A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

better Kodak reorganization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 12th 13, 07:40 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default better Kodak reorganization

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:22:16 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.

From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.


Eric your imagination runs wild, but is not at all
significant to the discussion. The No4 Crossbar is a
very specific model of what is correctly described as a
Class 4 switch. It was replaced by the 4A Crossbar
switch. Today a "Class 4" switch would be represented
by a 4ESS switch (which is not a Crossbar).


What you describe as "your imagination" is in fact Wikipedia. You
should write to them and connect their errors.


I have read what Wikipedia says on the topic, and they
didn't connect the dots for you the same as for everyone
else Eric.

Keep in mind that I didn't learn about crossbar
switching systems either yesterday or from reading
Wikipedia. I worked for years in a Class 4 office...
and for decades at non-switching sites with trunking
to Class 4 offices.

It happens that the Autovohn system in Alaska used 4A
Crossbar switches located at Neklasson Lake, Pedro Dome,
Kalekaket Creek, and Big Mountain. They were later
replaced with DMS-200 switching systems at Pedro Dome
and Neklasson Lake. At about that same time the
commercial PSTN in Alaska installed 3 DMS-200 systems,
one at Anchorage, one near Juneau at Lena Point, and one
in Fairbanks. In 1996 a 4ESS was added in Anchorage and
the DMS-200 switches at Lena Point and Fairbanks were
decommissioned. The Autovohn DMS-200's were
decommissioned at about the same time.

There is very little information on the Internet about the No4
Crossbar but http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html
tells us something:

"1940s & 1950s: Automated switching

Automation came to long distance switching when AT&T installed the
first No. 4 crossbar switch in Philadelphia in 1943. Now a single


Now you can see the significance of what I previously
wrote. "Automation" is the term used because the
"switch" is now in fact a computer. And the point was
that AT&T's Bell Labs had been working on them prior to
WWII, which is clearly true if production models were
first installed in 1943. In fact Bell Labs was testing
operational prototypes at least as far back as 1937.

operator built up the needed circuit by dialing a series of routing
codes to instruct this automatic electromechanical switch. Dialed
routing codes soon gave way to the familiar area codes, which the
switch itself could translate into the needed routing information.
AT&T soon modified the switch to handle customer-dialed long
distance calls; the modified design became the No. 4A crossbar
switch. No. 4A crossbar switches and direct-distance dialing spread
to subscribers across the country during through the 1950s.
Call-completion time dropped to 10-20 seconds."

The No 4 Crossbar switch appears to be nothing more than a manually
set crossbar, with the setting controlled by the operator via a dial
on their desk. It was no more programmable than an ordinary telephone
of the period.


It has a stored program common control system that
allows a Network Administrator to change the exact
routing that results from whatever the operator actually
dials. Hence on Monday when an Operator dialed 123 as
an access code it might result in calls going to area
code 312 to be routed via Trunk Group A, but if a new
Trunk Group that has been installed six months
previously and is then enabled by reprogramming
overnight, on Tuesday when the same Operator wants to
route a call to area code 312 and dials a 123 access
code... nothing that happens Tuesday morning will
physically be the same as what happened on Monday
evening. And the Operator of course does not even know
there was a change.

Prior to that either the Operator would be instructed to
use a different jack field to place calls that new set
of jacks would need to be wired to the appropriate
trunks, or the original jack field would have to be
entirely rewired overnight.

The 4A Crossbar accepted routing calls dialed by
customers as well as by Operators. It had a "Card
Translator" using metal punched cards to program
routing. The A4A Crossbar was not actually equipped
with a Card Translator, and when it because available
the designation was changed to 4A Crossbar.

There is nothing in the above to say when the No 4 Crossbar was
supplanted by the No 4A but http://tinyurl.com/cmk89j5 says:

"Direct distance dialing ("DDD") started in the United States in
1953"

That's a fairly specific statement which sounds like it refers to the
introduction of the No4a Crossbar.


That is correct. Or almost correct.

The A4A Crossbar was installed starting in early 1950.
The first 4A Crossbar was installed in May 1953 in
Scranton PA.

Electronic Translators began use in 1969, mostly replacing
the Card Translators.

Starting in 1976 most Crossbar switches were equipped with
CCIS6 (Common Channel Interoffice Signaling) to replace
Multi-Freq signaling and Single Frequency trunk supervision.

The first 4ESS was installed in early 1976 and the last 4A
was installed in late 1976.

There were over 200 4A switches installed in the US. That
compares to the current count of 135 4ESS switches.

You are still missing the point. The discussion was
whether AT&T made computers pre-WWII. Since they had a
production Crossbar switch in 1943 there can be little
doubt that Bell Labs was working with computers prior to
the war. The fact is that going into the 1940's a
crossbar mechanical computer was as advanced at it got.

And Jean-David Beyer has cited references to the
specific R&D crossbar computer projects that preceeded
production of the No4 Crossbar. End of the story...


Try reading and understanding the two quoted paragraphs
above. Your digression into minute trivia from
Wikipedia that you don't understand is of no value at
all. If you were asking if that were what it means
you'd have a good question; instead you stand up and
proclaim you know what the significance of something is,
and preach to someone that saw and worked with these
devices.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #62  
Old May 12th 13, 07:45 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default better Kodak reorganization

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:36:33 -0400, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:

On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.

From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.


Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
the Colossus.

"The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
and remained in service until 1949."

http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html


That site specifically states "The Complex Number Computer was not
programmable". (The Complex Number Computer was not called the Mk 1
until later). It goes on to say "the Models III and N were the first
of the Bell Labs digital calculators to have some degree of general
programmability, although neither was a fully general-purpose
calculator".


Be careful with semantics. There is a reason everyone
calls those devices computers, even though they were not
"programmable".

They weren't "programmable" in the sense we use today,
mostly because Bell Labs did not invent that concept
until later! But they did have a hard wired program,
they were computers, and the program could be changed.
It just happens that the uses those computers were being
put to did not require changing the program as such. A
fixed result was all that they needed at that time.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #63  
Old May 12th 13, 10:22 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:45:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:36:33 -0400, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:

On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.

From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.

Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
the Colossus.

"The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
and remained in service until 1949."

http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html


That site specifically states "The Complex Number Computer was not
programmable". (The Complex Number Computer was not called the Mk 1
until later). It goes on to say "the Models III and N were the first
of the Bell Labs digital calculators to have some degree of general
programmability, although neither was a fully general-purpose
calculator".


Be careful with semantics. There is a reason everyone
calls those devices computers, even though they were not
"programmable".


They were computers in the same sense that a Marchant
electro-mechanical desk calculator was a computer. But they are not
computers in the modern sense of the word or as it is applied to
Colossus.

They weren't "programmable" in the sense we use today,
mostly because Bell Labs did not invent that concept
until later!


They didn't invent it all! Maybe it originated with Charles Babbage
but certainly the concept was incorporated in the computer of Konrad
Zuse (1936) and Atanasof-Berry (1937).

But they did have a hard wired program,


So does the lighting in my house.

they were computers, and the program could be changed.
It just happens that the uses those computers were being
put to did not require changing the program as such. A
fixed result was all that they needed at that time.


So they didn't have a stored program.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #64  
Old May 12th 13, 10:26 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default better Kodak reorganization

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:45:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:36:33 -0400, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:

On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.

From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.

Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
the Colossus.

"The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
and remained in service until 1949."

http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html

That site specifically states "The Complex Number Computer was not
programmable". (The Complex Number Computer was not called the Mk 1
until later). It goes on to say "the Models III and N were the first
of the Bell Labs digital calculators to have some degree of general
programmability, although neither was a fully general-purpose
calculator".


Be careful with semantics. There is a reason everyone
calls those devices computers, even though they were not
"programmable".


They were computers in the same sense that a Marchant
electro-mechanical desk calculator was a computer. But they are not
computers in the modern sense of the word or as it is applied to
Colossus.

They weren't "programmable" in the sense we use today,
mostly because Bell Labs did not invent that concept
until later!


They didn't invent it all! Maybe it originated with Charles Babbage
but certainly the concept was incorporated in the computer of Konrad
Zuse (1936) and Atanasof-Berry (1937).

But they did have a hard wired program,


So does the lighting in my house.

they were computers, and the program could be changed.
It just happens that the uses those computers were being
put to did not require changing the program as such. A
fixed result was all that they needed at that time.


So they didn't have a stored program.


You don't read well, do you.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #65  
Old May 12th 13, 10:30 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:40:12 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:22:16 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.

From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.

Eric your imagination runs wild, but is not at all
significant to the discussion. The No4 Crossbar is a
very specific model of what is correctly described as a
Class 4 switch. It was replaced by the 4A Crossbar
switch. Today a "Class 4" switch would be represented
by a 4ESS switch (which is not a Crossbar).


What you describe as "your imagination" is in fact Wikipedia. You
should write to them and connect their errors.


I have read what Wikipedia says on the topic, and they
didn't connect the dots for you the same as for everyone
else Eric.

Keep in mind that I didn't learn about crossbar
switching systems either yesterday or from reading
Wikipedia. I worked for years in a Class 4 office...
and for decades at non-switching sites with trunking
to Class 4 offices.

It happens that the Autovohn system in Alaska used 4A
Crossbar switches located at Neklasson Lake, Pedro Dome,
Kalekaket Creek, and Big Mountain. They were later
replaced with DMS-200 switching systems at Pedro Dome
and Neklasson Lake. At about that same time the
commercial PSTN in Alaska installed 3 DMS-200 systems,
one at Anchorage, one near Juneau at Lena Point, and one
in Fairbanks. In 1996 a 4ESS was added in Anchorage and
the DMS-200 switches at Lena Point and Fairbanks were
decommissioned. The Autovohn DMS-200's were
decommissioned at about the same time.

There is very little information on the Internet about the No4
Crossbar but http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html
tells us something:

"1940s & 1950s: Automated switching

Automation came to long distance switching when AT&T installed the
first No. 4 crossbar switch in Philadelphia in 1943. Now a single


Now you can see the significance of what I previously
wrote. "Automation" is the term used because the
"switch" is now in fact a computer.


Bull**** to it being a computer. It responded to the operator's dialer
in the same way the No5 crossbar devices responded to the callers
dialer.

And the point was
that AT&T's Bell Labs had been working on them prior to
WWII, which is clearly true if production models were
first installed in 1943. In fact Bell Labs was testing
operational prototypes at least as far back as 1937.

operator built up the needed circuit by dialing a series of routing
codes to instruct this automatic electromechanical switch. Dialed
routing codes soon gave way to the familiar area codes, which the
switch itself could translate into the needed routing information.
AT&T soon modified the switch to handle customer-dialed long
distance calls; the modified design became the No. 4A crossbar
switch. No. 4A crossbar switches and direct-distance dialing spread
to subscribers across the country during through the 1950s.
Call-completion time dropped to 10-20 seconds."

The No 4 Crossbar switch appears to be nothing more than a manually
set crossbar, with the setting controlled by the operator via a dial
on their desk. It was no more programmable than an ordinary telephone
of the period.


It has a stored program common control system that
allows a Network Administrator to change the exact
routing that results from whatever the operator actually
dials. Hence on Monday when an Operator dialed 123 as
an access code it might result in calls going to area
code 312 to be routed via Trunk Group A, but if a new
Trunk Group that has been installed six months
previously and is then enabled by reprogramming
overnight, on Tuesday when the same Operator wants to
route a call to area code 312 and dials a 123 access
code... nothing that happens Tuesday morning will
physically be the same as what happened on Monday
evening. And the Operator of course does not even know
there was a change.


In exactly the same way the lighting in my house operates via a stored
program if switches are operated and wires are rerouted.

Prior to that either the Operator would be instructed to
use a different jack field to place calls that new set
of jacks would need to be wired to the appropriate
trunks, or the original jack field would have to be
entirely rewired overnight.

The 4A Crossbar accepted routing calls dialed by
customers as well as by Operators. It had a "Card
Translator" using metal punched cards to program
routing. The A4A Crossbar was not actually equipped
with a Card Translator, and when it because available
the designation was changed to 4A Crossbar.

There is nothing in the above to say when the No 4 Crossbar was
supplanted by the No 4A but http://tinyurl.com/cmk89j5 says:

"Direct distance dialing ("DDD") started in the United States in
1953"

That's a fairly specific statement which sounds like it refers to the
introduction of the No4a Crossbar.


That is correct. Or almost correct.

The A4A Crossbar was installed starting in early 1950.
The first 4A Crossbar was installed in May 1953 in
Scranton PA.

Electronic Translators began use in 1969, mostly replacing
the Card Translators.

Starting in 1976 most Crossbar switches were equipped with
CCIS6 (Common Channel Interoffice Signaling) to replace
Multi-Freq signaling and Single Frequency trunk supervision.

The first 4ESS was installed in early 1976 and the last 4A
was installed in late 1976.

There were over 200 4A switches installed in the US. That
compares to the current count of 135 4ESS switches.

You are still missing the point. The discussion was
whether AT&T made computers pre-WWII. Since they had a
production Crossbar switch in 1943 there can be little
doubt that Bell Labs was working with computers prior to
the war. The fact is that going into the 1940's a
crossbar mechanical computer was as advanced at it got.

And Jean-David Beyer has cited references to the
specific R&D crossbar computer projects that preceeded
production of the No4 Crossbar. End of the story...


Try reading and understanding the two quoted paragraphs
above. Your digression into minute trivia ...


Haw!

... from
Wikipedia that you don't understand is of no value at
all. If you were asking if that were what it means
you'd have a good question; instead you stand up and
proclaim you know what the significance of something is,
and preach to someone that saw and worked with these
devices.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #66  
Old May 12th 13, 01:31 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default better Kodak reorganization

On 05/12/2013 02:45 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: That site specifically
states "The Complex Number Computer was not programmable". (The Complex
Number Computer was not called the Mk 1 until later). It goes on to say
"the Models III and N were the first of the Bell Labs digital
calculators to have some degree of general programmability, although
neither was a fully general-purpose calculator".
Be careful with semantics. There is a reason everyone
calls those devices computers, even though they were not
"programmable".

They weren't "programmable" in the sense we use today,
mostly because Bell Labs did not invent that concept
until later! But they did have a hard wired program,
they were computers, and the program could be changed.
It just happens that the uses those computers were being
put to did not require changing the program as such. A
fixed result was all that they needed at that time.

Right, and remember after the model 1, they built the model 2, 3, 4, 5,
and two model 6's for a government military agency.
I forget which one. I saw a couple of the later ones in operation
sometime in the 1950s, I think. IIRC, they used normal little telephone
relays, not crossbar switches.

I had one of those crossbar switches when I was in college. I think it
was a 10x20x6. I made a telephone exchange with it and a couple of other
relays and a stepper switch to count dial pulses from my "customers."
  #67  
Old May 12th 13, 01:39 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default better Kodak reorganization

On 05/12/2013 02:40 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The 4A Crossbar accepted routing calls dialed by customers as well as
by Operators. It had a "Card Translator" using metal punched cards to
program routing. The A4A Crossbar was not actually equipped with a
Card Translator, and when it because available the designation was
changed to 4A Crossbar.


Those card translators were noisy. They were electromechanical and
dropped a subset of the cards.
That card translator may have been the first application of
semiconductor photocells in production in the Bell System. Light shown
into one end was detected at the other end by semiconductor photocells
instead of vacuum tube ones.

  #68  
Old May 12th 13, 09:21 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default better Kodak reorganization

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:40:12 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Now you can see the significance of what I previously
wrote. "Automation" is the term used because the
"switch" is now in fact a computer.


Bull**** to it being a computer. It responded to the operator's dialer
in the same way the No5 crossbar devices responded to the callers
dialer.


Eric you are in over your head when you start telling
the whole world that all of the history books are wrong
after reading, and misunderstanding, one of them.

....

It has a stored program common control system that
allows a Network Administrator to change the exact
routing that results from whatever the operator actually
dials. Hence on Monday when an Operator dialed 123 as
an access code it might result in calls going to area
code 312 to be routed via Trunk Group A, but if a new
Trunk Group that has been installed six months
previously and is then enabled by reprogramming
overnight, on Tuesday when the same Operator wants to
route a call to area code 312 and dials a 123 access
code... nothing that happens Tuesday morning will
physically be the same as what happened on Monday
evening. And the Operator of course does not even know
there was a change.


In exactly the same way the lighting in my house operates via a stored
program if switches are operated and wires are rerouted.


You are saying that today's ASIC is not a computer, just
because you can't change the programming in the ROM.

Pretty silly.

--
Floyd L. Davidson
http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #69  
Old May 12th 13, 10:57 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Sun, 12 May 2013 01:26:39 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:45:32 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:36:33 -0400, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:

On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.

From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.

Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
the Colossus.

"The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
and remained in service until 1949."

http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html

That site specifically states "The Complex Number Computer was not
programmable". (The Complex Number Computer was not called the Mk 1
until later). It goes on to say "the Models III and N were the first
of the Bell Labs digital calculators to have some degree of general
programmability, although neither was a fully general-purpose
calculator".

Be careful with semantics. There is a reason everyone
calls those devices computers, even though they were not
"programmable".


They were computers in the same sense that a Marchant
electro-mechanical desk calculator was a computer. But they are not
computers in the modern sense of the word or as it is applied to
Colossus.

They weren't "programmable" in the sense we use today,
mostly because Bell Labs did not invent that concept
until later!


They didn't invent it all! Maybe it originated with Charles Babbage
but certainly the concept was incorporated in the computer of Konrad
Zuse (1936) and Atanasof-Berry (1937).

But they did have a hard wired program,


So does the lighting in my house.

they were computers, and the program could be changed.
It just happens that the uses those computers were being
put to did not require changing the program as such. A
fixed result was all that they needed at that time.


So they didn't have a stored program.


You don't read well, do you.


You are trying to argue that the No4 crossbar was a computer in the
modern sense which predated Colossus. I might be happier to accept
your claim if I was aware of even one book/web-site which considered
the No4 crossbar to be a computer in the modern sense. Do you know of
one?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #70  
Old May 12th 13, 11:03 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:21:49 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:40:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Now you can see the significance of what I previously
wrote. "Automation" is the term used because the
"switch" is now in fact a computer.


Bull**** to it being a computer. It responded to the operator's dialer
in the same way the No5 crossbar devices responded to the callers
dialer.


Eric you are in over your head when you start telling
the whole world that all of the history books are wrong
after reading, and misunderstanding, one of them.


In another article I've invited you to respond with a suitable history
book.

...

It has a stored program common control system that
allows a Network Administrator to change the exact
routing that results from whatever the operator actually
dials. Hence on Monday when an Operator dialed 123 as
an access code it might result in calls going to area
code 312 to be routed via Trunk Group A, but if a new
Trunk Group that has been installed six months
previously and is then enabled by reprogramming
overnight, on Tuesday when the same Operator wants to
route a call to area code 312 and dials a 123 access
code... nothing that happens Tuesday morning will
physically be the same as what happened on Monday
evening. And the Operator of course does not even know
there was a change.


In exactly the same way the lighting in my house operates via a stored
program if switches are operated and wires are rerouted.


You are saying that today's ASIC is not a computer, just
because you can't change the programming in the ROM.


No I'm not. I'm not discussing ASICs at all.

Pretty silly.


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak reorganization Dale[_2_] In The Darkroom 3 May 6th 13 09:54 AM
Reorganization CFV James Silverton Digital Photography 2 October 9th 04 11:12 PM
Vote *NO* on reorganization Robert McClenon Digital Photography 26 September 13th 04 04:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.