Contact us Heritage collections Image license terms
HOME ACL Associates Technology Literature Applications Society Software revisited
Further reading □ Overview07/07/6120/10/6116/02/6206/07/6227/11/6229/05/6313/11/6306/05/6408/10/64
ACD C&A INF CCD CISD Archives Contact us Heritage archives Image license terms

Search

   
ACLLiteratureCommittee MinutesNIRNS :: NIRNS ACC Minutes
ACLLiteratureCommittee MinutesNIRNS :: NIRNS ACC Minutes
ACL ACD C&A INF CCD CISD Archives
Further reading

Overview
07/07/61
20/10/61
16/02/62
06/07/62
27/11/62
29/05/63
13/11/63
06/05/64
08/10/64

Minutes of the meeting held on 8/ 10/1964 at Atlas Computer Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Berks

1 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

The Committee approved the Minutes of the meeting held on 6th May, 1964. It was agreed that matters arising from the Minutes would be dealt with during the discussion of Dr Howlett's Progress Report.

2 USERS' COMMITTEE - NI/ACC/64/6

The Committee took note of the Minutes of the Atlas Users' Committee meetings held on 23rd June and 22nd September and the correspondence between Professor Flowers and Professor Fox which was circulated with them. Three points were made in discussion:

  1. With reference to the question of early operation of a two shift service referred to Professor Flowers' letter of 17th July, the Committee reaffirmed that two shift operation should be introduced as soon as practicable and it was stated that there would be no financial obstacle.
  2. With reference to the computing needs of the AEA of 28 hours per week in 1965-66 referred to in Professor Fox's letter of 24th July, Dr Marshall said that he would now put this figure at 30 hours per week.
  3. The Chairman said that Professor Fox had recently agreed to continue as Chairman of the Atlas Users' Committee for a further period.

3 PROGRESS REPORT BY DR HOWLETT - NI/ACC/64/7

3.1 Dr Howlett said that the machine had not yet been fully handed over but as from the beginning of the current week he had the use of it for 8 hours per day. The average period between hardware faults was at present about one hour. Most of these faults were in the core store.

Urgent action to rectify them particularly in two especially bad stacks, was being taken by Messrs Plessey. Dr Howlett was asked whether he expected difficulty in agreeing with the contractor on the question whether the machine was running satisfactorily, in view of the subjective nature of the criteria quoted on the first page of his report. He said that he did not expect difficulty on this point.

3.2 Dr Howlett next dealt with points arising from his report of the previous meeting as follows:

  1. Speed of the machine: Dr Howlett said that the machine was performing certain operations slightly more slowly than the specified times but others more quickly and he asked how this matter should be regarded from the point of acceptance. In discussion it was said that on balance the machine was faster than had been implied by the specification. It was agreed to leave the matter open for the time being and to deal with it finally in consultation with the Contracts Department. In the mean time we should make sure that the contractor in the course of adjustments to the machine did not relax those speeds that were better than specification.
  2. Data links: Dr Howlett said that long distance off line data lines were becoming relatively less attractive now that quite powerful computers were available at prices sometimes comparable with that of the data link. The same point did not necessarily apply to links for on line working. The Committee decided that for the present no further action on data links should be taken.
  3. Medical Research Council: Dr Howlett said that as agreed at the last meeting he had been in touch with Sir Harold Himsworth. It seemed likely that there might be further requirements from the Medical Research Council for use of the computer.
  4. Fortran Compiler: Dr Howlett said that the compiler was now working. At present it produced the compiler programme on binary cards. The next step would be to allow load and go operation so that the compiler programme did not have to be read into the machine as a separate operation.

Dr Marshall said that the AERE group were writing a faster compiler for the Aldermaston Atlas II. Dr Howlett said that he thought some of the work in this was probably already incorporated in his compiler but he would certainly be interested in using the new one if it was an improvement. This point led the Committee to re-emphasise the vital importance of making programmes compatible between the various large computers. Professor Buckingham said that he found there was a restriction on the use of the Algol compiler on his Atlas. The size of the programme that could be compiled was quite limited. it was agreed that this should be discussed between Professor Buckingham and Dr Howlett.

4 ESTIMATES - NI/ACC/64/5

4.1 The Chairman said that the estimates would before long have to be submitted to the Treasury and it was necessary to reach definite decisions as to which projects costing over £100,000 the Committee wished to start in 1965-66. He therefore directed attention to Table B of paper NI/ACC/64/5 and the Committee looked at the items in turn>

  1. Atlas Computer: It was confirmed that the figures in this line did not provide for any new projects.
  2. Mass Store: Dr Howlett said that he thought that an addition should be made to the machine in due course but at present the position was complicated. One could consider a magnetic disc store with a maximum of 4,000,000 words or a magnetic card file with several hundred million words but the latter would not be available for the Atlas for three years. He proposed to write a paper to the Users' Committee on this subject about the end of the present year.
    It was agreed to show in the estimates expenditure starting in 1965-66 with £50,000 in that year, £150,00 in 1966-67 and £50,000 in 1967-68.
  3. Printers: Dr Howlett said that the provision of £100,000 shown was intended to provide two alternative printers. It was agreed to halve this provision and transfer it to the minor plant category.
  4. Core Store and Fixed Store: It was agreed that consideration of extension to the core store and fixed store must await experience with the machine. No provision for expenditure in 1965-66 was shown and the estimated approval date should be shown as late in 1965.
  5. Visual Display Units: See Minute 7.
  6. Minor Plant: There was some discussion of the amount of the provision for minor plant (now £100,000 including one printer). the Committee doubted whether this would all be required but after discussion agreed to leave this provision in the estimate.

4.2 Complement: Before leaving the Estimates the Committee considered the complement for 1965-66. The Chairman said that he had discussed the figures in detail with Dr Howlett and subject to an uncertainty over one or two posts was satisfied that they were reasonable. the point was made that the computer could be operated with a smaller number of operators on some shifts if it were operated less intensively. The Committee's intention however was that the computer should be operated at high intensity. It was agreed that this was the right policy because of the large fraction of the total cost represented by capital charges and because of the large computing demands expected.

5 COMPARISON OF COSTS OF THE NIRNS AND LONDON UNIVERSITY ATLAS COMPUTERS - NI/ACC/64/8

5.1 Dr Howlett first emphasised that the figures quoted in paper NI/ACC/64/8 concerning the London University Atlas were confidential since this machine was operating partly on a commercial basis.

5.2 The Chairman drew attention to four respects in which the NIRNS expenditure was significantly higher, some of which might represent undesirable trends. The first was travel and subsistence which although a small sum in itself nevertheless seemed very high. In partial explanation Dr Howlett said that the figures for his Laboratory included travel both at home and abroad and the travelling expenses of users coming to Chilton to make use of the computer. The second point to which the Chairman drew attention was the higher cost of the programming group at the NIRNS Laboratory. Dr Howlett said that £4,000 of the total of £7,000 represented the cost of printing programming forms which he supplied to users. Thirdly the Chairman drew attention to the difference in overhead charges. It was noted that this represented services of the Rutherford Laboratory and of the Atomic Energy Authority. In both cases these were arbitrarily reduced figures but the assessments had recently been reviewed and were probably not very faulty. The fourth difference to which attention was drawn concerned the estimate for administration. Dr Howlett said that he was inclined to think the estimate of £35,000 was high. Actual expenditure in the current year would be £15,000.

5.3 Professor Buckingham commented that the figure given for the London University Atlas did not cover the running of the whole Institute of Computer Science. The Chairman said that he would wish to keep a watchful eye on administrative costs of the Laboratory.

5.4 The Committee thanked Dr Howlett and Professor Buckingham for the valuable comparison and concluded that the costs were on the whole remarkably similar, the largest exceptions being in overheads and administration.

6 CHARGES FOR ATLAS TIME - NI/ACC/64/9

6.1 Dr Howlett introduced paper NI/ACC/64/9 and asked the Committee's approval for the proposals contained in it. Dr Marshall raised a number of detailed points:

  1. He suggested that minor capital should be taken into account when the expenditure was incurred not an estimate annual basis as proposed. However, Dr Howlett explained that the minor capital was intended to provide not for improvements to the machine but for a multitude of items in the nature of maintenance.
  2. Dr Marshall asked for breakdown of the salaries figure of £160,000.
  3. On the detailed proposals for allowances to Harwell in respect of punching and programming, Dr Marshall said that he had always expected that the Atlas Laboratory would do the punching for Harwell; on the other hand he would argue that on programming Harwell did as much for Atlas as vice versa and should therefore not be charged for this item.
  4. Dr Marshall said that the work of the Atlas Laboratory mathematics group while very valuable in general was of no value to the AERE. He therefore thought that they should not be charged for it. The Chairman said that he thought this was a different kind of point from the others. The AEA had been a party to agreeing that the Laboratory should have a mathematics group and its cost ought to be spread over all the Laboratory's work.

6.2 It was agreed that the above-mentioned points should be discussed in detail before Dr Howlett and Dr Marshall and they authorised the Chairman at his discretion to approve on their behalf the basis of charge proposed in paper NI/ACC/64/9, with such minor amendments as he thought right on the details discussed in Minute 6.1 and taking into account the estimates as revised in Minute 4. The Committee asked for the AEA or for any one particular customer. It was also suggested that the principles on which it was decided to charge Government users should be re-examined.

7 VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT - NI/ACC/64/10

Dr Howlett said that the paper NI/ACC/64/10 gave details of a proposed visual output system costing £40,000, i.e. substantially less than had been provided for in the estimates. The Committee were agreed that a visual output system was required but discussed some details of the equipment described in the paper. Dr Howlett was asked to check that the cathode ray spot size was in each case small enough to make full use of the 1024 X 1024 grid which the equipment was designed to resolve. He was also asked to enquire particularly into the provision of hard copy to which he had drawn attention.

8 FUTURE DEMANDS FOR TIME ON THE COMPUTER - NI/ACC/64/11

Dr Marshall introduced paper NI/ACC/64/11 and also handed round a graph showing the projected AERE computing demands. the latter indicated that the AERE's needs would rise above their allocation of one shift on Atlas some time in 1966. Dr Marshall pointed out that it was time now to plan the ordering of a computer to fill this requirement but he felt that the AERE should let the Committee know of their position before considering the acquisition of their own computer and withdrawal of use from the NIRNS Atlas. The Chairman thanked Dr Marshall and the Committee agreed that there was likely to be ample demand even if the AERE withdrew at the time indicated. In general it was thought right for large users to withdraw one by one as their requirements grew to a point more appropriately provided for by a separate large computer. On the other hand if the sum of the individual smaller university requirements should grow very greatly, it was possible that a requirement for an additional computer at the NIRNS Laboratory might arise. the Committee reaffirmed its ruling that the time allotted to AERE use could not exceed 40 hours per week.

9 TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE

The Chairman said that the future business and constitution of the Committee might appropriately be reviewed at the present time when the computer was just coming into operation. the Committee had been set up to control the operation of one Laboratory and one computer but there was a need for discussion of computing requirements on a wider basis as was shown for example in the discussion recorded in the previous Minute. he suggested that the Board of the Institute should be asked to consider whether the Committee should be invited to deal with all the Institute's computing requirements. the Committee agreed that this suggestion should be put to the Board.

The Chairman also suggested that there should be some rotation of Membership of the Committee and the Committee agreed that this suggestion also should be put to the Board.

10 NEXT MEETING

The Secretary was asked to make arrangements for the next meeting at a convenient date about mid-1965.

⇑ Top of page
© Chilton Computing and UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council webmaster@chilton-computing.org.uk
Our thanks to UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council for hosting this site