6 ms·

It has always fascinated me how many of the most famous architects and overall aesthetics of early computing and networked infrastructure began/occurred at MIT'

by jd3 6y ago

It has always fascinated me how many of the most famous architects and overall aesthetics of early computing and networked infrastructure began/occurred at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, yet few of my fellow students/coworkers that I've discussed it with over the years were aware of its existence/contributions to computing before I brought it up. - Ken Olsen and Harlan Anderson's idea for DEC (from the article) - J. C. R. Licklider's Intergalactic Network - Wesley A. Clark's TX-2/light pen/etc. - Jay Forrester's SAGE consoles (which Margaret Hamilton worked on from 1961 to 1963, btw) - Roberts and Marill's TX-2 <=> Santa Monica Q-32 circuit-switching proof of concept - Marvin Minsky and John McCarthy founding MIT CSAIL in 1959, a year after he joined the Lab staff - the 1965 packet switching experiment between two Lincoln computers - Robert Fano's work in the Radar Techniques Group (yes, the Fano from Shannon–Fano coding) - etc. etc.

jd3 6y ago
(I somehow landed an internship there back in 2016 and felt outclassed by everyone, but I definitely learned /a lot/)
ngold 6y ago
> Digital Equipment Corporation, or DEC, who began paving the way for everyone starting in 1957. I would love to know the funding model for the next 25 years. Altavista was their latest, but it looks like they got burned on their Rainbow 100 in 1982. Took 8 years to report their first loss, and 10 years for a founder retirement. Looks like Vax was their bread and butter for a couple decades. I love this stuff. If I smell this even close. DEC was basically funded to develop most of modern computing infrastructure, when their was none. They never really came out with icons like a PC. They just crafted the way things get structured for decades....with the funding of....?
- jasomill 6y ago
  Income from sales and service of computer hardware and software with Apple-sized gross margins for (the same) decades.
- thoughtsimple 6y ago
  For most of their existence, DEC had very aggressive IBM like sales people. They sold large systems. When they tried the Rainbow, they pretty much did everything wrong. They didn't have a sales staff that knew how to sell a $2000 computer. You'd call them about the Rainbow and they wanted to send a sales team. Also, the Rainbow alienated the hackers at the time by its closed nature compared to the IBM PC. For example, you could only use DEC floppies that cost significantly more than normal ones.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    Closed systems didn't stop Apple.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      The early Apples were not that closed. There were many third party peripherals available. And you didn't have to use Apple-brand floppy disks.
      - vidarh 6y ago
        And they got close to failing anyway. Apple survived in part by lasting long enough for there to be a consumer market for whom openness was irrelevant but who were willing to pay a huge premium for design.
        ido 6y ago
        I think the parent is talking about the Apple II and you are talking about early Macs?
        vidarh 6y ago
        My comment was more of an additional reason (on top of the openness of their earlier computers) for why arguing that closed systems didn't stop Apple is not a great argument. Apple got incredibly close to failing. Had it not been for Microsoft's investment they very well might have. Their closed approach took a long time to start paying off, and so using Apple as an example for why DEC's closed approach wasn't a problem doesn't really add up.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  I think the VAX was an icon. I did most of my CompSci undergrad on VAXen running Ultrix. But the VAX and even the later Alpha mnachines were too expensive for individuals or small businesses. Their entire business model was built around sales to corporations, government agencies, and academic institutions that wanted and could afford centralized multiuser machines.
  - ansible 6y ago
    As a sort of microcosm, my undergrad CS started off with a top end dual-VAX, and ended with Sequent Symmetry 386 multi-processor systems that had vastly more processing power and memory.
mhalle 6y ago
For correctness sake, Marvin Minsky and John McCarthy founded the MIT AI Lab in 1959. LCS, the Laboratory for Computer Science, was established in 1963 as Project MAC in the EE Department and was renamed LCS in 1976. The AI Lab and LCS joined in 2003 to become CSAIL.
- jd3 6y ago
  Good catch. Thanks.
jl2718 6y ago
This all began with the DEW line. I worked at the lab years ago, and I believe it was Edwin L. Key as a guest of William W Ward that gave a very long and rather entertaining Friday morning lecture on the topic for us. Aside from the radar technology and logistics problems, there were three areas of computing innovation that came out of it. First, signal processing, which created demand for increasingly complicated circuits from Bell Labs. Second, the user interface to the data, which included both hacking large-format oscilloscopes into displays, and converting radar signals into sound. Third, the communications systems linking remote stations thousands of miles away. This was critical to be reliable during wireless jamming or wire cuts, so this was the front line of coding theory, including Fano and then Solomon at LL, leading to digital switching systems like Arpanet. My first job there was to implement Solomon’s work for a space communications system, so I’m a little more familiar with that line of work at the lab. I’m running heavily on memory here, but there is more information on this here: https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol12_no2/12_2distantearly.pdf https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol12_no...

by jd3 6y ago

jd3 6y ago

(I somehow landed an internship there back in 2016 and felt outclassed by everyone, but I definitely learned /a lot/)

ngold 6y ago

> Digital Equipment Corporation, or DEC, who began paving the way for everyone starting in 1957. I would love to know the funding model for the next 25 years. Altavista was their latest, but it looks like they got burned on their Rainbow 100 in 1982. Took 8 years to report their first loss, and 10 years for a founder retirement. Looks like Vax was their bread and butter for a couple decades. I love this stuff. If I smell this even close. DEC was basically funded to develop most of modern computing infrastructure, when their was none. They never really came out with icons like a PC. They just crafted the way things get structured for decades....with the funding of....?

jasomill 6y ago
Income from sales and service of computer hardware and software with Apple-sized gross margins for (the same) decades.
thoughtsimple 6y ago
For most of their existence, DEC had very aggressive IBM like sales people. They sold large systems. When they tried the Rainbow, they pretty much did everything wrong. They didn't have a sales staff that knew how to sell a $2000 computer. You'd call them about the Rainbow and they wanted to send a sales team. Also, the Rainbow alienated the hackers at the time by its closed nature compared to the IBM PC. For example, you could only use DEC floppies that cost significantly more than normal ones.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  Closed systems didn't stop Apple.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    The early Apples were not that closed. There were many third party peripherals available. And you didn't have to use Apple-brand floppy disks.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      And they got close to failing anyway. Apple survived in part by lasting long enough for there to be a consumer market for whom openness was irrelevant but who were willing to pay a huge premium for design.
      - ido 6y ago
        I think the parent is talking about the Apple II and you are talking about early Macs?
        vidarh 6y ago
        My comment was more of an additional reason (on top of the openness of their earlier computers) for why arguing that closed systems didn't stop Apple is not a great argument. Apple got incredibly close to failing. Had it not been for Microsoft's investment they very well might have. Their closed approach took a long time to start paying off, and so using Apple as an example for why DEC's closed approach wasn't a problem doesn't really add up.
throwaway201103 6y ago
I think the VAX was an icon. I did most of my CompSci undergrad on VAXen running Ultrix. But the VAX and even the later Alpha mnachines were too expensive for individuals or small businesses. Their entire business model was built around sales to corporations, government agencies, and academic institutions that wanted and could afford centralized multiuser machines.
- ansible 6y ago
  As a sort of microcosm, my undergrad CS started off with a top end dual-VAX, and ended with Sequent Symmetry 386 multi-processor systems that had vastly more processing power and memory.

mhalle 6y ago

For correctness sake, Marvin Minsky and John McCarthy founded the MIT AI Lab in 1959. LCS, the Laboratory for Computer Science, was established in 1963 as Project MAC in the EE Department and was renamed LCS in 1976. The AI Lab and LCS joined in 2003 to become CSAIL.

jd3 6y ago
Good catch. Thanks.

jl2718 6y ago

This all began with the DEW line. I worked at the lab years ago, and I believe it was Edwin L. Key as a guest of William W Ward that gave a very long and rather entertaining Friday morning lecture on the topic for us. Aside from the radar technology and logistics problems, there were three areas of computing innovation that came out of it. First, signal processing, which created demand for increasingly complicated circuits from Bell Labs. Second, the user interface to the data, which included both hacking large-format oscilloscopes into displays, and converting radar signals into sound. Third, the communications systems linking remote stations thousands of miles away. This was critical to be reliable during wireless jamming or wire cuts, so this was the front line of coding theory, including Fano and then Solomon at LL, leading to digital switching systems like Arpanet. My first job there was to implement Solomon’s work for a space communications system, so I’m a little more familiar with that line of work at the lab. I’m running heavily on memory here, but there is more information on this here: https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol12_no2/12_2distantearly.pdf https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol12_no...