Mainframes vs PCs (was Re: discrete transistors)

From: Allison J Parent <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
Date: Mon Oct 19 20:32:12 1998

< Chuck McManis <cmcmanis_at_freegate.com> wrote:
< > Back to classic computers, it has been said, perhaps apocryphylly(sp?)
< > that "My laptop has more computer power than NASA used to put men on t
< > moon." While it may be true, I've never actually seen a description of
< > computer resources available to NASA between 1962 and 1969. Does anyon
< > the list have that information?

"My laptop has more computer power than NASA used to put men on the moon."

I find that a loaded quote because it's unbounded. Does this refer to
ground support, design and simulation systems or what? Granted the
computers that flew were not Crays, they didn't have to be. They were
sized for the mission as it was conceived and then had every ounce of
weight pared out.

They however are unique as they ( I believe from from Gemini on) were
IC based, had to work at extremes of temperature, be compact, not use
too much power or generate a lot of heat that was difficult to remove.
those are imposing requirements for the time (pre 1968 technology!!).
In the case of Gemini, Apollo and the Shuttle they also were flown as
stable designs when better technology was available. That's a result
of the need to freeze the design and program it before it could be
flown. Considering the capsule(Apollo) was complete in 1967 (I may be off
a year) for Apollo, that means a lot of fancy design work and programming.

If we look we may see the predecessor to the CADC in the space program.

Now considering the laptop has had some 15 plus years of development
history beyond the space program it should be better!

Allison
Received on Mon Oct 19 1998 - 20:32:12 BST