Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Jan 2008 22:47 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "The Cray-1 is to supercomputers what Sigmund Freud is to psychiatrists. That is to say: it's likely the only one of the bunch that you've heard about, and you can feign cleverness just by dropping the name. So let's take a whack at this computer legend."
Order by: Score:
Cray
by gehersh on Sun 6th Jan 2008 23:27 UTC
gehersh
Member since:
2006-01-03

no woman no Cray

Reply Score: 5

MIPS
by hylas on Mon 7th Jan 2008 01:20 UTC
hylas
Member since:
2005-07-10
RE: MIPS
by gehersh on Mon 7th Jan 2008 01:27 UTC in reply to "MIPS"
gehersh Member since:
2006-01-03

Cray MIPS are FLOPS (roughly).

Mac MIPS are what? Most likely, Meaningless Operations Per Second.

Reply Score: 3

RE: MIPS
by Doc Pain on Mon 7th Jan 2008 02:14 UTC in reply to "MIPS"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Supercomputer in 1976: 80 MHz and 8MB RAM, 64 bit, multi-user, multi-tasking, UNIX.

x86 PC at this time: does not exist.

x86 PC ten years later, in 1986: One i286 processor with 10 MHz 1 MB RAM, 8 / 16 Bit, no usable UNIX, no multi-tasking. Ugly design instead.

And even today, there is... :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: MIPS
by javiercero1 on Mon 7th Jan 2008 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE: MIPS"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Errr, no... the Cray-1 did not ran UNICOS (unix version from CRAY), it ran COS. Which was not really much of an OS for interactive use. UNICOS came much later, and at least in the early CRAYs it was pretty much useless.

Most CRAYs (and supers for that matter) during the 70s and 80s were ran as a queue system, a sort of co-processor to the front end machine which would handle most of the user interactions. Normally in the case of CRAYs there used to be mini or mainframe (VAX, CDC, etc).

CRAYs were basically a fast floating point coprocessor, never intended for interactive use. In fact they were notoriously bad as time-shared systems.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: MIPS
by dlundh on Mon 7th Jan 2008 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE: MIPS"
dlundh Member since:
2007-03-29

80286 wasn't all that bad: There were many operating systems that utilized the 80286 protected mode: OS/2 1.x, Venix, SCO Xenix 286, Coherent and others.

Reply Score: 2

RE: MIPS
by Soulbender on Mon 7th Jan 2008 03:01 UTC in reply to "MIPS"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wow. Todays systems can beat a 80Mhz system from 1975. Whats your point?

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: MIPS
by hylas on Mon 7th Jan 2008 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE: MIPS"
RE[3]: MIPS
by sandorfal on Mon 7th Jan 2008 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MIPS"
sandorfal Member since:
2006-02-22

"people like you"

With this words, you just describe yourself, hylas. But you don't describe these other poeple

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: MIPS
by zombie process on Mon 7th Jan 2008 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MIPS"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

You gave absolutely no indication of what you were getting at in your post, other than TEH MAC=TEH FASTAR which, frankly, came off as not only snobish, but silly, especially when you consider there's nothing special about what the Mac can do now that it's x86 just like "everyone else." It's no surprise that you're getting a dose of blowback.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: MIPS
by hylas on Mon 7th Jan 2008 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MIPS"
RE[4]: MIPS
by zombie process on Mon 7th Jan 2008 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MIPS"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

I like macintoshes too, fwiw. I did not mod you down, and wouldn't mod you down for something like that anyhow. My point was that all you posted were specs of 2 totally unrelated machines in a totally non-sequitur fashion.

I have no idea wtf you're getting at with the remainder of your last post - I'm not acting like a hall monitor, and I have no idea wtf you mean when you question my "relevancy."

Have a nice day.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: MIPS
by joshv on Tue 8th Jan 2008 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MIPS"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

It seemed clear that he was highlighting the massive increase in computer power over the decades. If that went over your head, well, then you might be a tad slow on the uptake.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: MIPS
by zombie process on Tue 8th Jan 2008 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: MIPS"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

What I posted offends you? Or is it I'm not "politically correct" enough in parsing my words for your taste/perceptions?
Have you anything to say about the Cray? Or you just here to check "hall passes?
Did you follow the links? Did you read the article? Do you have an opinion besides what you perceive as PC?

It seems my quite innocent post has been perceived as a possible violation of some unwritten rule of brevity - that my true intent to influence some of you people to the mental torture that is my post, flailing you subliminally to my will and domination of this forum.

Slow on the uptake? - to WHAT? Posting links to something irrelevant? Consider your relevancy, actually consider your past posts.

Yeah, I like Macintoshes - sue me, I'm not running for office, nor do I need your approval.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: MIPS
by joshv on Tue 8th Jan 2008 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: MIPS"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

I was merely pointing out that the original post was quite clearly a comment on the amazing progress in computering over the last 3 decades. I won't answer the rest of your cut and paste rant.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MIPS
by dimosd on Mon 7th Jan 2008 18:23 UTC in reply to "MIPS"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

Cray - 1 = 150 MIPS
Mac Pro 8-Core (Xeon) 56,xxx MIPS


Cray - 1:
$9 million
5.5 tons
115 kilowatts

Now THAT's a real computer. Loud and heavy. Today's computers are just WIMPs

Reply Score: 2

Seymour Cray and the Mac
by chemical_scum on Mon 7th Jan 2008 01:24 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

Back in the eighties when Apple was designing the Mac II they bought time on a Cray supercomputer for some of the design work.

When Seymour Cray was told that Apple "is designing the new Mac on a Cray" he replied "that is very interesting because I am designing the next Cray on a Mac."

Reply Score: 9

Cray furniture!
by Mark0 on Mon 7th Jan 2008 01:44 UTC
Mark0
Member since:
2005-08-11

I saw a Cray-1 some year ago at the Deutsches Museum in Munich.
Hell, I actually sat on it, literally! ;)

Edited 2008-01-07 01:44

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cray furniture!
by Doc Pain on Mon 7th Jan 2008 02:24 UTC in reply to "Cray furniture!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I saw a Cray-1 some year ago at the Deutsches Museum in Munich."

I saw a cray (but I think it wasn't a Cray-1) running at the university data processing center of the university "Otto von Guericke" in Magdeburg. I even touched it. Wow, what a power...

"Hell, I actually sat on it, literally! ;) "

Cray furniture, SGI dishes and Sun inventory make every flat become a place worth living in. :-)

Reply Score: 2

Re:
by ritesh_nair on Mon 7th Jan 2008 04:42 UTC
ritesh_nair
Member since:
2007-03-22

====just a random thought===

The Apollo 11 mission was the first manned mission to land on the Moon. It was the fifth human spaceflight of the Apollo program and the third human voyage to the moon. Launched on July 16, 1969


=====Fastest supercomputer available====
Cray 1
Released: 1976
Price: ~$5m-$9m
OS: Cray Operating System, UNICOS
Processor: 80 MHz
Memory: 8MB max main memory

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re:
by Calipso on Mon 7th Jan 2008 05:01 UTC in reply to "Re:"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Either what they did is pretty impressive with the machines they had back then....or the conspiracy theorists may have a point ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Re:
by Doc Pain on Mon 7th Jan 2008 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Either what they did is pretty impressive with the machines they had back then....or the conspiracy theorists may have a point ;) "

In addition, I think most modern cars contain more computing power than the whole Apollo program, so why don't they land on the moon? Many parking lots could be freed this way. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Re: Your point?
by unclefester on Mon 7th Jan 2008 05:36 UTC in reply to "Re:"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The atom bomb was designed using mechanical calculators. In the 18th century the British used savants to calculate navigation tables. They needed to be able to mentally calculate 8 figure logarithms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Re: Your point?
by chemical_scum on Mon 7th Jan 2008 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Your point?"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

The atom bomb was designed using mechanical calculators.

Yes, they were Monroe hand driven mechanical calculators. At Los Alamos they had a very large room filled with locally hired woman operating them. Designing how the calculations were split up amongst the many operators (parallel computing?) was Nobel prizewinner to be and bongo drummer Dick Feynman. His title was "Director of Computers".

This isn't the only contribution Feynman made to computer science. Many years later when his son was working for Connection Machines he took a years sabbatical to work there. While he was there he worked out the foundational principles of quantum computing. he also solved problems in parallel processing using differential equations. No one had ever thought you could solve computer science problems using differential equations before, as they apply to continuous variables. However a continuum can be used to represent an underlying discrete substratum. If we take the idea of quantum gravity seriously, then every time we use differential equations to model physical reality we are doing just that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Re: Your point?
by Doc Pain on Mon 7th Jan 2008 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Your point?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

''Yes, they were Monroe hand driven mechanical calculators. At Los Alamos they had a very large room filled with locally hired woman operating them. [...] [Dick Feynman's] title was "Director of Computers".''

No, not operators - computers. In these days, people doing such kind of calculations were called "computer" (AE) or "computor" (BE) theirselves. "I work as a computer" has been a valid sentence. Today, we use the same term for the device that is operated, not the person who's doing it.

The term operator was present up to... hmm... let's assume 1990 - 2000 when supercomputers and mainframe installations didn't need special personnel to be maintained. The operator of today does not touch the machines anymore, he can be glad to change the paper in the printer - no comparison to the responsibilities of a former OP1 (shift supervisor) at data processing centers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Re:
by qroon on Mon 7th Jan 2008 05:45 UTC in reply to "Re:"
qroon Member since:
2005-10-21

Obligatory: We never landed on the moon!

:)

Reply Score: 2

Weird...
by BiPolar on Mon 7th Jan 2008 11:29 UTC
BiPolar
Member since:
2007-07-06

I didn't knew that Robin Williams was a computer scientist!

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/01/05/tob_cray1-6.jpg

Reply Score: 2

RE: Weird...
by Soulbender on Mon 7th Jan 2008 19:09 UTC in reply to "Weird..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

hahaha. Yeah, that was my initial impression too ;)

Reply Score: 2

Graphics Card Is 1000X Faster Than a Cray-1
by hylas on Tue 8th Jan 2008 21:52 UTC
hylas
Member since:
2005-07-10

Graphics Card Is 1000X Faster Than a Cray-1:

http://gizmodo.com/342366/ati-r680-graphics-card-is-1000x-faster-th...

"... the upcoming enthusiast graphics card from ATI that is, apparently, as fast as 1000 Cray-1s."

hylas

Reply Score: 1