World's First RAM Chip (Memory Plane) 

Matthew Nielsen they should be our government

There is truth to that and not. Read Thomas Pynchon, a lot of his stuff focuses on how commercialization causes the misdirection of science. And, he mostly wrote in the 70s. Capitalism is innately tied to consumerism. I'm pretty sure the first scientists to actively create incorrect information in an effort at brand management was for the lead consortium, and that was 100 years ago. But, don't quote me on that. Anyway, I wanted to add that some apple heatsinks literally seal themselves to the keyboards. I was repairing cell phones for a while (terrible gig, don't do it, unless you gotta) and that's where you see the planned obsolence the most. It's pathetic. Older model Samsung phones have a much better and more easy to repair construction than newer ones. And, don't even get me started with Apple. They've purposely turned their chassis into shit. It is a sad state of affairs, indeed. Then again, through the internet, and hopefully into the future, with the decentralization of information and the growing necessity for competence in a digital world. I see people being thrusted towards technology if only to put food to mouth. Either way, I figure the earlier you start trying to become more intimate with lower levels processes, the better. Open source, that's how I see the future. And, based on their most recent actions, so does Microsoft. As genuinely surprising as that is lol. Or not surprising. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Planed obsolescence is not major issue for me, major issue is, that products you mentioned ARENT fully operational by the end of their life cycle, thats what is rly wrong with todays tech.

Agreed

Most of those made more money per month than most people got in years, so I wouldn't feel so sorry for their lack of appreciation.

Joseph Watson cool story bro

Very interesting story Sir!

''immediately followed by a 43-year career as a software engineer, retiring at the end of 2010.'' Elementary...dear Watson!

Where I worked at one time, there was a manager who had who knows how many degrees. He was a professor at a college, so he really knew computers. Oh and he in the 1980s was in his 60s or so. He liked the older technologies, and we had a huge and I mean huge, teletypewriter up against the wall, that no one touched, but he used it for something cics related. Unfortunately what the man had going for him regards the brainiac department, he was missing completely in the interpersonal department. Personnel told him to take a leave of absence and take a vacation as they were afraid he was going to go postal.

Mainly Apple because they are the biggest patent Trolls in history, where Samsung have actually had a good history of sharing intellectual property and most of their patent cases now are in defense of Apple in a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction.

its not Samsung fault, its apples. Apple is a patent troll stealing already made technology and changing its shape then yelling i invented that you cant have it.

Samsung still contributes to open source, Apple doesn't.

+Richard S Could they really not afford to hire an intern to write that into an applet for a laptop to compute? The cost of running that behemoth must have been insane, would have been better served in a museum IMO...

+Teth47 they could have, but the IT staff were very happy with their antique computer. They were forced to upgrade about 2 years ago and immediately there were problems!

Richard S There're always problems when something changes, it's a system everyone's not used to. The point is that it's way cheaper and better once it's going smoothly

+Teth47 I believe commercial computer manufacturers settled on hiring Asian companies who hired women to weave core planes. There were also wiring jigs with grooves for wires and slightly deeper "pits" into which the cores would settle when shaken, with the proper orientation. Cores would be poured from a container onto the jig like pouring salt, the jig would be shaken until the excess cores fell off into a bin for reuse, and each necessary core was sitting in its pit with the hole oriented to insert the wires. Every core had four wires going through it: one passing through each row, one through each column (one row and one column carrying a pulse of current just over HALF the amount needed to switch the core's magnetization), one diagonally through every core in the plane to sense, when a core was reset to the 0 direction, whether it had changed from a 1 (thus reading the data), and another wire going diagonally through the plane on the opposite diagonals to inhibit the writing of a new 1 in the cores which contained (or the computer needed to make them contain) a 1 before the first pair of pulses. After the cores were settled properly in the jig, the workers ran a separate wire for every row (in this case, 64 rows), a separate wire for every column (in this case, 64 columns times 64 rows make 4096 cores), and the sense and inhibit wires through every core, according to the diagram. Core memory was destructive read-out; the memory would write a zero and amplify any pulse on the sense wire, storing the bit in a temporary holding register (one flip-flop circuit per bit). If the computer was writing new data, that would be replaced; if it was reading data, that holding register would be made available to the computer. In either case, the old or new data would be written back; the row and column would be selected to sent pulses in the opposite direction, trying to write a 1, but the inhibit wire would have a pulse set up to oppose them if the bit was supposed to become, or remain, a 0. And this remained the most effective memory technology until the production of large enough semiconductor chips.

+Richard S Punctuation is a thing.

Do you have a piece of those? It would be great to cut it in halves and look at it for a couple of hours. xD

@@RREDesigns 32 bit or 36 bit?

@@rra022001 Either would be awesome. :D

And files are stored in 4K chunks, interesting

+roff poff No. No it wasn't. A couple cameras, a script of questions, an editor and bang. Not actually an effort.

+Nuckelhedd Jones I have never done this before but here it goes - go and fuck yourself. By your logic going to the moon is just a few people, some fuel and a rocket. I bet you are the kind of person that diminishes the work of others while valuing your own above its true worth.

+Nuckelhedd Jones by stating that it's not a personal story you're trying to say that this video is full of lies. Why? Because all the information in this video comes from this great man who was a part of that research. He's speaking in first person.

@@nuckelheddjones6502 autism

boboala1 right now we just need quantum computing to be commercialized. Again China has a satellite launched this year with this, for a secure comms network. Nasa (and I think google) has one as well

Pre-Google: what is 'quantum computing'? Does it have anything to do with nuclear wessels?

boboala1 no. Basically it uses "quantum physics" to perform calculations. Much more complex, and it simulates a biological brain, which is more powerful than a PC

Is your avatar/pic the guy off the animated 'Heavy Metal' movie? I love it!

Core memory was probably offered as an upgrade to the 701, though...? After all, it originally came out in 1952, so it wouldn't have been something he saw "come out" _after_ they stole the MIT work (...something which was probably seen as fair game at the time, as they were both doing government work on the respective machines - the 701 being built first for the DoD - and anything invented at a university was free for the good of all mankind, right...?), but they might have introduced a revised model with upgraded memory as a cheaper alternative to the 704... The processor doesn't know what kind of memory it has attached, after all... it submits a read request to the memory system and waits for the data to come back. Maybe it's faster, maybe it's slower, but the actual interfacing is dealt with by a different module. EDIT: in fact, from an article on the 701... "Memory could be expanded to a maximum of 4096 words of 36 bits by the addition of a second set of 72 Williams tubes or (later) by replacing the entire memory with magnetic-core memory" (using an IBM 737 magnetic core unit, which was the standard configuration for the 704). The bigger advance the 704 made was the addition of index registers to the CPU, which (for reasons I don't fully understand myself) made it much more capable of performing complex calculations at high speed, so it still considerably outperformed a core-equipped 701.

Yes I'm sure that the guy who was there and developed it and saw firsthand what it was used in knows less about it than the guy who's looking up all of his information secondhand on the internet.

And all the other actual processing hardware, interfaces, tape drives etc; the computer itself resided in the _main frame_ , and it was controlled by various remote video or teletype terminals (in the same room, elsewhere in the building, or working over a phone line) and accessed card readers, hard disc packs etc that were freestanding. But everything absolutely needed to run some kind of basic program was contained within the main 19 inch by ~7ft frames. A standard that's persisted into the modern day for server farms and the like because IBM designed them to fit very neatly through a standard size doorway with just enough wiggle room to allow for hallway carpets and the door itself, and so you could get your fingers around the edges to pull it into the computer room without skinning your knuckles _every_ time. Minicomputers then originally meaning anything smaller than that, particularly something that would fit into the size of a mainframe accessory like a card machine or terminal desk. Which is why we have the otherwise seeming misnomer of "micro" computer for those which fit into the space of a terminal or remote access modem. Perhaps thankfully the terminology moved to "laptop" and "pocket" for the futher reduced forms instead of "nano" and "pico" etc :)

+David Spector Yes they are. They are cards that contain memory that can be accessed at random. That's what RAM is.

It's "they're". Just kidding. I saw the nuckelhedd comment and couldn't help myself. On another note, people tend to forget that RAM isn't just the volatile stuff that forgets everything once you cut the power. RAM is any memory device where you can access any part at any time. All of the solid state memory ever created is one form of RAM or another. magnetic tapes, hard disks, and CDs are not RAM since you can only read one bit at a time.

Jason Queen Nope, hard drives are random access storage too. The number of bits that can be read (Not one in the case of most of those formats anyway, BTW) has nothing to do with whether or not a given storage type is RAM. Tapes are an example of sequential storage, in order to read data in the middle of the tape, you have to scroll through the whole tape, you can't skip a part because of how tape is read. Hard drives and CDs can jump tracks and rotate directly to any point of data at any time, without having to traverse the circumference of every track in between, that's what makes the distinction.

Teth47 You make a good point but, I always saw them as sequential since you still have to move a read/write head to a location and you can't read/write multiple locations at the same time. When I was a kid, I wondered if you could make hard drives and CD drives faster by having more than one read/write head per disk.

Jason Queen The differentiating point between sequential and random access memory is how the reader head is capable of moving, not whether or not there is one. A hard disk or CD's read head can move directly to any point of data on the disk without having to sequentially read every bit between those two points, like a tape would. If a hard drive were sequential storage, if you tried to copy two things that were far apart, it would take hours to move even small files, because you'd basically have to read the entire drive to find the spot you're writing to. Hard drives also generally have more than one R/W head per disk, but only one per surface. Adding a second channel to each disk doubles the amount and complexity of the supporting circuitry, so while it would theoretically increase performance, it's cheaper and more effective to simply use two hard drives, which is what RAID is.

+web1bastler Thanks, we produce a lot of video products so its nice to get input on small things that are easy to fix after the fact.

+web1bastler You may want to re-evaluate your life.

+EdisonTechCenter Except this isn't really an issue. Most of the kids watching this today, don't know the difference. They can barely spell their names. And as soon as common core takes hold, they won't even need to do that to pass.

+Pablo Pablo lets hope so go out open up sme eyes shock some people. Just teach everybody everything you know. They want us to be uneducated so we go with the flow. I have been realizing that with furthering my education it is hard to learn anything that is truly worthwile unless it takes two years or more. I also realize that most of the work we do is for the benefit of someone else.

hey internet.. this ol'doc stores forgotten memory.. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HPT7Wtp3yoo.html

*shrug* it's a fairly fundamental power of two, a square plane that has 64x64 (2 to the power 6) cores in it. Computers of the time hadn't settled on multiple-of-8 word lengths and were more often multiple-of-6 (as that's the minimum you need for a usable character set, as well as a reasonably comprehensive instruction set), so you could easily access any bit within such a plane with a sequential pair of 6-bit addresses (one for X, one for Y), or a single address on a 12-bit system... Though as this was mentioned as being one of 18 planes of which two were parity-checking rather than actual data, maybe it *was* used in an early 16-bit system... 12 bits of address could then be used for selecting a memory word (composed of the matching X/Y bit from each of the planes all together), and the other 4 bits for picking between 16 connected devices - multiple 4Kword memory stacks, disc controllers, card/tape readers/writers, additional processors, terminal interfaces etc... Not really any more big interesting reason behind the size than that.There's only so many sizes you can pick from for a binary-addressed system using a limited (and particularly, symmetrical) number of bits. That's also why the original individual DRAMs and SIMMs tended to come in bit or byte sizes that increased by factors of 4, rather than 2 - they were all even powers of 2 (8 for 256, 10 for 1024, 12 for 4096, 16 for 64k, 20 for 1meg, etc) and the memory interface chips would latch in the Row then Column (same old X and Y as for the core planes) sequentially using the same limited set of address lines on the DRAMs themselves (with SIMMs being fairly simple affairs that were essentially just a quartet of chips on an easily inserted/removed board with their address lines connected up to the card edge contacts in a particular way to effect chip selection, so appearing just the same to the controller). More modern modules allow factor of 2 sizing just by varying the number of chips on the board, with the slight asymmetry between row and column not being quite as important as it used to be given how many more lines there now are, and how variable the memory count in a single machine might be.

4k *bit* ...

+RyuDarragh I'll give you a thumbs up since I may be the only one who understands the panametric conundrite of your reference.

+Richard Smith PARITY refers to the oddness or evenness of the ones in a group of bits. Data was stored with one or two extra "parity" bits set to one or zero to make the whole group of bits have odd parity (in a few applications, even parity was the standard. Upon reading the bits back, if there was still an odd number of ones, most likely the data was correct (barring two simultaneous errors); if not, either the parity bit or one of the data bits had changed, so the data could not be trusted. More bits for error checking (redundancy) and a more complex formula allowed CORRECTING a single bit error, and detecting a double bit error.

+pvc988 It was used between 1944? and 1978? in several general-purpose computers, including the one I programmed, the LINC, which was developed by Lincoln Labs and manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation.

+pvc988 According to one source, it was first developed for JUKE BOXES (coin operated machines which played music stored on phonograph discs in the machine) to allow multiple selections to be entered at once: the core for a particular song was set to a 1 when purchased, the machine would scan for the next core with a 1 and play that song, then reset its core to 0 while playing, then look for another core with a 1. From there to computers with many more cores!

+Allan Richardson Yeah. Today that would be a job for a microcontroller.

It's not even as slow compared to modern memory as made out in the video... DRAM has reached a bit of a plateau in terms of access speed that's equal to no more than about 200 ~ 266mhz, so 4 ~ 5ns (for pure random access; bulk burst reads are somewhat accelerated)... so "thousands of times faster" isn't really accurate. Though the on-die and SRAM based cache of a modern CPU does run at some GHz and in terms of capacity can be many times more than the total storage a classic mainframe ever had online, so there's still some truth there.

samljer 4kbit if I have been follorwing it correctly. Youd need at least 8 of these memory planes for 4kBytes, more if you wanted to add parity checking. Expensive to make.

+Sokami Mashibe yes, I just wonder if it could be realized by sequential memory in theory? like tape, witch is not a random access pr def, but it sounds difficult.

It's an idea that's been tried several times before as a cost-cutting measure, both in mainframes and some early micros, and whilst it did still work the performance was pretty terrible. Rather like drum memory just without the bulk and expense of all the big whirly physical parts and multiple read heads etc. Though we can see some of the effect in modern systems both with many-times DDR memory (which has a much slower random access speed vs sequential burst speed) and virtual memory (even more so, as it's storing data on a hard drive, equal to either very fast drum or rather slow recirculating bit memory depending on whether it's platter or SSD), which are essentially the same idea given that they're many times cheaper for the same capacity than the multi-GHz SRAM that would be needed for absolute maximum performance but whose cost means it only gets used for small amounts of cache, and these days almost always built directly into the CPU...

He doesn't sound like a heroin addict to me?

+ufoengines Fluidic devices cannot operate as fast as electronics, but for a low speed application fluidics would be feasible, although expensive (that may change with nanotech). Some manufacturers of the furniture-sized hard drives of the day experimented with using fluidics to do the power-up power-down and disc switching logic in order to avoid EM interference, but it turned out to be cheaper (to build AND maintain) to use electronics and just shield the data circuits from the EM pulses. There was also talk about using rocket exhaust in the guidance logic of the boost phase. As far as I know, none of this actually reached the market or the space hardware of any country's government. Vacuum tubes are also EMP proof as far as being destroyed is concern. They may respond one time to the pulse, but it won't destroy them.

Well, it was more than likely headed for the scrapheap, so it didn't have any value for the company any more.

youtubedownloader

Wasn't meant as an offense, I am constantly amazed at the bad grammar/spelling that gets through. But then I'm constantly having to fix Siri's mis-hearings, some of which are hilarious!

Happy to correct minor mistake too, for the pleasure to share. If these magnetic memory were working at the micro-second time scale, I would say that the most recent computers as of 2016 access memory approximately 2000 times faster, instead of "hundred of thousands". I wander also if the title "chip" apply to these magnetic memory. I was thinking "chip" mean some integrated circuit, fairly small, encapsulated in a water/chemical resistant ceramic or plastic.

They can fix the title of the video by just adding successful before RAM.

Shes probably dead!

People are idiots!

DieOrYouWillDie um a shit tone more than a shit ton