Prior to 1981, the Engineering Board's committees had given their approval to the project as outlined in Chapter 9. ICFC, DCS Panel, Roberts Panel Software Technology Initiative, Computing and Communications Sub Committee and Information Engineering Committee had all put their weight behind a single user system programme based on the PERQ as the initial hardware and a commitment to UNIX as the operating system.
At this stage it is worth mentioning a parallel activity which has bearing. In January 1980, the SRC's Facility Committee for Computing which had responsibility for the Rutherford and Daresbury mainframe services had set up a Computing Review Working Party to establish a sensible replacement strategy for the obsolete 360/195s at RAL and 370/165 at Daresbury. The Working Party was given a broad remit to look at computing in general and the major facilities run by the individual Boards.
The Working Party reported in December 1980 and recommended that the Interactive Computing Facility should be made a council-wide facility rather than an Engineering Board funded activity. It recognised that there would be a move towards high powered single user systems and this would broaden the appeal of such devices. As there was a need for networking such devices, it recommended that any initiative in this area should also be a council-wide facility. The Working Party recommended that a new Central Computing Committee be formed with responsibility for the network, the mainframe computer services, the interactive computing facility and any single user system initiative.
It was clear that the financial year 1981/2 would be a transition year with the Central Computing Committee taking control in April 1982.
As 1981 started, it was clear that what had started as an Engineering Board initiative would now most likely become a council-wide facility. Consequently, approval would be needed from all the relevant Boards and Committees.
A meeting between Dr Manning, myself, Brian Oakley and Robin Lingard of DoI took place in February to discuss the current state of Engineering Board commitments and the strategy to be adopted. It was agreed that the initiative should be a council-wide one, that borrowing of effort from other projects could not continue and that funds would be needed at some stage to purchase a pool of systems. As we already had another 11 systems booked for ICFC and DCS, it was unlikely that a large amount of additional funds would be needed in 1981/2 unless the number of systems appearing in 1981/2 was much higher than we anticipated.
It was recommended that 10MY of effort was needed in the year 1981/2 rising to 15MY in 1982/3 and 20MY per year in future years.
At that stage, it was still feasible that a joint ICL/Logica/SRC software development programme could be initiated which would mean that not all the above software development effort was needed at RAL.
A strategy paper for Single User Systems was presented during the first half of 1981 to the following:
| IEC | 4 June 1981 |
| ICFC | 12 June 1981 |
| Facility Committee for Computing | 23 June 1981 |
| Science Board | 24 June 1981 |
| Council | 15 July 1981 |
Various other Committees saw the report and commented on it. It was also presented to the Division Heads Committee at RAL. In several cases, a PERQ demonstration was given at the same time. For example, Council viewed the PERQ on the evening before the Council meeting.
The paper gave a history of interactive computing, the architecture of the environment being proposed, an update of the ICL negotiations, possible uses in SRC and a proposed strategy based on a joint SRC/DoI/ICL initiative with a coordinated software plan and recommending that the Central Computing Committee be responsible for coordinating the area of single user systems.
It recommended that an additional 5MY of effort be provided per annum to manage the facility. Additional manpower should be provided by the various Board programmes who had earmarked funds for work in this area and would be prepared to contribute to this overall initiative.
It was estimated that 11.5MY of software development effort was needed before any PERQs would be of use to the SERC user population.
If PERQs were to be available to the community by mid-1982, 16.5 MY of effort was needed to be found in 1981/2. The various Board programmes at RAL had indicated at DHC that they would be prepared to put effort into the programme in the short term from their existing projects until a viable Forward Look manpower bid would be established. It was envisaged that 4MY of this development effort would come from ICL, 3 MY from Logica and 5 MY from SERC. It was further estimated that an additional 11.5 MY of software development effort was needed in the medium term to provide a more complete environment. This effort was needed in 1982/3.
At the Science Board meeting, it was proposed that resources already being used on the SRS and SNS in similar activities be released to allow the project to go ahead. The project would need its own provision in Estimates 1982/3 and in the Forward Look.
Professor Murrell said that the PERQ was very impressive particularly its computing power and the speed and clarity of its graphical displays. It would immensely extend the power of computing available to individual workers. Within a year with the proposed central software development (11.5 MY) the PERQ could have software which would make it very valuable to Science Board users.
The Board endorsed the proposals including the commitment from Boards to put manpower into the project.
Council welcomed the spirit of the proposed programme which it saw as a good example of encouraging UK technological developments through the support of academic research. The proposed activity was consistent with the intentions of the Department of Industry to assist the UK's computer industry.
Some concern was expressed over the resilience of Three Rivers. There was also concern that some large established company might bring out a product that overtook the initiative. There was strong support for ICL manufacturing the next generation of hardware.
Manpower and funds required for the current year could be made available from existing projects. RAL considered that this manpower would be sufficient to allow the early adoption of UNIX. Further software developments might require a very substantial effort, and that RAL might draw on the expertise of Government Establishments with relevant experience, notably RSRE.
The Council:
By August, all the relevant SERC Committees had approved the Common Base Policy for Single User Systems (as it later came to be called).
Central Computing Committee were given 5MY per annum manpower to manage the project.
The 11.5 MY of software development required to get a basic UNIX system and associated software available would be found from existing programmes.
The 11.5 MY of software development required in the next year was to be found from individual Board funds.
All the necessary approvals required within SERC had been obtained by August 1981.
