History of IBM Developments

1956 - FIRST MAGNETIC HARD DISK. IBM introduces the world's first magnetic hard disk for data storage. RAMAC (or Random Access Method of Accounting and Control) offers unprecedented performance by permitting random access to any of the million characters distributed over both sides of 50 two-foot-diameter disks. Produced in San Jose, California, IBM's first hard disk stored about 2,000 bits of data per square inch and had a purchase price of about $10,000 per megabyte. By 1997, the cost of storing a megabyte had dropped to around ten cents.

1957 - FORTRAN. IBM revolutionizes programming with the introduction of FORTRAN (Formula Translator). Created by John Backus, it soon becomes the most widely used computer programming language for technical work. For the first time, engineers and scientists can write computer programs in more natural forms, such as C=A/B rather than as strings of "machine language: 1s and 0s.

1997 - DEEP BLUE. The 32-node IBM RS/6000 SP supercomputer, Deep Blue, defeated World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov in the first known instance of a computer vanquishing a world champion chess player in tournament-style competition. Also after years of teamwork among Research and Microelectronics divisions, IBM introduced the CMOS 7S process, which allowed manufacturers to use copper wires to link transistors in computer chips instead of relying on traditional aluminum interconnects; a revolutionary advance in semiconductor technology.



Saturday, June 30, 2012

Eugene Ziller, Programmer and author, Brooklyn Born


Eugene Ziller


Biography
Ziller was born in Brooklyn, New York and 
studied at Brooklyn College and Columbia 
University. He did post-graduate work at 
Stanford University under Wallace Stegner. 
He married Shirley Richman, sister of
Dr. Jordan Paul Richman, in 1949. They lived 
in Brooklyn and then they moved to 
Pougkeepsie, New York, where Ziller became
an IBM computer programmer. 
He is the brother of Irving Ziller, the noted Fortran developer, and father of Jason ZIller, who works for Intel.

 Ziller became a school teacher and later worked as supervisor of IBM operations for the Cornell University Crash Injury Research Program. His short stories have appeared in such literary periodicalas as Yale Review, Kenyon Review, Perspective and others. In 1960 he published a book of short stories entitled In This World two of the included short stories (The Season's Dying and Sparrows) won awards the former in Best Articles and Stories and the latter in Prize Stories of 1960: The O.Henry Awards.[1]

 (This bio was derived from Wikipedia and edited by Dr. Jordan Richman, Brother-in-law of Eugene Ziller for his Computer Science Google Blog.))
Posted by at No comments:

Jason Ziller on Intel's Thunderbolt


For Intel, the challenge with Thunderbolt will be how to make it competitive with USB 3.0. The introduction of Thunderbolt has followed many of the same steps of FireWire – a protocol that has been having an extended funeral after continuing to loose its market share and device support year-over-year to USB 2.0.
Intel’s director of marketing, Jason Ziller, isn’t overly worried about Thunderbolt following the path of FireWire.
“We expect Thunderbolt to be complementary to USB 3.0,” he said at Computex press conference. “We expect to see them co-existing on PCs. When you have them both, you really don’t need anything else.”

Related Articles




Add New Comment

  • Image

Showing 1 comment

  • GbakmarsCollapse
    One has to ask the question when it comes to the somewhat strange introduction of "Thunderbolt" to hardware such as motherboards, for as of yet there isn't a person in the typical American home that owns one single item that is Thunderbolt dependent, enhanced, or in need of the speed it offers.
    Ironically "thunder" is something that is a "byproduct" of an electrical discharge that takes place in the atmosphere and although it is just too difficult for the human eye to keep up with the speed, the separation of + and - charges results in a flash of intense electrical activity producing enormous amounts of heat and it begins from the ground up. There is a rapid heating and thus an expansion of the atmosphere which sends air hurtling through the atmosphere at enormous speeds resulting in a loud boom as the has moving air comes into contact with our ear drums. But the real phenomenon is the incredible display of light as oppositely charged particles can no longer stand to be separated from each other.
    Is it possibly prophetic that the item that Intel is bragging about, because it wasn't named "Lightning bolt", is destined to be another fire wire? I can't tell you how difficult it was to get Firewire 800 installed on my PC a few years ago, until I finally found a company called Unibrain. Most PC people didn't even know what IEEE 1394b was and the PC OEM's like Dell never even considered it to be an option for their PC sales.
    Why was only Mac big on fire wire technology? And if only Mac has a Thunderbolt connection to its monitors are we saying that the past 5 years of Monster HDMI cables, followed by a Display Port cable that was seldom found on display are going to be replaced by a technology that Mac has been using for some time, just as they were the only ones relying heavily on improving Firewire speed?
    I don't think so. Thunderbolt has one purpose and only one purpose and you saw the perfect example of its purpose used to an extreme when Asus came out with their V Premium that should have been "famous" for Asus finally being honest with its customers and letting them know that the V Pro and V Deluxe were a 16 lane shadily advertised disappointment of a motherboard, and V Premium was in fact bringing something much greater than a bolt of thunder to the enthusiast community; they were bring the possibility of X16/X16 or X16/X8/X8 or the crown jewel of gaming-quad sli with X8/X8/X8/x8. But even with this major break though thanks to the PLX hack, you still have to ask, 'if 3.0 is twice 2.0, but we have to cut 3.0 in half, than is are quad really nothing more than the equivalent of quad sli in 2.0?
    So why the timely addition to a bunch of failures of Z77 motherboards; add a feature that is like buying a CD player before there are CD’s, and only talk about Thunderbolt and ignore the greatest break though,(or should I say the first honest provision of a technology that was withheld in the first round of the majority of Z77 boards ( exceptions being the $400 boards like the Rampage IV Extreme)?
    You can’t attend a big event where everyone is strutting their “latest and greatest” and not be able to announce that we are going to get to transfer information 20 times faster than USB 2.0; granted none of us have anything in our possession that we can plug such a cable into. And we have no assurance that just because someone is slinging around a cable that is: how does this sound- only 2 times faster than USB 3.0, the reality is that no one may want it because it means that all of those new USB 3.0 items we have gotten all excited about would have to be rejected in preference to a “dream” of the kind where “lightning only strikes one”.
    As of now people are still finally finding reliable and honestly priced HDMI cables. USB 3.0 is still found only on portable hard drives and it is taking quite some time for it to become a household name. eSATA has proven to be 6GB/sec and is very handing and being used in Networks and transfers to external hard drives. And what is the real deal with Display Port? I have my doubts as it doesn’t really claim the speeds and bandwidth of HDMI that is now up to 20GB. Display Port may be exactly as the name implies; it will be an invention that will be placed on display at the Computer Hall of Fame, filed under “underachievers”.
    If this new cable is going to change computing as we know it than I suggest that we change the name to "Lightning Bolt"?
Trackback URL 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Intel and Its Lawsuits


Intel was founded in Mountain View, California in 1968 

Intel had also for a number of years been embroiled in litigation. US law did not initially recognize intellectual property rights related to microprocessor topology (circuit layouts), until the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, a law sought by Intel and the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA).[27] During the late 1980s and 1990s (after this law was passed) Intel also sued companies that tried to develop competitor chips to the 80386 CPU.[28] The lawsuits were noted to significantly burden the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits.[28] Antitrust allegations had been simmering since the early 1990s and had been the cause of one lawsuit against Intel in 1991. In 2004, AMD brought further claims against Intel related to unfair competition. In 2005, AMD brought further claims.

Acquisitions

On August 19, 2010, Intel announced that it planned to purchase McAfee, a manufacturer of computer security technology. The purchase price was $7.68 billion, and the companies said that if the deal were approved, new products would be released early in 2011.[34] On January 26, 2011, the European Union approved the acquisition, after Intel agreed to provide rival security firms with all necessary information that would allow their products to use Intel's chips and personal computers.[35] After the acquisition, Intel had about 90,000 employees, including about 12,000 software engineers.[36]
On August 30, 2010, Intel and Infineon Technologies announced that Intel would acquire Infineon's Wireless Solutions business.[37] Intel planned to use Infineon’s technology in laptops, smart phones, netbooks, tablets and embedded computers in consumer products, eventually integrating its wireless modem into Intel’s silicon chips.[38]
In March 2011, Intel bought most of the assets of Cairo-based SySDSoft.[39]
In July 2011, Intel announced that it had agreed to acquire Fulcrum Microsystems Inc., a company specializing in network switches.[40] The company was previously included on the EE Times list of 60 Emerging Startups.[40]
On October 1, 2011, Intel reached a deal to acquire Telmap, an Israeli-based navigation software company. The purchase price was not disclosed, but Israeli media reported values around $300 million to $350 million.[41]

Lawsuits

Intel has often been accused by competitors of using legal claims to thwart competition. Intel claims that it is defending its intellectual property. Intel has been plaintiff and defendant in numerous legal actions.
In September 2005, Intel filed a response to an AMD lawsuit,[159] disputing AMD's claims, and claiming that Intel's business practices are fair and lawful. In a rebuttal, Intel deconstructed AMD's offensive strategy and argued that AMD struggled largely as a result of its own bad business decisions, including underinvestment in essential manufacturing capacity and excessive reliance on contracting out chip foundries.[160] Legal analysts predicted the lawsuit would drag on for a number of years, since Intel's initial response indicated its unwillingness to settle with AMD.[161][162] In 2008 a court date was finally set,[163] but in 2009 Intel settled with a $1.25 billion payout to AMD (see below).[164]
In October 2006, a Transmeta lawsuit was filed against Intel for patent infringement on computer architecture and power efficiency technologies. The lawsuit was settled in October 2007, with Intel agreeing to pay US$150 million initially and US$20 million per year for the next five years. Both companies agreed to drop lawsuits against each other, while Intel was granted a perpetual non-exclusive license to use current and future patented Transmeta technologies in its chips for 10 years.
On November 4, 2009, New York's attorney general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corp, claiming the company used "illegal threats and collusion" to dominate the market for computer microprocessors.
On November 12, 2009, AMD agreed to drop the antitrust lawsuit against Intel in exchange for $1.25 billion.[164] A joint press release published by the two chip makers stated "While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development."

Anti-competitive allegations

See also: AMD v. Intel

Japan

In 2005, the local Fair Trade Commission found that Intel violated the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. The commission ordered Intel to eliminate discounts that had discriminated against AMD. To avoid a trial, Intel agreed to comply with the order.
In July 2007, the European Commission accused Intel of anti-competitive practices, mostly againstAMD.[173] The allegations, going back to 2003, include giving preferential prices to computer makers buying most or all of their chips from Intel, paying computer makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips, and providing chips at below standard cost to governments and educational institutions.[174]Intel responded that the allegations were unfounded and instead qualified its market behavior as consumer-friendly.[174] General counsel Bruce Sewell responded that the Commission had misunderstood some factual assumptions as to pricing and manufacturing costs.[175]
In February 2008, Intel stated that its office in Munich had been raided by European Union regulators. Intel reported that it was cooperating with investigators.[176] Intel faced a fine of up to 10% of its annual revenue, if found guilty of stifling competition.[177] AMD subsequently launched a website promoting these allegations.[178][179] In June 2008, the EU filed new charges against Intel.[180] In May 2009, the EU found that Intel had engaged in anti-competitive practices and subsequently fined Intel €1.06 billion (US$1.44 billion), a record amount. Intel was found to have paid companies, including Acer, Dell, HP,Lenovo and NEC,[181] to exclusively use Intel chips in their products, and therefore harmed other companies including AMD.[181][182][183] The European Commission said that Intel had deliberately acted to keep competitors out of the computer chip market and in doing so had made a "serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules".[181] In addition to the fine, Intel was ordered by the Commission to immediately cease all illegal practices.[181] Intel has stated that they will appeal against the Commission's verdict.[181]

South Korea

In September 2007, South Korean regulators accused Intel of breaking antitrust law. The investigation began in February 2006, when officials raided Intel's South Korean offices. The company risked a penalty of up to 3% of its annual sales, if found guilty.[184] In June 2008, the Fair Trade Commission ordered Intel to pay a fine of US$25.5 million for taking advantage of its dominant position to offer incentives to major Korean PC manufacturers on the condition of not buying products from AMD.[185]

United States

New York started an investigation of Intel in January 2008 on whether the company violated antitrust laws in pricing and sales of its microprocessors.[186] In June 2008, the Federal Trade Commission also began an antitrust investigation of the case.[187] In December 2009 the FTC announced it would initiate an administrative proceeding against Intel in September 2010.[188][189][190][191]
In November 2009, following a two year investigation, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Intel, accusing them of bribery and coercion, claiming that Intel bribed computer makers to buy more of their chips than those of their rivals, and threatened to withdraw these payments if the computer makers were perceived as working too closely with its competitors. Intel has denied these claims.[192]
On July 22, 2010, Dell agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to pay $100M in penalties resulting from charges that Dell did not accurately disclose accounting information to investors. In particular, the SEC charged that from 2002 to 2006, Dell had an agreement with Intel to receive rebates in exchange for not using chips manufactured by AMD. These substantial rebates were not disclosed to investors, but were used to help meet investor expectations regarding the company's financial performance; the SEC said that in the first quarter of 2007 they amounted to 70% of Dell's operating income. Dell eventually did adopt AMD as a secondary supplier in 2006, and Intel subsequently stopped their rebates, causing Dell's financial performance to fall.[193][194][195]

Market share

According to IDC, while Intel still enjoys the most market share in both the overall worldwide PC microprocessor market (79.3%) and the mobile PC microprocessor (84.4%) in the second quarter of 2011, the numbers decreased by 1.5% and 1.9% compared to the first quarter.[196][197]
Per Passmark's CPU benchmark, which takes into account individual benchmarking of their software and each system results are reported with, Intel has retained 70% and more of the active market versus AMD since Q1 2008.[198]












[edit]

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Future Computers

divider line

Computers of Tomorrow

Today's computers operate using transistors, wires and electricity. Future computers might use atoms, fibers and light. Personally, I don't give a byte what makes it tick, as long as it does the job. If I could accidentally spill my coffee and not have it cost $848, that would be a cool feature.
But let us assume that you are not still bitter from a recent laptop replacement. You might stop to consider what the world might be like, if computers the size of molecules become a reality. These are the types of computers that could be everywhere, but never seen. Nano sized bio-computers that could target specific areas inside your body. Giant networks of computers, in your clothing, your house, your car. Entrenched in almost every aspect of our lives and yet you may never give them a single thought.
Understanding the theories behind these future computer technologies is not for the meek. My research into quantum computers was made all the more difficult after I learned that in light of her constant interference, it is theoretically possible my mother-in-law could be in two places at once.
If you have the heart, take a gander at the most promising new computer technologies. If not, dare to imagine the ways that billions of tiny, powerful computers will change our society.

The Personal Computer Assistant

pc assistant
I must admit that in some ways I envy Donald Trump. Not because of all the real estate he owns or even for his cool private helicopter. No, what I envy most about The Donald is his apprentice. Who wouldn't appreciate giving any chore that comes to mind, to an eager and competent assistant? After time, a good apprentice might even anticipate your needs. "Pink tie today, Mr. Trump?". Now apply this same kind of relationship model to the future of computing.
In the future, the number of tiny but powerful computers you encounter every day will number in the thousands, perhaps millions. You won't see them, but they will be all around you. Your personal interface to this powerful network of computers could come from a single computing device that is worn on or in the body.
Aside from providing one 24/7 interface to the myriad of computers and sensors that you will have access to, like a good apprentice, this computing device would come to know your personal preferences and sometimes make decisions on your behalf.

Moore's law

Gordon E. MooreVisit any site on the web writing about the future of computers and you will most likely find mention of Moore's Law. Moore's Law is not a strictly adhered to mathematical formula, but a prediction made by Intel's founder co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965.
Moore predicted that computing technology would increase in value at the same time it would decrease in cost. More specifically, that innovations in technology would allow a doubling of the number of transistors in a given space every year, the speed of those transistors would increase and manufacturing costs would drop.
A computer transistor acts like a small electronic switch. Just like the light switch on your wall, a transistor has only two states, On or Off. A computer interprets this on/off state as a 1 or a 0. Put a whole bunch of these transistors together and you have a computer chip. The central processing unit (CPU) inside your computer probably has around 500 million transistors.
Shrinking transistor size not only makes chips smaller, but faster. One benefit of packing transistors closer together is that the electronic pulses take less time to travel between transistors. This can increase the overall speed of the chip.
Not everyone agrees that Moore's Law has been accurate throughout the years, (the prediction has changed since its original version), or that it will hold true in the future. But does it really matter? The pace at which computers are doubling their smarts is happening fast enough for me.
Thanks to the innovation and drive of Gordon Moore and others like him, computers will continue to get smaller, faster and more affordable.


divider line

Email Your Comments, Links or Pictures

Visitor Comments
06.08.2010
that information about computers is so interesting....keep on going.
catalina
divider line

Computer Articles, Blogs and Web Sites

All Links open in a new window. Bold = Recommended

I verified the links on this page on 09.26.11. - ffa
Future Computer Articles
TitleSourceDate
Moore's Law Lives Another DayTechnology Review04/12
Predicting the Future of ComputingNY Times12/11
Supercomputer to Propel Sciences ForwardIBM11/11
Next-Generation High-Performance Computing PlatformsIntel11/11
Moore's Law safe into future as 3D 'Ivy Bridge' arrivesSilicon Republic05/11
The Emotional ComputerUniversity of Cambridge12/10
IBM’s “Watson” Computing System to Challenge Jeopardy! ChampionsIBM12/10
Breakthrough Chip Technology Lights the Path to Exascale ComputingKurzweilAI.net12/10
Supercomputers 'will fit in a sugar cube', IBM saysBBC News11/10
Preparing for the supercomputer warKurzweilAI.net11/10
Chinese supercomputer is world’s fastest at 2.5 petaflopsKurzweilAI.net10/10
Intel Wants to Be Inside EverythingBusiness Week09/10
'Smart dust' aims to monitor everythingCNN05/10
Quantum leap: World's smallest transistor built with just 7 atomsPhysOrg05/10
Chinese Supercomputer Is Ranked World’s Second-Fastest, 
Challenging U.S. Dominance		NY Times05/10
The $75 Future ComputerForbes12/09
Computer Security In The FutureComputer Safety Tips09/09
World's smallest computer (humor)YouTube12/08
The super-fast future of computingBBC News06/04

Future Computer Web Sites and Blogs
TitleDescription
15 Cool & Crazy Concept ComputersWebUrbanist
2020 – Future of ComputingNature
Non-Techie TalkGood blog on trending computers, devices and software
Shape of Computers in the FutureBlog with cool future computer images

Future Computer Video and Audio
TitleSources
CES 2009: Microsoft Future Products DemoYoutube
Future World - Smart Dust Micro ComputersYoutube
Microsoft's Vision For 2019Youtube
The Future of ComputersCNN
The Future of ComputersEdinburgh University
The Future of ComputingMIT World

References
ArticleSources
Computers of TomorrowArticle by ffa
The Personal Computer AssistantArticle and image by ffa
Moore's lawArticle by ffa
Image from intel





divider line

Warning: 

Many of the articles found on this web site are from a blogger that couldn't tell you the difference between hydrochloric and high colonic. We try our very best to provide you with useful, accurate information, but we don't always get it right. Please read our full disclaimer before quoting us at work, school or world conferences.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)