Tales of the Black Cat - Problems of evolutionary classification.

Category "Tales of the Black Cat"      

   Problems of evolutionary classification.   

Black Cat, October 30, 2017

                Leningrad-1               

   Leningrad was one of the most massive
domestic clones. Who and where is he?
was not produced - from radio amateurs to
state enterprises, from Leningrad
to Vladivostok.  But, for all his ignorance,
high popularity and prevalence,
so it still doesn’t exist how many
any reliable history of it arose-
news and distribution.   Therefore
we will try together with you based on
memories and mentions in the press
restore the history of the creation of this
computer.
   The main uncertainty here is
there is a question about whether Leningrad is
direct author's processing of two-
field architecture into single-field, or
there were already prototypes with one field
memory? The best way to find the answer to
this question is the search for the lost
intermediate links of evolutionary
development, namely other single-field
clones with similar architecture.

   Find a computer similar to Leningrad
architecture, but not a clone
Leningrad is not a big deal for me
is, because  I learned about both of them
almost simultaneously back in 1988,
and soldered and configured both clones in large
quantities.  This is a clonefamous on
periphery as "VOENMEH 54M-1", where "54M-1"
this is the marking of the printed circuit board, and
"VOENMECH" is a place of localization.   When
than the "54M" marking was typical for
of that time, and designated 54 microcircuits,
and “-1” indicated the first modification. Those.
together "54M-1" meant that this was the first
modification of some clone executed
on 54 chips.   VOENMEH 54M-1 itself
made on 45 logical and 3 analog
microcircuits, which together can be
evidence that this clone is valid
Actually it is a simplified modification
some pre-existing prototype.
   What is similar and what distinguishes Leningrad and
VOENMEH 54M-1? Almost completely identical
accuracy of circuit design and signal markings,
and what distinguishes the type of shear used
registers, RAM data latch register, and
curb signal switch in video format
rovator, whose circuit design is in VOENMEKH
54M-1 looks more archaic.
   Could VOENMEH 54M-1 come from
Leningrad?  No, that's absolutely impossible
because it is completely pointless to move from
optimal circuit design and very dense
wiring of Leningrad to quite loose
wiring of VOENMEH 54M-1 with a lot of errors and
worst circuit design.   In addition, in
In Leningrad Zonov's board was called
"Zon's version", or simply "Zone", in
while in VOENMEH itself the board is 54M-1
called "Moscow"which indicates
that it comes from a certain “Moscow”
with one memory field made at 54
microcircuits. 
   The question remains to be answered: could
simultaneously and independently Leningrad and
VOENMEH 54M-1 comes from a certain
"Moscow 54M", or Leningrad comes from
VOENMEH 54M-1?  To answer this
question you need to know what you mean
represented this hypothetical single-field
street "Moscow 54M".  This can be understood if
find another clone descended from
"Moscow 54M". And such clones were immediately found
three, forming a new, Kaluga branch,
spun off from Moskva 54M. Kaluzhsky
the clone is closer to VOENMEH 54M-1 than to
Leningrad, but it also has differences. How
and in VOENMEH 54M-1 it has the same register -
RAM data latch made on IR12, and
the same archaic switching scheme
curb signals in the video former, but
there are also other archaic
circuit design features that have already
not in VOENMEH 54M-1, nor in Leningrad.
This may indicate that
Kaluga clone is closer in circuit design to
"Moscow 54M" than VOENMEH 54M-1 and
Leningrad, which allows us to build
chain of evolutionary cause and effect
connections for these clones.  The closest
between each other and those closest to
"Moscow 54M" I include VOENMEH 54M-1 and
Kaluga clone, moreoverthe last one even
is closer to the prototype, and VOENMEH 54M-1
more modernized.  Leningrad, after all
all features, including markings
signals, closer only to VOENMEH 54M-1,
which clearly indicates that
it comes from VOENMEH 54M-1.   This is
indirectly confirmed by the words of the
Zonova in an interview with ZX Format #02: “It was successful
first reduce the circuit to 50 ICs, then
up to 45 and finally leave 41-42 buildings."
VOENMEH 54M-1 has exactly 45 digital
microcircuits, and in Leningrad, respectively
42 digital chips.   True, Zonov
delicately silent about prototypes
Leningrad, hiding behind a pretty
streamlined phrases about layout
prototypes, of which absolutely none
it is obvious who designed the layout - himself, or
he only witnessed the layout, and
I took advantage of the end result.
If he designed the layout himself, and in his words - he
I laid out the printed circuit board just for the
the last layout option, how
diagram of its penultimate layout, the essence
appeared as if in a single copy,
could have been divorced and replicated as
VOENMEH 54M-1, and why the markings on
board exactly "54M-1"?  This shows
that, most likely, either all or
part of the intermediate layouts mentioned
Zonov, these are not his developments, he only
took the final version, finally itmodified, and spread this modified
option, which later received the name
"Leningrad".  Also, it looks weird
Zonov's phrase about prototype computers:
"During this time, about 10-15
computers."  How can you not know for sure
how many prototypes have you assembled on breadboards,
After all, every prototype is unique?  This is still
one confirmation of the assumption that
Zonov did not go through all the zones on his own
evolutionary path, but only used
the end result.
  Let's count - the first domestic
clone of the Lvov Prototype finished in
at the end of 1985, after which they transferred
documentation for it to Leningrad, Moscow,
and Novosibirsk.  Naturally, at that time
The USSR had neither email nor
faxes, not even FidoNet, so transfer
anything was possible only with opportunity - how
usually with travel allowances, which means
these three cities the scheme ended up in different places
time, and not right away. And because highest flow
business trip was coming from Moscow, then most likely
In fact, the scheme got to Moscow first
in total, despite the fact that the prototype
VOENMEH 54M-1 was called "Moscow", then in
Leningrad from Lvov the scheme hit exactly
via Moscow.  At best in
It appeared in Leningrad already in 1986.
And for the wiring of "Leningrad", according to him,
Zonov began in the summer of 1987: “... in the summer
1987, when I was "relaxing" on vacation,a month and a half was devoted to
The printed circuit board was routed manually." When
volume, according to Zonov, before he first
I saw the diagram of the Spectrum, he got it even then
They advertised loudly: “..the year 1986 has arrived.
Here and there in conversations with friends and
colleagues, the words ZX Spectrum appeared."
Such advertising of ZX Spectrum is possible only
in one case - a certain number of people
clones have already been collected according to the resulting scheme. And with
taking into account the fact that this was done on breadboards,
and get all the necessary digital
there were quite a lot of microcircuits at that time
problematic, then before going to Zonov
got the scheme, it should have gone like this
at least a few more months.   So
way to go through the evolutionary path
from the monstrous two-field Lvovsky
Prototype, to elegant single-field
Leningrad, Zonov has less
one and a half years, or even less than a year, for
which still need to be designed and
assemble 10-15 intermediate prototypes for
breadboards!  But, given that the wiring
Zonov had to make payments while on vacation,
we can conclude that at work
he didn’t have time to deal with the Spectrum
possibilities. Therefore, all work on
design and layout he could
produce only in the evenings after hours
time.   With this approach, collect and
debug a clone on a breadboard, on average 60
buildings, will not takemore than two weeks, and
a couple more weeks for design next -
general prototype. And in this mode it is necessary
I can work continuously for a year.
Anyone who has ever assembled a computer
breadboard, will say that as for one
Such work is unrealistic for a person.
However, Zonov did not claim that all these
10-15 intermediate prototypes are his job
hands: "Having collected the first, then the second, the third
computer, succeeded during research
dramatically reduce the number of chips,
(willy-nilly you will think about it,
when all these computers were mounted
manually on breadboards using
MGTF-a)".   Three prototypes for one
person is already a more realistic figure,
although it’s also not a fact that all three were the work of
directly from Zonov.  The first prototype
As a rule, it is assembled according to a scheme with a mini-
small improvements compared to
original, i.e. according to a two-field scheme, it
purpose - study of how computers work
ra.  The second prototype is already being assembled
single-field circuit, its purpose is
elaboration of solutions inherent in single-field
architecture.  And finally, the third prototype
is going to run in the final
variant that goes into production, and
under which the fee is allocated. Of these three
prototypes, undoubtedly for Zonov
is only the last one, and to the rest
he could well have only indirectattitude.
   But why does Zonov only point out
estimated number 10-15
intermediate prototypes, because with such
small quantities are hard to beat
bills?  There is only one possible answer - he is not
knows how many intermediates were collected
prototypes, because  they were going to be different
people, and not at the same time, but after
consequently, introducing into each subsequent
prototype new evolutionary changes, and
Zonov was familiar only with some pro-
intermediate results of such evolution.
   This also explains completely
illogical in speed evolutionary
development.  After all, a computer is usually created
not for the sake of evolving, but
for the sake of its use.  Therefore, as for
one person, completely unnatural
desire to make prototypes one after another on
breadboards without using them. That's why
usually, after achieving the goal,
consisting of computer manufacturing, author
switches to using it, and
usually goes quite a long way
period of time before he
there is a desire to make some evolutionary
onny changes.  It's a completely different matter if
each subsequent prototype was made new
by the author for personal use subject to
previous evolutionary changes, and with
introducing new changes.  In this case,
such a rapid evolution looks quite
naturalprocess. Moreover, rather
In total, there was a spread of the type
chain reaction when the intermediate circuit
prototype was further distributed among
several people.  In this case,
Indeed, it is very difficult to say how much
there were intermediate options, because  except
evolutionary stages, which are quite
it is possible to count, was also present
chain reproduction.  And it is quite logical that
at some final stage of evolution,
prototypes on breadboards began to be put into production
series, which may have led to the appearance
"Moscow 54M", and its development - Kaluga
branches and branches of VOENMEH 54M-1, and subsequently
Vii and Zonovsky variant.
   Thus, it is absolutely possible to do
a clear conclusion that Zonov did not pass
independently the entire evolutionary path
development, but took advantage of either intermediate
exact or final results
evolution.
   But all the same, the period is a year and a half for
evolution from two-field architecture to
single-field, with 10-15 intermediate proto-
types, even if they were going to be different
people, looks too short. 
   Here it is necessary to take into account the psychological
cical features of human memory.
As a rule, a person remembers well
binding to some events, not dates
events.  So, it’s very easy to remember it was
the desired event is earlier or later than some
a well-remembered event.  Therefore,
forTo clarify the dating, we will look for mentions
events for which there is a binding
by time. And such a mention by Zonov
indeed there is: "At a time when
my car was born, there were already several
computer options - Moscow,
Novosibirsk, Krasnodar, etc."
What is noteworthy here is that from the list
clones captured by Zonov, for Krasnodar,
there is an absolutely exact date of development
boots and date of manufacture of the first copy
lyara on the printed circuit board. Krasnodar clone
was developed in September 1987, and
the first printed circuit board was manufactured and
assembled in December 1987 just before
Happy New Year.  So, about this clone
Zonov could not have found out earlier than 1988, and this
contradicts Zonov's statement that
Leningrad's circuit board was wired
in the summer of 1987, when Krasnodar
the option didn't exist yet. But if
Zonov opened the Leningrad board in the summer not
1987, and 1988, then really at that
At that time, the Krasnodar clone already existed.
This also increases the evolution period to
two - two and a half years, and this is already
quite realistic time frame for 10-15 inter-
accurate prototypes.  Thus, Zonov in
interview, most likely either misspoke,
or have already forgotten the real date.  Indirect
confirmation of confusion in dates as well
is his other statement in
interview: "A year has passed sincethe appearance of my
first board... Of course, steel
various minor defects “float out”.
Therefore, in the summer of 1987 there were several
the diagram was adjusted... ...the template was
handed over to people who, as then
it turned out they represented a cooperative
"Composite".  There is an obvious typo here or
reservation, because a year later there was no way
1987  Besides, I know for sure, because...
then soldered Leningrads that Composite boards
48k appeared on the market only in the second
half of 1989.  Thus, if
Leningrad was divorced in the summer of 1988, then
this is precisely consistent with the words that
a year later, i.e.  in the summer of 1989 there was
divorced Composite.
   Thus, to summarize, we can make
draw the following conclusions:
1) Zones did not go through the entire evolutionary
the path from two-field architecture to single-field
left, but used intermediate or
the final results of evolution, the basis-
based on which Leningrad was developed.
2) The facts indicate that the date of creation
Leningrad, indicated in the interview, is
a reservation, or a typo, but a real date
its creation is the summer of 1988.