Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!apple!voder!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: USSR Microcomputers: How far behind US? Message-ID: <4405@ttidca.TTI.COM> Date: 10 May 89 19:13:31 GMT References: <1805@orion.cf.uci.edu> <8013@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <528@laic.UUCP> <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> <4366@ttidca.TTI.COM> <1203@isieng.UUCP> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 33 In article <1203@isieng.UUCP> roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) writes: }Also remember that our shuttle has really antique computers onboard. }If memory serves (small pun here) the Shuttle's main computer has }all of 64KB DRAM. The reason? The Shuttle was designed in the }1970s, using the technology of that time. Actually, there's no DRAM in the AP-101 at all. Their memory is non-volatile -- a source of much puzzlement to rookies (i.e.: Me) and much amusement to the old hands in the Rockwell Avionics Development Lab. }Putting an AT aboard the Shuttle would measureably increase it's }computing power. Not hardly. The AP-101 may be an old design, but it's basically a compact mainframe. I'm not aware of any production single-chip CPU that could begin to cope with it's throughput. I don't recall the exact figures, but the amount of data pouring into them, in a constant stream, is awesome. Anyone who's ever run a flight simulator program on an AT would fall down laughing at the idea of trying to fly the Shuttle with one. }What boggles the brain is that we won't retrofit the thing with }something more modern. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The existing systems cost $Sagans to develop, debug and implement. Replacing them would require a similar effort at even higher cost. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe