Author Topic: 1981 to 2154  (Read 1858 times)

MichaelW

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
1981 to 2154
« on: May 26, 2016, 12:52:02 AM »
I recently watched the movie Elysium, set in the year 2154, for the second time and noticed something I missed the first time. The snapshot in the attachment is from a scene at ~00:40:24 where the character John Carlyle is rewriting part of the Elysium habitat system, setting up a coup.




 
Well Microsoft, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten us into.

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4805
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2016, 01:32:27 AM »
He he, at least its reasonable looking assembler.  :t
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :biggrin:

HSE

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • <AMD>< 7-32>
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2016, 02:07:15 AM »
Some people need to see this!

32 bit will live for 140 years  :t


anunitu

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2016, 02:16:36 AM »
Hmmm,at least it is not 6502 code....

anunitu

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2016, 02:26:21 AM »
This might be interesting if you ever coded in 6502.
https://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=22670&lngWId=1

Pic.

HSE

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • <AMD>< 7-32>
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2016, 02:39:56 AM »
Anunitu: it's the same movie?

Look like some PCL code ( MC68332 microcontroller?).

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2016, 03:29:00 AM »
32 bit will live for 140 years  :t

Did you have any doubts :eusa_dance:

mineiro

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2016, 04:32:54 AM »
entering protected mode, so, what should be long mode?  :badgrin:
I'd rather be this ambulant metamorphosis than to have that old opinion about everything

sinsi

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
I can walk on water but stagger on beer.

MichaelW

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2016, 08:35:37 AM »
Quote
using code taken directly from the Intel Architecture Software Developer’s Manual Volume 3

How creative.
Well Microsoft, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten us into.

anunitu

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2016, 08:38:07 AM »
Question is,did they even know what kind of code it really was...did they maybe think it was .....Gasp BASIC?

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2016, 05:27:10 PM »
32 bit will live for 140 years  :t

At least! From the GAO: Department of Defense uses 8-inch floppy disks in a legacy system that coordinates the operational functions of the nation's nuclear forces. In addition, Department of the Treasury uses assembly language code :eusa_dance:

(however, I have to admit it's probably not 32-bit code - according to the GAO, this code is 56 years old... :icon_redface:)

sinsi

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2016, 05:46:28 PM »
PROCESSOR MANAGEMENT AND INITIALIZATION
8.10.2  STARTUP.ASM Listing
I can walk on water but stagger on beer.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2016, 05:56:31 PM »
@jj, As one who once worked in "Defense" Dep't (a.k.a. "Offense" Dep't) I can shed some light on this, which must seem incomprehensible to you.

Old systems like that exist elsewhere in gov't - it's not all that uncommon.

One problem is "security". Not many people are cleared to work on such a system. The system is never connected to internet. You can't just use "off-the-shelf" components, everything must be tested extensively and approved. So even a brand new system is always a few years behind the times.

The other big problem is testing. When a system controls something dangerous, you wouldn't believe how stringent testing is. No commercial product comes close.

Then there's the fact that the job of such a system is often not very hard. You say "coordinates the operational functions of the nation's nuclear forces" - that sounds complicated! But (I suppose) it just boils down to a small database, a few thousand items, that's queried against every now and then. It certainly doesn't mean something like real-time control of missile launch or anything which requires a lot of computing power.

So this is what happens. A system like that might take x years to develop and x years to test. Logistics will have bought and stored enough parts to keep it going for the required lifetime - decades at least. When put into operation (in a highly controlled environment) it does the job satisfactorily - although of course bugs will surface for a while. Before too long everyone is happy with it.

As decades go by inevitably people will think about upgrading. But typically (well, often anyway) there's just no need: the mission is being accomplished. As you know solid-state computer stuff - especially the extremely reliable variety used for such jobs - lasts a long time. In storage they've got perhaps a few dozen more floppy disk drivers, and all other parts, which are 100% compatible: the system may be good for 100 years.

Most important, if they do change, they have to go through all that testing again! Even a tiny change to the software - takes 5 minute's programming - can cost months of "regression" testing. Meaning you have to go through the entire suite of tests, even of components quite unrelated to the one you changed.

So, bottom line, often they just don't change it. Don't fix it if it ain't broke!

Admittedly that floppy-disk based system might be getting unsatisfactory today, because of increased work load. But just as likely it's the opposite, less work load. After all Russia gave up 25 years ago.

So - although there are some real problems with obsolete equipment in some areas of Offense Dep't - this example may not be as stupid as it sounds.
I am NaN ;)

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: 1981 to 2154
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2016, 07:00:15 PM »
You say "coordinates the operational functions of the nation's nuclear forces" - that sounds complicated!
...
this example may not be as stupid as it sounds.

I know, R ;-)

Same for anything that goes into space. They definitely won't run Windows 10 up there 8)

I wonder which OS they allow in aircrafts ::)

Btw it's not me, it's the GAO who say "coordinates ... nuclear forces", and even the German press jumped on it.