Talk:Stored-program computer
Points for this article
- As it is most often used adjectivally, is ‘stored program’ or ‘stored-program’ to be preferred? MOS:HYPHEN would seem to favour the latter.
- Was the virtual machine described in Turing’s 1936 ‘Computable numbers’ paper[1], a stored-program machine?
- Turing’s 1946 Automatic Computing Engine was undoubtedly a stored–program computer design in the modern sense.
- Was ENIAC’s 1948 demountable ‘function table’, a stored-program feature, as some have claimed?
- Despite being essentially a test-bed for the Williams tube, the 1948 SSEM was undoubtedly the first true stored-program computer.
- Was the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory's 1949 EDSAC the first practical stored-program machine to become operational, as is claimed?
- EDSAC pre-dated the Manchester Mark 1 by some five months.
- ^ Turing, A. M. (1936). "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (PDF). Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 2. 42 (published 1936–37): 230–65. doi:10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230. (and Turing, A.M. (1938). "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem: A correction". Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 2. Vol. 43 (published 1937). pp. 544–6. doi:10.1112/plms/s2-43.6.544.)
--TedColes (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- You bring up some good points. Honestly, I don't know enough about individual early machines to reply to all of them.
- To your first point, (Was the virtual machine described in Turing’s 1936 ‘Computable numbers’ paper[1], a stored-program machine?), no, a Turning machine can be implemented with a paper tape system or even toilet paper. No electronic storage is necessary.
- Turing’s 1946 Automatic Computing Engine was undoubtedly a stored–program computer design in the modern sense. - *Nod*. This says it was the 3rd stored program computer in Britain. Raul654 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have not been clear enough.
- The Universal Turing Machine as described by Turing in 1936 was only virtual and did not have any storage medium specified. It was called a 'tape' only to illustrate that one cell could be accessed at a time. My point is that the idea of instructions and data sharing the same storage medium and instructions being modifiable, both exist in this design. So it does not fit the definition of being electronic, but does have a strong case for being a very influential source of the idea.
- Turing's 1945/6 paper describing the Automatic Computing Engine design was also a virtual machine, as the Pilot ACE to which the above quotation refers was a substantially cut-down version of what he had proposed. It did indeed come after the SSEM and Manchester Mark 1 and the EDSAC.
- This article ought to be well informed about early developments if it is to achieve credibility and if the redirect from 'Stored program' to 'Von Neuman machine' is to be abolished. --TedColes (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have not been clear enough.
- (Disclaimer: Manchester is one my Alma mata) I think some people are likely to regard labelling EDSAC as "the first practical stored-program machine to become operational" as controversial. Definitely, EDSAC was an important and innovative stored-program computer, however "practical" has a little slippery definitionally, I think. I think rewriting as an sourced opinion would work better. At the moment, it could be read as an attempt to belittle the innovation work at Manchester (though I don't think that's the intention). In my opinion both designs streams are important to future stored-program computers, with Baby leading towards distributed system-on-chip architectures whereas EDSAC leads towards CPUs RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrong reference
This text's reference 13 (to the claim about Zuse's two patents) isn't correct. It points to Nature's text where Williams & Kilburn describe Manchester "baby". That text certainly doesn't talk about Zuse's patents.