Re: Another New Hardware Thought

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > A curious idea, but you really need an OS to support it.
> >
> > MMU's really only become useful when you're running more code than
> > you've got RAM, facilitating virtual memory. There aren't really any
> > practical applications that such small machines can run that require
> > that amount of addressable space.
>
>
> Personally, I would disagree with this. I've used small systems with
> multiple users and applications, and I can think of a lot of things a
> small microcomputer would benefit from with a good task system.
>
> Of course, what I would really like to see is a new small computer
> designed and sold.
>
> Current "home" systems are far too complex to learn inside and out.  The
> GPU alone on my current PC is more complicated than an entire mainframe
> of 20 years ago.
>
> It would be nice to have useful small machines where newbies could learn
> them inside and out like we did the 8-bit systems in the early days.
>
> Take a good look at any kid who grew up with computers recently.  They
> might do a lot with them, but they know almost nothing about them.

I agree--though it was also quite common to be a Computer Science grad
20 years ago and to know nothing about the inner workings of computers.

In many schools hardware was considered a necessary evil, and software
was a branch of mathematics!

But the real obstacles to complete understanding modern systems are
1) their inconceivable complexity (yes, even their designers don't
*really* understand their complete workings), and 2) their vanishing
physicality--there's nothing there but a sliver of silicon, WITH OVER
100 MILLION TRANSISTORS, SWITCHING OVER A BILLION TIMES PER SECOND!

To make a simple, understandable "threshold" system to prime one's
understanding requires either *very* simple hardware--like an Apple II--
or a simulation of very simple hardware (running on an unintelligible
microlith).

If you want to interest the hardware designers of the future, you might
prefer the very simple hardware, but hardware design today is almost
indistinguishable from software design--it's all programming.

Probably the best way to go is to use the pervasive computing platform
of the day to host a very friendly, virtually "probeable" system, of
low relative complexity and high relative utility--like an Apple II--
for beginning users.

They could experience its behavior as a "black box", they could "take
off the top" and examine and probe the insides, add and remove cards,
and even "construct" virtual cards to plug into it (for extra credit).

This would be a virtual computing platform that would expose them to
all levels of software and hardware, and prepare them to take the next
step up in complexity in whatever direction appealed to them most.

It's always seemed very odd to me that "educational program" usually
means some drill or game, rather than a rich, accurate simulation,
which would be a potent medium for experimentation, discovery, and
creativity.

The digital computer is the most amazing universal simulation vehicle
the world has ever seen, but this ability to present unlimited vistas
of simulated reality seems to be almost entirely wasted on bullet
trajectories and flesh hydrodynamics.

(With the immersive reality of most "first-person shooters" today,
combined with the trend toward UAVs and the discussion of robotic
soldiers, maybe it's about time to read "Ender's Game" again...)

-michael

NadaNet file server for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."