Forgot your password?
Cyhist Apr 4 1997 B
Document Actions
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:32:17 BST
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Jon Agar <AGAR@FS4.MA.MAN.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: IBM "Stretch" 7030 and Atlas
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
>
>Any one have any real performance comparisons between Atlas and Stretch?
no figures, but here is Prof N. Metropolis in 1960 advising a British government working party:
Atlas: "Professor Metropolis considers that this is the best computer in teh world now under engineering development for commercial sale....the drop in performance of Stretch...makes Atlas much more nearly equal in performance and the price is much less. The design and sophistication of Atlas are well in advance of Stretch. the university (one-off) computer being designed and built at the University of Illinois has many of the features similar to those of Atlas. this machine should be operational in early 1962"
anyone know what the 'drop in performance' was? what was the Illinois machine?
Metropolis also passed on the view that the Soviet Union was 2-3 years behind the US in hardware and logical structure, but were better at 'utilisation', and particularly good at numerical analysis, theory of algorithms, recursive functions and theory of automata. this was at the height of fears about Soviet success at automation and I presume this was what Metropolis meant by utilisation, amongst other things
>
>Certainly the government orders for Stretch did not seem to make it a commercial success.
Ferranti were somewhat smaller than IBM, their investment was therefore relatively more important
the argument that hesitancy over placing orders effectively stalled the Atlas as a commercial venture is I think in John Hendry's Business History article on the fast computer project. essentially, the point was that Ferranti could not use the fact of government orders in negotiations to persuade other buyers.
>
>What about the Atlas successor--Titan?
this is the same as Atlas II?
>Performance? government orders? commercial success?
>
>John Ahlstrom
>jahlstrom@cisco.com
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Jon Agar <AGAR@FS4.MA.MAN.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: IBM "Stretch" 7030 and Atlas
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
>
>Any one have any real performance comparisons between Atlas and Stretch?
no figures, but here is Prof N. Metropolis in 1960 advising a British government working party:
Atlas: "Professor Metropolis considers that this is the best computer in teh world now under engineering development for commercial sale....the drop in performance of Stretch...makes Atlas much more nearly equal in performance and the price is much less. The design and sophistication of Atlas are well in advance of Stretch. the university (one-off) computer being designed and built at the University of Illinois has many of the features similar to those of Atlas. this machine should be operational in early 1962"
anyone know what the 'drop in performance' was? what was the Illinois machine?
Metropolis also passed on the view that the Soviet Union was 2-3 years behind the US in hardware and logical structure, but were better at 'utilisation', and particularly good at numerical analysis, theory of algorithms, recursive functions and theory of automata. this was at the height of fears about Soviet success at automation and I presume this was what Metropolis meant by utilisation, amongst other things
>
>Certainly the government orders for Stretch did not seem to make it a commercial success.
Ferranti were somewhat smaller than IBM, their investment was therefore relatively more important
the argument that hesitancy over placing orders effectively stalled the Atlas as a commercial venture is I think in John Hendry's Business History article on the fast computer project. essentially, the point was that Ferranti could not use the fact of government orders in negotiations to persuade other buyers.
>
>What about the Atlas successor--Titan?
this is the same as Atlas II?
>Performance? government orders? commercial success?
>
>John Ahlstrom
>jahlstrom@cisco.com
______________________________________________________________________
