The Soviet-made 1801VM2 CPU (a binary-compatible implementation of the PDP11 instruction set and QBUS interface) was developed in 1982. The 1801VM2 is a further development of the earlier 1801VM1 doubling the original 5MHz clock speed. From a constructive standpoint this CPU is a completely independent development.
There’s a wealth of interesting computer technology in the former USSR, and it’s great to see more of it make its way online.
The UUSR heavily cloned the PDP-11, particularly the LSI-11 and other QBUS chipsets. Throughout the latter half of the USSR-s lifetime, nearly every home computer was either an PDP-11 clone, or a ZX Spectrum clone. TETRIS was originally written on one of these PDP-11 clone home computers.
The PDP-11 was also cloned and used as a minicomputer/mainframe as well, along with the PDP-8, VAX and IBM System/360.
There was some home-grown architectures, and the soviets did also develop some home-grown reimplementations of certain architectures, but for the most part they were blatant copies of western designs.
> Throughout the latter half of the USSR-s lifetime, nearly every home computer was either an PDP-11 clone, or a ZX Spectrum clone.
Khm….
Which exact home computer models do You mean?
I’m aware of only one such model – BK-0010 (and some it variants – BK-0010.01, BK-0011). And it was rare enough comparing to Sinclair ZX Spectrum clones and a lot of i8080 based locally developed architectures. Those two – Spectrum clones and Radio-86RK/YuT-88/Specialist/Orion-128, dominated Russian households in late 80-th/early 90-th.
Sure, PDP-11 clones was widely used as professional computers in those days (Electronica family – Electronica-60, Electronica-85, Electronica-88, DVK-1/2/3/4) and as a core of the school computing centers (BK-0010Sh, DVK-1/2, Electronica MS 0202), but it is different niches, not “home computer”.
Well, as a former URSS citizen I must say, PDP-11 clones were never home computers. ZX spectrums along with a couple of Russia’s own designs (Mikrosha nd BK) became popular in the late 80s..
Then there was a clone of i8080, a machine named Corvette with a CPU KR580VM80A, which I as a student used to assemble (and disassemble it’s CPM OS 🙂
In fact most of Soviet architectures were clones of western designs. Except one! And this one was and still is the best design which beats x86 hands down in many areas. In fact first Intel Pentium implemented some of the ideas of original russian Elbrus.
оно живое …… https://www.hardwaretimes.com/meet-the-elbrus-16s-a-16-core-cpu-2ghz-designed-in-russia-on-a-16nm-process/
x86 was never a good architecture, it was just lucky to get used by IBM and thus IBM clones.
There were a lot of much better western designs – m68k, alpha, mips, sparc, vax, power etc
All of those “better” architectures had their own set of shortcomings.
x86 wasn’t “lucky.” There were a lot of reasons why IBM picked the Intel design, and the market clearly proved them right.
There’s always been these slew of salty qualitative arguments against x86, which the market keeps proving wrong.
javiercero1,
That’s debatable. The gorilla in the room often chooses the victors. Intel wasn’t the only benefactor, microsoft would likely have failed to become the juggernaut that it is if IBM hadn’t given them an OS monopoly.
This isn’t to say merit doesn’t play a role, but there’s often a lot of people with genuine merit and choosing between them can come down to luck and connections over merit.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/05/how-bill-gates-mother-influenced-the-success-of-microsoft.html
The point being, it’s not logical to say “the market clearly proved them right” when the market could have also clearly “proved IBM right” had they gone with another architecture. We can only speculate what would have happened.
Most of us are in agreement that x86 is good enough, but the main reason that we keep using it has to do with it’s ubiquity rather than anything architecturally superior about x86. If the world has been using architecture X for several decades and Y comes along, X’s continuing dominance says absolutely nothing about the merits of X over Y. When you have scenarios where X and Y do not begin at the same starting line, X is going to be able to win a lot of battles simply due to it’s preexisting market advantages rather than innate merit.
So again while the market proves that x86 has staying power, it has very little to say about comparative merits. The came can be said about most technology.
The market proved both Intel and Microsoft right.
You not liking it is a completely different thing and completely irrelevant.
Better things with clear value propositions came along and beat either vendor; ARM has dominated the SoC space and Android/iOs do the same in the tablet/smartphone space.
Better products with CLEAR value proposition beat the established player(s) all the time, it’s a constant in the tech world, and why it advances at the pace it does.
javiercero1,
Correction: the market proved them viable, but it did not prove them to be better than the other would-be alternatives that were not chosen. That you can only speculate.
You should comprehend what you read first, before giving facile corrections.
javiercero1,
It’s the truth, you were speculating about the merits of IBM using non x86 CPUs in an alternate timeline that you haven’t experienced. You have no credibility on it, nobody in our timeline does. That’s why it’s called speculation. Moreover you’re making a false equivalence between somethings market-share and it’s merit.
Merit is only one factor that goes into market share, but it’s not the only one especially in tech where markets are often controlled by monopolies/oligopolies resorting to anti-competitive measures, which is antithetical to merit.
That the market proved both Microsoft and Intel right is a fact not open to discussion. They won the PC war: Windows is the most widespread OS in the desktop, and x86 is the dominant architecture in that space.
Market share is the main metric for the merits of a product. Some people have a hard time with consensus that does not match their own personal stylistic preferences.
i.e. More customers felt that the price/performance value proposition offered by x86-based desktop systems were superior to the alternatives. That’s an undisputed quantitative metric.
IBM choosing Intel ended up proven right by the market.
Intel had the edge over Motorola in terms of development tools, production capacity and sourcing, and superior engineering support. Which guaranteed faster time to market, and cheaper, with x86 vs 68000.
You know the less sexy stuff, that most people not part of the industry have no clue about… but which actually make or break a product.
A product is the sum of all it’s parts, not just the few superficial details you favor.
Similarly, ARM-based SoC’s and non-Windows based OSs have won on the newest segment of largest growth: mobile. Because neither Intel nor Microsoft understood those markets, and they were proven wrong accordingly.
javiercero1,
Yes, but you cannot logically infer or “prove” that others could not have won the PC war had IBM chosen them instead. That is why your point is debatable.
Mobile is a completely different market where intel and x86 never held a monopoly. So yea I can agree merit can play a bigger role when incumbency and network effects are less pronounced.
No my point is not debatable, it’s based on historical fact. You’re the one requiring parallel alternative realities to work.
And once again you manage to conveniently not comprehend a basic point in order to keep your idiotic need to be right.
You’re such a waste of energy. Good bye,
javiercero1,
What happened historically is not in debate, but what could have happened if other companies had been selected is since that is speculation. You don’t have proof. This is not my opinion, this is the objective truth.
Well, I haven’t said that you’re wrong about microsoft and intel’s success, which is self evident. However you are wrong in citing their success in our timeline as proof that they were the only right choice for IBM. You have not proven that others could not have been successful in place of microsoft or intel. Alternatives would not only have been realistic, but it’s a matter of historical record that IBM was looking at other partnerships.
https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1981-06/page/n209/mode/2up
Obviously we know what happened, but what could have happened if IBM went with other companies is speculation, in other words we don’t know and you don’t have any proof.
See ya later.
Everything is debatable. Especially opinions. I’m with Alfman on that. Network effects are what differtiates platforms from products and for platforms usual market mechanisms do not apply. To create a platform it has to work, obviously, but beyond that marketing, timing and restrictions are far more important than any technical features.
In this case, the platform was an IBM PC. It was different from previous ones in that it was marketed for an enterprise use only and it was leveraging IBM’s position in this market. By accident (IBM failed to guard the platform properly) the PC became an open standard and its popularity quickly grew far beyond previous previous estimates. We know the rest – small subcontracted companies, Intel and Microsoft, have both managed to hold on to their niche binary compatibility subplatforms and as the PC market grew they have both greatly benefitted from the IBM’s blunder.
As for technical merits, of course there was some but they were not the main drivers. IBM has outsourced the OS and the CPU simply because it wanted to be faster to the market. It chose small subcontractors to remain in control, so they could replace them with in-house solutions a few years down the line.
The market proves who sells the most, but that doesn’t necessarily mean best as others have said. Imagine a world where IBM doesn’t pick the 8088; do you believe the progression of the computing industry would have ended up on x86 if IBM had gone with something else? I don’t, but we can’t know.
This is interesting, since I had a hunch:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/why-the-ibm-pc-used-an-intel-8088
This section seems to prove out the network effects that helped the 8088 get picked, the same dynamic that pushed it in to the lead since then:
—
Dave Bradley, who wrote the BIOS (basic input output system) for the IBM PC, and many of the other engineers involved say IBM had already decided to use the x86 architecture while the project was still a task force preparing for management approval in August 1980.
In 1990, Bradley told Byte there were four reasons for choosing the 8088. First, it had to be a 16-bit chip that overcame the 64K memory limit of the 8-bit processors. Second, the processor and its peripheral chips had to be immediately available in quantity. Third, it had to be technology IBM was familiar with. Fourth, it had to have available languages and operating systems.
—
Number 3: because IBM used the 8085 and other processors in the family (as the article goes on to discuss), it helped them pick the 8088 for the PC. There are other reasons listed (68k not have the quantities, etc.), but it had to be something IBM was already using.
That some of you not liking the historical fact it doesn’t mean that it is debatable.
Hyper competitive markets, where high degree of specialization/technical competence are involved, tend to be really efficient at signaling out the better products.
Plenty of people equate “better” with whatever reinforces their confirmation bias. And when it comes to things like, CPUs, which are basically the most complex machines has ever produced. It turns out that defining “better” is an equally complex proposition,
And the insane pace of technological advance, not matched by any other field, highlights that in this case markets really are very good at picking up the winning products. All arguments against that historical record boil down to the old “if you grandma had balls you would have called her grandpa” type of arguments.
x86 won the desktop because it had the better overall proposition for that space in terms of: availability, software ecosystems, performance, price, distribution, support, execution, application spectrum, etc. Some competing products may have been slightly better in one metric, while being much worse on the rest.
ARM has done the same for other markets.
There will always be alternative products that “coulda have been a contender.” But alas, they weren’t.
javiercero1,
Nah, you’re just in denial about it. It is debatable because you haven’t proven anything.
You’re entitled to that opinion. However it’s still a wishy-washy argument that doesn’t bring anything informative to the table because it could apply equally to whoever IBM had chosen even if it weren’t MS & Intel. That’s pure speculation. Not you, nor anyone else, has a crystal ball to know with certainty what would have happened. Ironically that timeline’s javiercero1 would probably disagree with you and would have convinced himself his version of history was the only right one for IBM.
I wouldn’t take issue with your opinion itself, only your assertions that it’s “proved” and “not debatable”, which frankly is ridiculous.
Nah, I could have written 1+1=2 and you would have still have taken issue because you just can’t help yourself.
javiercero1,
I am always willing to have reasonable and logical conversations. You are accusing me of not respecting mathematical proofs, however the problem is your previous argument did not measure up to the qualities of a mathematical proof. Opinions don’t need mathematical proofs, but therein lies the problem: your ego refuses to admit that your opinions aren’t fact even though this difference is clear to everyone else. Like I keep saying your speculation may be right or may not be right, but it’s really your refusal to admit that it’s speculation that’s the problem.
That IBM made the right decision with x86 is by now a pretty well established historical fact. Just as 1+1=2.
javiercero1,
Compared to what though? You weren’t a witness to the outcomes of alternative possibilities. While you can speculate that alternatives would have been wrong, that doesn’t even come close to passing the bar as a fact. Your argument is weak because it conflates facts and opinions.
There’s something to learn here: your arguments would be a lot stronger if you didn’t put yourself into the position of having to defend opinions as fact.
The only thing to learn from these exchanges is figuring out exactly how deeply in the spectrum you are.
Meanwhile in our reality: x86 won the desktop, IBM made the right choice.QED.
javiercero1,
You and me both pal 🙂
The first part is a fact: x86 won the desktop, but your second assertion is only your opinion because there’s no saying how well others would have done without speculating. Why do you think everyone understands this but you?
Well, then you should make that appointment with a good psychologist! Progress!
That you can understand a basic argument proven by an entire industry, millions of customers, and historical record, that seems to indicate the learning difficulties being on your end of the spectrum (pun intended).
javiercero1,
I know that pivoting to ad hominem attacks is your go-to maneuver but seriously dude it doesn’t override your fallacy of treating your opinions as fact. FYI ad hominem attacks are their own fallacy too; they imply you’ve given up on the merits of your point to attack one’s character instead.
My point, that you don’t know what would have happened if IBM backed someone else, shouldn’t even be remotely controversial at all. It’s the truth. You’ve made it controversial because your ego can’t accept that I actually have a valid point.
So how do you want this discussion to end? Agree to disagree? More ad hominem attacks? Cede my point that you don’t know how alternatives would have turned out?
It’s not an ad hominem when it is a statement of fact. You behave exactly like someone who is on the autistic spectrum.
You’re trying to disprove a historical fact by making alternative reality scenarios as being more authoritative and you don’t seem to understand why that is wrong. So there’s clearly something going on there with you .
javiercero1,
My behavior is a byproduct of your denial of objective truth. If you don’t like my behavior, then consider changing yours.
Cite a specific instance of what you are alleging. You’ll find I’ve consistently agreed on points of historical fact and I also recognize that x86 won the desktop market. You however are avoiding my actual point: we don’t know what would have happened had IBM backed alternatives. It’s speculation. Anyways I think I’ve nailed the point hard enough, I just hope you remember this for next time: don’t paint yourself into positions of having to defend your opinions as fact. People can see right through that.
Nah. It seems that at some point I created such narcissistic injury to your ego that you have to debate anything I post with the express goal of winning.
Here you’re basically reaching to the extreme: using parallel reality arguments, because you can’t refute the historical record has proven IBM’s choice correct.
Had there been competing product a better holistic value proposition, those would have won. But they didn’t.
It’s like someone claiming something as straight forward as: whoever won the gold medal was the best athlete in that event in those Olympics, And you saying how there’s no way to claim that because some other contestant could have won and thus be better.
Which is idiotic.
javiercero1,
You’ve got me wrong, I don’t care about winning these arguments with you, but I do care about the truth – perhaps too much so. I really have no objection with your opinion about x86 or MS having been the best choice for IBM save one: you keep wrongly stating it as a proven fact. But that’s not how facts work. Your assertion is being made in complete ignorance of any of the other possible outcomes.
ven though this is not about winning or loosing for me, I do think that’s how you feel about it and that’s why it’s so difficult for you to concede the truth no matter how simple and obvious it is – you view it as loosing. Well I don’t know how to help you with this because I think the mere observation that your opinion is not a fact in the future would once again trigger you. To be honest it really would be easiest if you could respectfully agree to disagree. We could both be nice about it and move on 🙂
Cheers
Nah. I could say the sky is blue and you will still have to argue that point.
javiercero1:
You are pivoting to examples that don’t reflect the fallacy of your logic…
*Facepalm*
There is no scenario in which defending an opinion as fact isn’t a fallacy.
thanks for proving the point.
javiercero1,
Well, your point involves some dishonesty in pretending that the facts were ever in dispute, but I can overlook that. It’s my hope that you’ll accept the logical futility in conflating opinions or speculation with fact so that we won’t have to argue about it next time.
Didn’t I said that if I were to claim the sky was blue, you wouldn’t be able to help yourself and you had to argue? And here we are.
Thank you again.
javiercero1,
Who’s arguing about the sky being blue? Nobody here since we’re both in agreement. Throwing out random facts and then pretending the argument is over said fact is false. You keep pivoting away from what you already know my actual argument to be: you’re opinions are not fact. You know this is true, and that’s why you keep pivoting.
Each time you pivot is a reflection on your own thought process: you consider your position too weak to defend so you try to make a new argument over something else as a distraction. Well, there will be time enough for new arguments, but for the record you failed to refute my point all this time: your opinions are debatable because they are not fact. All the pivots and ad hominem attacks in the world aren’t going to change that. My hope is that you won’t make this mistake again. even if only to avoid being placed in positions of having to deny obvious truths like now.
Wow, Your cranium really is THAT far up your own rectum…
javiercero1,
Your ad hominem distractions are a desperate attempt to save face. Even you know that I’m right, and yet you are itching to portray me as being in the wrong. It’s time to face the truth and accept that opinions are debatable. It was never complicated until you made it complicated.
Yes. At some point you received a narcissistic injury that triggers a pathological need to “win” arguments at all cost. And your inability to grasp basic metaphor indicates you’re clearly on the spectrum.
We’ve already established all of that. No need to reinforce the point…
javiercero1,
I really don’t give a crap about winning or keeping score. Your ad hominem attacks are pointless. Grow up and accept that nobody’s opinion is dogma.
Your self assigned role, as the dialectic police in these threads, wouldn’t be so ridiculous if you weren’t so out of your depth.
One last time: IBM’s choice of x86 was clearly proven correct by the market, as the historical record clearly shows. And here’s a hint, if your counter argument requires an alternative reality to work, it turns out the issue is on your side of the debate.
This is the last thread I’m interested in wasting any more time entertaining your autism.
Now, kindly, go pound that sand mound over there…
javiercero1,
Once again, IBM’s history is not in dispute, only your opinion that MS/x86 was the only correct option for IBM, which is pure speculation. Some people believe the wintel combination held back the industry displacing better alternatives. You believe x86 and microsoft were the best possible outcome, and that’s fine as your opinion. The point is nobody knows for sure because everyone’s guess is speculative as we only have data on the events as we’ve witnessed them in our history and not the other possibilities. Statistically speaking our universe is probably mediocre around the middle of the bell curve, neither the most exceptional nor the most regressive possible outcome. There’s no wisdom in pretending to be ignorant of the truth.
Hey boomer, stop accusing me of what you are doing. That’s textbook narcissistic behavior.
You are using other people’s opinion to counteract a historical fact. All the arguments I have read from you in our exchanges is you making up speculative contrarian opinions, where you mistake your own confirmation bias with “evidence.”
I personally don’t think neither windows or x86 was the better alternative. But my opinion is irrelevant with regard to what the market deemed best. IBM made the right choice, and the historical record has shown as such.
You’re the one who can’t separate your emotional attachment from the fact finding process.
javiercero1,
You are being dishonest, I have not disputed any facts.
That’s a funny concession to be making, Yeah many people including you think there were better alternatives.
No, your argument is false because you are ignoring all other possibilities. Just recently you were saying that “It’s impossible to prove a negative”. This is exactly what you are doing here. You are claiming there were no other good choices for IBM. Well how do you know that, exactly? You actually can prove a negative by process of elimination, but given that you haven’t even put an infinitesimal amount of thought into ranking the other possible outcomes, you’ve just made an assertion blindly while being ignorant of alternative possibilities. You can say x86/ms were the best choice for IBM as an opinion, but you are wrong to say it’s a fact that cannot be debated because we don’t know the markets that other outcomes would have created.
Let me correct the statement for you, with one that doesn’t overreach in hopes that maybe we can agree:
“To the best of my knowledge, IBM made the right choice with ms & x86”
I can accept that and we can move on.
To the best of my knowledge you are a boomer with either autism or severe narcissistic tendencies.
Accept that or cram it, I don’t care either way.
javiercero1,
You keep resorting to ad hominem attacks because you know that you’ve failed to refute my point. Just like everyone else, you don’t know what the market would look like if alternatives were chosen. This will remain the truth no matter how many times you chose to create distractions with personal attacks.
So now your opinion is the “truth.”
Massive double standards; another check point for NPD.
Keep going boomer, I’m almost done with your full psychological profile. LOL
javiercero1,
Except you are lying, you keep asserting your opinion as the truth (both in this post and others). I haven’t done so though. What I have asserted is that your claim is based on speculation, that’s just logic. Differentiating fact from opinion is something most learn in grade school. I often use “IMHO” to differentiate my opinions from fact because I know the difference. When you labeling your opinion as an undeniable fact, that’s an objective fallacy. You’d rather troll me with insults and lies defending an objective fallacy because you’re upset I called you out on it.
Hmmm, Great reply: Victim Mentality, Projection, DARVO, and Gaslighting for good measure.
I was wrong. Initially, I though you were just suffering from autism.
Turns out you’re a full blown narcissist. Which explains why any discussion with you involves being sucked into your reality distortion field. I mean, you almost always literally end up making arguments using alternative realities.
So basically, I’ve been wasting time with a narcissistic boomer nobody who knows so little, that doesn’t know how little they know, self electing themselves as the arbiters of right or wrong in matters they’re clearly out of their depth.
LOL. Take care, and don’t forget to go outside and pound some of that sand.
javiercero1,
I’m too humble to be a narcissist, haha. I know my opinions aren’t terribly important in the grand scheme of things. I accept that we are all peers here. I know exactly how you want to respond, so go ahead and let’s see who’s the narcissist who thinks themselves better than others. I don’t go around claiming my opinions are facts and resorting to constant ad hominem attacks against whoever dares questions me. Your accusation is hypocritical and petty, that’s all on you. Get over yourself and accept that your opinion is debatable like everyone else’s.
Narcissism has nothing to do with humility or lack thereof. It’s about pathological/disordered behavior, of which you have displayed enough.
I have no problem with my opinions being debated, and I can certainly recognize when I am wrong. I do have an issue with you acting as the arbiter of debate on matters clearly out of your depth.
I also don’t care for double standards; In our interactions your ‘arguments’ are usually very uninformed assumptions, and in many times just appeals to alternative realities. While you expect other people, with far more competence/education in the matter, to behave as if they were submitting work for a peer reviewed journal. As if you were a peer. But that’s the kicker, we’re not peers.
If someone knows about a subject than I do, either through education, research, or experience, I have no issue taking their information at face value. I assume that person is here in good faith. Thus I have no reason to disrespect someone, who is taking the time and energy to to help me further my understanding/knowledge, by engaging in an uninformed counter debate in which I assume they are wrong automatically.
But since you’re not here in good faith. Here we are, down another rabbit hole where your only priority is to be “correct” regardless.
javiercero1,
Let’s see…
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
You’re fitting quite a few here javiercero1:
Inflated sense of own importance: check,
A lack of empathy for others: check.
Mask of extreme confidence behind which lies a fragile self-esteem vulnerable to the slightest criticism: check.
So many of your posts are inflating your self importance over others, continuously bullying and insulting myself and others to make them feel worse about themselves, hyper sensitive even to the slightest criticisms…yep an awful lot of your posts are affirming your narcissistic traits.
As for me you could argue I have “A deep need for excessive attention and admiration”, but that’s about it. Calling me out for being narcissistic is funny because of how ironic it is coming from you, probably the top narcissist on osnews.
You do have a problem with your opinions being debated though, which manifests itself as the aforementioned narcissistic traits. Four of us expressed opinions in this thread contrary to yours, and instead of accepting that we all have a difference of opinion, you double down with absolutist dogmatism saying “No my point is not debatable” and “That some of you not liking the historical fact it doesn’t mean that it is debatable.”. This is in stark contrast to someone who is cool with a wide gamut of opinions and with their opinions being debated. Consider being open to other opinions, not necessarily to agree, but just to be reasonable and respectful.
The thing is, I didn’t actually offer any opinion on who could have been the best partner for IBM. You chose to argue me instead on a far stronger point: that any opinion about it would have to be speculative, which is true. That was a strategic blunder, and I think you did that out of anger rather than any actual disagreement.
You’re right that it’s awkward for me to be an arbiter, I’m happy with just being peers, but I do need this pattern of personal character attacks to end. It doesn’t have a place here. I’ll get over the drama quickly because I’m a water-under-the-bridge kind of guy, but seriously the attacks need to stop. Trivial differences of opinion are not a good reason to break civility.. Even though we won’t always agree, so what? It’s not a good justification for being hostile or disrespectful. Can we agree to that? I hope so.
What did the Pentium implement from Elbrus exactly?
Soviet computer architecture/science was hopelessly behind. The Soviet system created great engineers, which were promptly poached by the West, but their research in computer engineering/vlsi was of little to no impact as it was usually a few generations behind and mainly derivative.
Originally we had unique domestic designs such as ternary logic machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun
But after The Party changed the course towards the copying of western technologies, we fell behind.
Nevertheless, domestic Elbrus 1&2 were pretty advanced OoO processors.
VLIW-based Elbrus 3 was pretty fresh design for it’s time, architecturally ahead of what Itanium became 20 years later. Sadly we lost a country, so computer architecture was the least problem when people didn’t have money to eat.
Yeah, but I was interested in figuring out what Soviet technology went into the Pentium.
There were little to no actual architectural or VLSI original discoveries/developments from the Soviet block. They were derivative implementations of previous ideas which appeared elsewhere first.
Let the main architect behind Elbrus, Boris Babayan answer this: “In 1978, we made the first superscalar machine, Elbrus-1. Now in the West, only superscalars of this architecture are made. The first superscalar in the West appeared in the 1992, ours in 1978. And the version of the superscalar that we made is the same as in Pentium Pro that Intel made in 1995”
If you are interested in Elbrus technology, this is a very interesting article: https://www.ixbt.com/cpu/e2k-spec.html
Think this is the time to reevaluate the views on soviet technology. I must add that this typical attitude towards russian technology happens all the time and always leads to great surprises. Good example – modern russian hypersonic missiles. No one expected, yet Russia is the only country in the world which successfully implemented this. Same with Elbrus, then and now….
Seymour Cray’s work on the CDC 6600 tends to be listed as the first superscalar in the West. That arrived in 1966 which is slightly before the Elbrus of 1978.
The first published superscalar processor was the IBM ACS-1 in the early 60s.
CDC and IBM were selling mainframes with superscalar designs 10 years before that Elbrus.
Kind of highlights how behind the curve in both terms of technology and research the Soviet computing/solid state technology was that that guy was convinced they invented something that had been openly published in Western conferences for over a decade.
There was an episode of The Americans where the dynamic duo stole Arpanet for the Russians. In one scene there is a mini computer (I assume) marked “16 PDP KL12” . I could never find out what machine that actually was. Might have been made up by the set designers. https://photos.app.goo.gl/aGw7ctguaibdVm9H6
The panel looks like mix of several PDP machine. The switches are PDP-8 I based, with the panel being being heavily based on the PDP-10. The PDP-8 was 12-bit, the PDP-11 was 16-bit (probably where the 16 comes from), but the PDP-10 was 36-bit. Interestingly one of the PDP-10 processors architectures was codenames the KL10.
So it’s kind of a bastardised version of all sorts of PDP series machines. Also, those tape drives are clearly DECtape drives
There was an episode of The Americans where the dynamic duo stole Arpanet for the Russians. In one scene there is a mini computer (I assume) marked “16 PDP KL12” . I could never find out what machine that actually was. Might have been made up by the set designers. https://mumbailoves.com
Spam alert!