Gene E. Bloch said:
Even a cell phone does that
There was a trailer on BBC recently (I didn't watch the program trailed)
about the space programme - the trail concluded with words something
like "the really amazing thing is that they did this with technology
that had less power than a mobile 'phone", at the same time panning out
to show that the trail (shots of spacecraft etc.) had actually been on
the screen of a smartphone. Of course, being the vintage I am (51), I
thought "silly - it was FAR less powerful than that" - IIRR, the Apollo
computer had something like 64K of memory, several orders of magnitude
less than a smartphone! However, it occurs to me that the person making
the trail might have been too young to know that.
The first machine I worked on had a cycle time of one microsecond. The
later model upped the speed to a cycle time of half a microsecond. Like
Turbo, man!
(IBM 7090 & 7094, if you're wondering.)
about 100 kHz max. (could also run at about 10 Hz and 1 Hz, for
demonstration/debugging purposes) in my case. Also a memory of 16 (no,
not 16k).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If you like making stuff there's always somebody ready to say that its
ridiculous. But, actually, I don't think it is. In fact, enthusiasms are good.
Hobbies are healthy. They don't harm anybody. - James May in RT, 6-12
November 2010.