development of the Heads Up Display (HUD). It provides a >zero-zero landing capability, among other things, but, for obvious >reasons, they avoid using it in that capacity. Also remember that our shuttle has really antique computers onboard. If memory serves (small pun here) the Shuttle's main computer has all of 64KB DRAM. The reason? The Shuttle was designed in the 1970s, using the technology of that time. Putting an AT aboard the Shuttle would measureably increase it's computing power. What boggles the brain is that we won't retrofit the thing with something more modern. -- Roy Wells | Clothes make the man. Naked Integrated Solutions | people have little or no influence My opinions are mine. They are | on society. available for rent, though. | -- Mark Twain
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (05/10/89)
In article <1203@isieng.UUCP> roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) writes: >Also remember that our shuttle has really antique computers onboard. >What boggles the brain is that we won't retrofit the thing with >something more modern. Why? They work, don't they? (:-) (At least usually?) Other than the fact that programs need to be manually loaded in flight for different phases of the mission, using old reliable technology gives old reliable performance. -- Darren
jkl@csli.Stanford.EDU (John Kallen) (05/10/89)
In article <1203@isieng.UUCP> roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) writes: #Also remember that our shuttle has really antique computers onboard. #If memory serves (small pun here) the Shuttle's main computer has #all of 64KB DRAM. The reason? The Shuttle was designed in the #1970s, using the technology of that time. # #Putting an AT aboard the Shuttle would measureably increase it's #computing power. # #What boggles the brain is that we won't retrofit the thing with #something more modern. I thought the computers on the shuttles used ferrite core RAMs. Supposedly more radiation-resistant or something. You're right about having an AT on board increasing the computing power, but I'd rather see a tested computer run the Shuttle than a fancy, new, fast and *untested* (read bugged). It's finally up again and we don't want the space program set back by a catastrophe due to the AT going: Fatal error: stack overflow, system halted or PARITY CHECK 2 during ascent... (shudder) _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\ | | /|\ | John Kallen | |\ \|/ \| * |/ | |/| | | PoBox 11215 "Life. Don't talk to me | |\ /|\ |\ * |\ | | | | Stanford CA 94309 about life." _|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________
arnaud@cbnews.ATT.COM (alain.arnaud) (05/10/89)
>I thought the computers on the shuttles used ferrite core RAMs. >Supposedly more radiation-resistant or something. You're right about >having an AT on board increasing the computing power, but I'd rather >see a tested computer run the Shuttle than a fancy, new, fast and >*untested* (read bugged). It's finally up again and we don't want >the space program set back by a catastrophe due to the AT going: > Fatal error: stack overflow, system halted >or > PARITY CHECK 2 >during ascent... > The current shuttle computers use core memory. NASA has currently a multi-billion dollar program to upgrade the computing power of the shuttle. Before being used in actual flight, they have to be qualified, this entails extensive testing of both hardware and software. The upgrade will be flight tested in the mid-90s. Currently, shuttle astronauts, augment their comuting power by using HP-41s calculator, and more recently they have been using Grid Laptops. On the last two flights they have been using a 386 laptop, mainly to test the reliability of the hardware, specially of the mass storage devices (hard disks and floppies), and the compatibility with the laptops they were using pre-Challenger. Alan Arnaud (arnaud@angate.att.com) Disclaimer: Speaking for myself only.
roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) (05/10/89)
In article <15040@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >In article <1203@isieng.UUCP> roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) writes: >>Also remember that our shuttle has really antique computers onboard. >>What boggles the brain is that we won't retrofit the thing with >>something more modern. > >Why? They work, don't they? (:-) (At least usually?) >Other than the fact that programs need to be manually >loaded in flight for different phases of the mission, >using old reliable technology gives old reliable >performance. -- Darren They work, but are extremely limited. For example the time the lauch had to be scrubbed because the shuttle was programmed for winds and the air was too still. We may not need to bring them to the latest in RISC technology, but we could at least give them sufficient capability that they could quickly and easily be loaded with software for alternative launch and landing parameters! -- Roy Wells | Clothes make the man. Naked Integrated Solutions | people have little or no influence My opinions are mine. They are | on society. available for rent, though. | -- Mark Twain
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/11/89)
In article <1203@isieng.UUCP> roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) writes: }Also remember that our shuttle has really antique computers onboard. }If memory serves (small pun here) the Shuttle's main computer has }all of 64KB DRAM. The reason? The Shuttle was designed in the }1970s, using the technology of that time. Actually, there's no DRAM in the AP-101 at all. Their memory is non-volatile -- a source of much puzzlement to rookies (i.e.: Me) and much amusement to the old hands in the Rockwell Avionics Development Lab. }Putting an AT aboard the Shuttle would measureably increase it's }computing power. Not hardly. The AP-101 may be an old design, but it's basically a compact mainframe. I'm not aware of any production single-chip CPU that could begin to cope with it's throughput. I don't recall the exact figures, but the amount of data pouring into them, in a constant stream, is awesome. Anyone who's ever run a flight simulator program on an AT would fall down laughing at the idea of trying to fly the Shuttle with one. }What boggles the brain is that we won't retrofit the thing with }something more modern. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The existing systems cost $Sagans to develop, debug and implement. Replacing them would require a similar effort at even higher cost. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) (05/16/89)
> #If memory serves (small pun here) the Shuttle's main computer has > #all of 64KB DRAM. The reason? The Shuttle was designed in the > [....] > # > I thought the computers on the shuttles used ferrite core RAMs. Please see sci.space.shuttle for more in-depth information on the space shuttles computers. Very recently there has been discussion on exactly the hardware and software used. If you site does not expire news too quickly, and you aren't reading it now, I think you can still find the postings. They are that new. - tom ============================================================================== ! NOTICE: Site 'mvac' is no more. uucp: ...!udel!mvac23!thomas ! all mail must be sent to Internet: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu ! site 'mvac23' instead. Internet: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu ! Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP (Robin C. LaPasha) (05/31/89)
In article <1805@orion.cf.uci.edu>, dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes: > > Operating systems on some of their MC's are similar to CP/M, MS-DOS, or > Unix (rare). One of their Unix-like system is called Demos and my > books give no information about it. Of course there are many other > Russian computer books which I don't have --one of which likely > describes it. > I talked to some folks from there, and Unix and C are just whispers on the wind. However, some folks had used "B" somewhat. (It's a predecessor of C, right?) > If Russians use our software, why shouldn't we use theirs? One problem > is the alphabet: ascii vs "rascii" :-) used by the Russians. All three > versions of "rascii" (=Russian-American Standard Code for Information > Interchange :-) ) put the Cyrillic characters into "above ascii" codes > (128-256 dec.). The lower codes (32-127) are the same as ascii. Thus > US software will work on Soviet computers but not conversely unless the > "above ascii" codes have been modified to display (or print) the > appropriate Cyrillic characters (3 "standards" for this). If the Soviet programmers would really follow the new ISO 8859-5 standard (what I gather you mean by "rascii") it'd be one thing, but according to what I got at a recent Slavic conference, it ain't necessarily so. The commercially popular word processor "Leksikon" (for IBMs) has a different coding. (It's apparently a Wordstar knock-off.) Obviously, the 8-bit machines using the old koi7 standard (128 chars) have a different coding. The koi8 standard is different yet. It seems that the "Leksikon" version is winning out for applications, while the ISO standard is approved for telecommunications. (Of course, you can't transmit high-bit stuff over the net consistently, though. The 8th bit gets truncated or whatever. You have to uuencode or otherwise scrunch things into 7 bits. Just another level of complexity...) Oh, then there's keymaps. I don't even know what the Soviets use for keymaps (keyboard layouts) on computers, but the typewriters are set _really_ differently. Wouldn't necessarily work out phonetically without a new keymap. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=- Robin LaPasha |Deep-Six your ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu |files with VI! ;^) ;^) ;^)