It's a lot easier to claim that all modern processors (that are based on a load/store architecture... All RISC chips, basically... and that includes x86) trace back to the CDC 6600, probably Seymour Cray's most direct and influential gift to the world of computing.
Well, off the top of my head, and unlikely to be the only association..
IBM licensed the 286 for the IBM PC/AT. Acorn wanted to use the 286 for the Archimedes, but Intel would not allow licensing. This forced Acorn to create their own processor, resulting in the first RISC based consumer PC.
Perhaps that snowballs into our current tech environment.
So that line does not trace back to IBM in any way, besides, Intel isn't IBM.
eh.. sorta.[0].
IBM had significant stake in Intel during the time period we're talking about, and that whole period was filled with anti-trust talk, which turned into actual anti-trust fire a few years later in the 90s.
I may not have been blunt enough in my other comment, but I was alluding to the idea that IBM and Intel may have been involved in anti-competitive behavior against Acorn, which caused them to innovate in such a way that created the systems we enjoy today (modern mobile). The idea that the pressures on the company spawned innovation.
'Was the cause of a complete redevelopment' is the polar opposite of 'can be traced back to' whatever ugly dealings IBM and Intel may have had (which doesn't surprise me one bit).
There was the operating systems CMS
and CP67 done by the IBM Cambridge
Scientific Center for the IBM 360/67
in, right, about 1967. The CP67
was control program 67 and was for
virtual machine. CMS was Cambridge
Monitor Systems, maybe off and on
Conversational Monitor System, and
the command-line time-sharing operating
system users saw.
CP67 was intended as a means for
interactive, time-shared operating system
development. So, right, could run
CP67 on CP67 -- once that was done
7 levels deep.
The combination CP67/CMS was, for the time,
a total dream for a time sharing system.
Stop malicious code? Sure: On CP67
write and run any code, any instructions
doing anything you want with any data you
want, and you just cannot bother
any other users. So, could run malicious
code safely.
I used CP67/CMS and PL/I from National CSS
Time Sharing in Stamford, CT to schedule
the fleet at FedEx. Founder, COB, CEO
Fred Smith's remark about the output was
"Amazing document" "Solved the most important
problem facing FedEx". The Board was pleased
and a nice chunk of funding was enabled.
It literally saved the company. No,
Fred never gave me my promised stock,
that once he said would be worth
$500,000. Add a few zeros for now.
Since then CP67 was called VM, and
for years IBM's internal computing
was done on about 3600 mainframes around the world and
all running VM/CMS and connected
with VNET which was a lot like the
Internet except the communications
were via bisync lines and the routing
was done by the mainframes themselves.
No, that setup didn't depend on
Systems Network Architecture (SNA).
Yes, there were a lot of fora!
The advantages of running on VM were
too good to pass up, so eventually
essentially all production IBM
mainframes were running their
operating systems as guests
on VM on the bare metal.
When I started learning how OS/400 work, now IBM i. I was quite interested to see the execution model of having everything stored as bytecode, with a JIT kernel doing AOT compilation at install time.
Something that is kind of being done on the Android and Windows worlds, attempted on Oberon and Inferno, but not with the extent that the OS/400 does it.
Visualiation? You mean virtualization. That was a given, Turing should be credited with that, after all the whole idea of a universal Turing machine is that it can emulate any other Turing machine (including another universal one).
VM is not really an emulation. If the
guest's
code is just user level code, then
it just runs as usual directly in the
hardware processor. But if in the guest's code
there is a
privileged instruction, that is,
an instruction reserved for an operating system,
then the VM
gets an interrupt and, then, decides if
VM wants to execute the privileged instruction
on behalf of the guest. To make this
all efficient, there is some hardware called
virtual machine assist.
It goes back even farther than the 1980s. IBM's virtualization product, VM/370, was released in 1972.[1] The development of it happened in the late 1960s on a special version of the 360 that had virtual memory support.[2]
Comments
literally every device used by consumers today can be traced back to IBM.
How so? How does an ARM powered smartphone or tablet trace back to IBM?
It's a lot easier to claim that all modern processors (that are based on a load/store architecture... All RISC chips, basically... and that includes x86) trace back to the CDC 6600, probably Seymour Cray's most direct and influential gift to the world of computing.
And the IBM reference would be IBM 801 by John Cocke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_801 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cocke
Dunno how much it actually influenced the Archimedes though.
I can get behind that. Control data, or it will control you!
Well, off the top of my head, and unlikely to be the only association..
IBM licensed the 286 for the IBM PC/AT. Acorn wanted to use the 286 for the Archimedes, but Intel would not allow licensing. This forced Acorn to create their own processor, resulting in the first RISC based consumer PC.
Perhaps that snowballs into our current tech environment.
Exactly, that's why I picked ARM. So that line does not trace back to IBM in any way, besides, Intel isn't IBM.
So that line does not trace back to IBM in any way, besides, Intel isn't IBM.
eh.. sorta.[0].
IBM had significant stake in Intel during the time period we're talking about, and that whole period was filled with anti-trust talk, which turned into actual anti-trust fire a few years later in the 90s.
I may not have been blunt enough in my other comment, but I was alluding to the idea that IBM and Intel may have been involved in anti-competitive behavior against Acorn, which caused them to innovate in such a way that created the systems we enjoy today (modern mobile). The idea that the pressures on the company spawned innovation.
[0]: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-29/business/fi-1393_1_in...
'Was the cause of a complete redevelopment' is the polar opposite of 'can be traced back to' whatever ugly dealings IBM and Intel may have had (which doesn't surprise me one bit).
When you press the main button. BOOM! Interrupt! That is one example. They even had virtualization in the 80's on System / 370 long VMWare came out.
There was the operating systems CMS and CP67 done by the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center for the IBM 360/67 in, right, about 1967. The CP67 was control program 67 and was for virtual machine. CMS was Cambridge Monitor Systems, maybe off and on Conversational Monitor System, and the command-line time-sharing operating system users saw.
CP67 was intended as a means for interactive, time-shared operating system development. So, right, could run CP67 on CP67 -- once that was done 7 levels deep.
The combination CP67/CMS was, for the time, a total dream for a time sharing system.
Stop malicious code? Sure: On CP67 write and run any code, any instructions doing anything you want with any data you want, and you just cannot bother any other users. So, could run malicious code safely.
I used CP67/CMS and PL/I from National CSS Time Sharing in Stamford, CT to schedule the fleet at FedEx. Founder, COB, CEO Fred Smith's remark about the output was "Amazing document" "Solved the most important problem facing FedEx". The Board was pleased and a nice chunk of funding was enabled. It literally saved the company. No, Fred never gave me my promised stock, that once he said would be worth $500,000. Add a few zeros for now.
Since then CP67 was called VM, and for years IBM's internal computing was done on about 3600 mainframes around the world and all running VM/CMS and connected with VNET which was a lot like the Internet except the communications were via bisync lines and the routing was done by the mainframes themselves. No, that setup didn't depend on Systems Network Architecture (SNA). Yes, there were a lot of fora!
The advantages of running on VM were too good to pass up, so eventually essentially all production IBM mainframes were running their operating systems as guests on VM on the bare metal.
In virtual machine, IBM was way out in front.
They still are.
When I started learning how OS/400 work, now IBM i. I was quite interested to see the execution model of having everything stored as bytecode, with a JIT kernel doing AOT compilation at install time.
Something that is kind of being done on the Android and Windows worlds, attempted on Oberon and Inferno, but not with the extent that the OS/400 does it.
http://virtualirfan.com/history-of-interrupts
So no on that one.
Visualiation? You mean virtualization. That was a given, Turing should be credited with that, after all the whole idea of a universal Turing machine is that it can emulate any other Turing machine (including another universal one).
VM is not really an emulation. If the guest's code is just user level code, then it just runs as usual directly in the hardware processor. But if in the guest's code there is a privileged instruction, that is, an instruction reserved for an operating system, then the VM gets an interrupt and, then, decides if VM wants to execute the privileged instruction on behalf of the guest. To make this all efficient, there is some hardware called virtual machine assist.
It goes back even farther than the 1980s. IBM's virtualization product, VM/370, was released in 1972.[1] The development of it happened in the late 1960s on a special version of the 360 that had virtual memory support.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_%28operating_system%29
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/CMS