Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
 02-28-2007, 12:34 PM #1 Recycles dryer sheets   Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 73 Computers -- Not PC vs Macs The thread on PC vs Mac reminds me that arguing over the merits of these two systems is a little bit like finding fault with a talking dog because it uses incorrect grammar. Either of these two machines is incredibly more powerful and easier to use than computers used by large research universities 30 years ago. Here is a small personal example. The Postage Stamp Problem. An envelope may carry no more than h stamps, and one has available k integer-valued stamp denominations. Given h and k, find the maximal integer n=n(h,k) such that all integer postage values from 1 to n can be made up. For example, n(3,6)=52 and the two solutions are (1,4,6,14,17,29) and (1,3,7,9,19,24). This means that every integer from 1 to 52 can be written as a sum of 1,2, or 3 of the integers (1,4,6,14,17,29) with repetitions allowed. Moreover, no longer sequence is possible satisfying the given conditions. Also, n(3,7)=70 with a single solution (1,4,5,15,18,27,34). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamp_problem This problem goes back at least to 1937. I first heard about it in 1974 and wrote a program to solve it. Over the years I have implemented the algorithm in FORTRAN, IBM 370 Assembler, Pascal, C, FORTH and C++. Some results for n(3,7) are summarized in the following table: Year Computer/Chip Language Time (seconds) 1974 IBM 370/158 Fortran 45 1974 IBM 370/158 Assembler 15 1984 Apple ][/6502 FORTH 21,600 1990 Mac SE 8 MHZ 68000 Think Pascal 276 1990 16 MHZ 386SX Turbo C++ 53 1994 90 MHZ Pentium Visual C++ 1.5 1998 400 MHZ Pentium II Visual C++ 0.25 The IBM 370/158 was a large mainframe and was the main academic computer for the University of Illinois at Chicago. It filled a large room, RENTED for \$50,000.00/month and an IBM systems engineer had his own on site office. The algorithm is a good test of raw CPU speed since it is branch and bound with mostly simple integer arithmetic and array subscripting completely contained in memory. The algorithm time increases exponentially. For kicks I tried n(3,8) and n(3,9) on my 2.8Ghz Dual Core Pentium with times of .55 seconds and 12.4 seconds. __________________ __________________
 Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free! Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE! You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more! Join Early-Retirment.org For Free - Click Here
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
 02-28-2007, 12:59 PM #2 Thinks s/he gets paid by the post   Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 2,155 Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs You did not write an assembler version for the Apple 6502? Lazy! 21,600 seconds? You could have done it in 6 hours, while waiting for the result. It should be interesting looking at the cost per instructions executed per second over the years. It's been an interesting ride, with lots more to come. __________________ __________________
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
02-28-2007, 01:05 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post

Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,459
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sam It's been an interesting ride, with lots more to come.
The trend now is multicore rather than trying to make the individual cores faster. So, you'll probably have to rewrite the program again to make it multithreaded if you want to see future performance improvements.
__________________

Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
02-28-2007, 02:31 PM   #4
Recycles dryer sheets

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 73
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sam You did not write an assembler version for the Apple 6502? Lazy! 21,600 seconds? You could have done it in 6 hours, while waiting for the result.
In 1984 it was pretty heady stuff to have a computer on your desk that could solve a problem like that. I did know 6502 Assembler at one time but you're right, I was too lazy. I said the language was FORTH, but actually it was my Pascal version using the Pascal I had written for the Apple ][ in FORTH. If you know how FORTH works, that essentially makes it written in FORTH.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wab The trend now is multicore rather than trying to make the individual cores faster. So, you'll probably have to rewrite the program again to make it multithreaded if you want to see future performance improvements.
I'm too lazy to multi-thread it, or at least I have more interesting things to do.
__________________

Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
 02-28-2007, 02:48 PM #5 Thinks s/he gets paid by the post   Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 2,155 Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs I learned 6502 assembly on the Apple in 1984 too. At the time, I worked for Hayden Software. One to the company product was the Macro Assembler. I think I still have its manual. Pascal, yes. FORTH, no. __________________
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
 02-28-2007, 02:54 PM #6 Thinks s/he gets paid by the post   Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 4,459 Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs Didn't Hayden publish a couple of chess programs? Microchess and Sargon? I loved Sargon. __________________
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
 02-28-2007, 02:56 PM #7 Thinks s/he gets paid by the post   Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 2,155 Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs Yes, Sargon. I loved it too. It also published a popular word processor (can't remember the name). __________________
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
03-02-2007, 06:02 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mid Hudson Valley
Posts: 1,778
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs

Quote:
 Originally Posted by John Tuttle The thread on PC vs Mac reminds me that arguing over the merits of these two systems is a little bit like finding fault with a talking dog because it uses incorrect grammar.
My dog just said, "Bite me."

__________________
In a panamax down by the river.

Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
 03-02-2007, 08:30 AM #9 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)Give me a forum ...   Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Losing my whump Posts: 22,697 Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs Some of my first endeavors were using PAL-III on a PDP-8, then I built and coded in assembler on one of these: http://www.jitterjunction.com/firstcomputer.htm Then I got my hands on an Altair and a PDP-11/40. Comparing the days when you had to write your own basic IO routines, most of your own "OS" routines you kept in a 'toolbag' and a lot of code entry came with toggle switches and push buttons...things have certainly come a long, long ways. I'm also not sure those dang things actually ever were programmed to do anything useful. Just making them blink some lights in a particular series was pretty tough coding __________________ Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs
03-02-2007, 10:13 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,713
Re: Computers -- Not PC vs Macs

Quote:
 The Postage Stamp Problem. An envelope may carry no more than h stamps, and one has available k integer-valued stamp denominations. Given h and k, find...
What, are you with the Italian Post Office?
(which BTW I'm sure ran better in 1937 than it does now with computers.. )

I'm unsure what this has to do with real life -- I'd always understood that computers were optimized to perform certain kinds of calculations.. moon launch being different from chess-playing being different from video-streaming being different from 3-D graphics, etc.

Now THIS is funky!
http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...25405.700.html
----
A quantum computer program has produced an answer without actually running.

The idea behind the feat, first proposed in 1998, is to put a quantum computer into a “superposition”, a state in which it is both running and not running. ...

With the right set-up, the theory suggested, the computer would sometimes get an answer out of the computer even though the program did not run. And now researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have improved on the original design and built a non-running quantum computer that really works.

They send a photon into a system of mirrors and other optical devices, which included a set of components that run a simple database search by changing the properties of the photon.

The new design includes a quantum trick called the Zeno effect. Repeated measurements stop the photon from entering the actual program, but allow its quantum nature to flirt with the program's components - so it can become gradually altered even though it never actually passes through.

"It is very bizarre that you know your computer has not run but you also know what the answer is," says team member Onur Hosten.

This scheme could have an advantage over straightforward quantum computing. "A non-running computer produces fewer errors," says Hosten.

----

Can't argue with the guy there!

More:
http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html

Yes, we have come a long way!
First I routinely used this:

Then this:

Then this:

Then this (which I still have and use on rare occasions; still works after 25 years! Have changed batteries 1x.):

This:

And this:

.. well, even some of the "youngsters" here can imagine the rest. And this walk down 'memory' lane was over the course of what? 10 years?.. not even. More like 6 or 8.
__________________

__________________

 Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)