In 1993, Intel released the high-performance Pentium processor, the start of the long-running Pentium line. I've been examining the Pentium's circuitry in detail and I came across a circuit to multiply by three, a complex circuit with thousands of transistors. Why does the Pentium have a circuit to multiply specifically by three? Why is it so complicated? In this article, I examine this multiplier—which I'll call the ×3 circuit—and explain its purpose and how it is implemented. It turns out that this multiplier is a small part of the Pentium's floating-point multiplier circuit. In particular, the Pentium multiplies two 64-bit numbers using base-8 multiplication, which is faster than binary multiplication.1 However, multiplying by 3 needs to be handled as a special case. Moreover, since the rest of the multiplication process can't start until the multiplication by 3 finishes, this circuit must be very fast. If you've studied digital design, you may have heard of techniques such as carry lookahead, Kogge-Stone addition, and carry-select addition. I'll explain how the ×3 circuit combines all these techniques to maximize performance. The photo below shows the Pentium's thumbnail-sized silicon die under a microscope. I've labeled the main functional blocks. In the center is the integer execution unit that performs most instructions. On the left, the code and data caches improve memory performance. The floating point unit, in the lower right, performs floating point operations. Almost half of the floating point unit is occupied by the multiplier, which uses an array of adders to rapidly multiply two 64-bit numbers. The focus of this article is the ×3 circuit, highlighted in yellow near the top of the multiplier. As you can see, the ×3 circuit takes up a nontrivial amount of the Pentium die, especially considering that its task seems simple. This die photo of the Pentium shows the location of the multiplier. Why does the Pentium use base-8 to multiply numbers? Multiplying two numbers in binary is conceptually straightforward. You can think of binary multiplication as similar to grade-school long multiplication, but with binary numbers instead of decimal numbers. The example below shows how 5×6 is computed in binary: the three terms are added to produce the result. Conveniently, each term is either the multiplicand (101 in this case) or 0, shifted appropriately, so computing the terms is easy. i.e. 0×101 101 i.e. 1×101 +101 i.e. 1×101 ――――― 11110 Unfortunately, this straightforward multiplication approach is slow. With the three-bit numbers above, there are three terms to add. But if you multiply two 64-bit numbers, you have 64 terms to add, requiring a lot of time and/or circuitry. The Pentium uses a more complicated approach, computing multiplication in base 8. The idea is to consider the multiplier in groups of three bits, so instead of multiplying by 0 or 1 in each step, you multiply by a number from 0 to 7. Each term that gets added is still in binary, but the number of terms is reduced by a factor of three. Thus, instead of adding 64 terms, you add 22 terms, providing a substantial reduction in the circuitry required. (I'll describe the full details of the Pentium multiplier in a future article.2) The downside to radix-8 multiplication is that multiplying by a number from 0 to 7 is much more complicated than multiplying by 0 or 1, which is almost trivial. Fortunately, there are some shortcuts. Note that multiplying by 2 is the same as shifting the number to the left by 1 bit position, which is very easy in hardware—you wire each bit one position to the left. Similarly, to multiply by 4, shift the multiplicand two bit positions to the left. Multiplying by 7 seems inconvenient, but there is a trick, known as Booth's multiplication algorithm. Instead of multiplying by 7, you add 8 times the number and subtract the number, ending up with 7 times the number. You might think this requires two steps, but the trick is to multiply by one more in the digit to the left, so you get the factor of 8 without an additional step. (A base-10 analogy is that if you want to multiply by 19, you can multiply by 20 and subtract the multiplicand.) Thus, you can get the ×7 by subtracting. Similarly, for a ×6 term, you can subtract a ×2 multiple and add ×8 in the next digit. Thus, the only difficult multiple is ×3. (What about ×5? If you can compute ×3, you can subtract that from ×8 to get ×5.) To summarize, the Pentium's radix-8 Booth's algorithm is a fast way to multiply, but it requires a special circuit to produce the ×3 multiple of the multiplicand. Implementing a fast ×3 circuit with carry lookahead Multiplying a number by three is straightforward in binary: add the number to itself, shifted to the left one position. (As mentioned above, shifting to the left is the same as multiplying by two and is easy in hardware.) Unfortunately, using a simple adder is too slow. The problem with addition is that carries make addition slow. Consider calculating 99999+1 by hand. You'll start with 9+1=10, then carry the one, generating another carry, which generates another carry, and so forth, until you go through all the digits. Computer addition has the same problem: If you're adding two numbers, the low-order bits can generate a carry that then propagates through all the bits. An adder that works this way—known as a ripple carry adder—will be slow because the carry has to ripple through all the bits. As a result, CPUs use special circuits to make addition faster. One solution is the carry-lookahead adder. In this adder, all the carry bits are computed in parallel, before computing the sums. Then, the sum bits can be computed in parallel, using the carry bits. As a result, the addition can be completed quickly, without waiting for the carries to ripple through the entire sum. It may seem impossible to compute the carries without computing the sum first, but there's a way to do it. For each bit position, you determine signals called "carry generate" and "carry propagate". These signals can then be used to determine all the carries in parallel. The generate signal indicates that the position generates a carry. For instance, if you add binary 1xx and 1xx (where x is an arbitrary bit), a carry will be generated from the top bit, regardless of the unspecified bits. On the other hand, adding 0xx and 0xx will never generate a carry. Thus, the generate signal is produced for the first case but not the second. But what about 1xx plus 0xx? We might get a carry, for instance, 111+001, but we might not, for instance, 101+001. In this "maybe" case, we set the carry propagate signal, indicating that a carry into the position will get propagated out of the position. For example, if there is a carry out of the middle position, 1xx+0xx will have a carry from the top bit. But if there is no carry out of the middle position, then there will not be a carry from the top bit. In other words, the propagate signal indicates that a carry into the top bit will be propagated out of the top bit. To summarize, adding 1+1 will generate a carry. Adding 0+1 or 1+0 will propagate a carry. Thus, the generate signal is formed at each position by Gn = An·Bn, where A and B are the inputs. The propagate signal is Pn = An+Bn, the logical-OR of the inputs.3 Now that the propagate and generate signals are defined, some moderately complex logic4 can compute the carry Cn into each bit position. The important thing is that all the carry bits can be computed in parallel, without waiting for the carry to ripple through each bit position. Once each carry is computed, the sum bits can be computed in parallel: Sn = An ⊕ Bn ⊕ Cn. In other words, the two input bits and the computed carry are combined with exclusive-or. Thus, the entire sum can be computed in parallel by using carry lookahead. However, there are complications. Implementing carry lookahead with a parallel prefix adder The carry bits can be generated directly from the G and P signals. However, the straightforward approach requires too much hardware as the number of bits increases. Moreover, this approach needs gates with many inputs, which are slow for electrical reasons. For these reasons, the Pentium uses two techniques to keep the hardware requirements for carry lookahead tractable. First, it uses a "parallel prefix adder" algorithm for carry lookahead across 8-bit chunks.7 Second, it uses a two-level hierarchical approach for carry lookahead: the upper carry-lookahead circuit handles eight 8-bit chunks, using the same 8-bit algorithm.5 The photo below shows the complete ×3 circuit; you can see that the circuitry is divided into blocks of 8 bits. (Although I'm calling this a 64-bit circuit, it really produces a 69-bit output: there are 5 "extra" bits on the left to avoid overflow and to provide additional bits for rounding.) The full ×3 adder circuit under a microscope. The idea of the parallel-prefix adder is to produce the propagate and generate signals across ranges of bits, not just single bits as before. For instance, the propagate signal P32 indicates that a carry in to bit 2 would be propagated out of bit 3, (This would happen with 10xx+01xx, for example.) And G30 indicates that bits 3 to 0 generate a carry out of bit 3. (This would happen with 1011+0111, for example.) Using some mathematical tricks,6 you can take the P and G values for two smaller ranges and merge them into the P and G values for the combined range. For instance, you can start with the P and G values for bits 0 and 1, and produce P10 and G10, the propagate and generate signals describing two bits. These could be merged with P32 and G32 to produce P30 and G30, indicating if a carry is propagated across bits 3-0 or generated by bits 3-0. Note that Gn0 tells us if a carry is generated into bit n+1 from all the lower bits, which is the Cn+1 carry value that we need to compute the final sum. This merging process is more efficient than the "brute force" implementation of the carry-lookahead logic since logic subexpressions can be reused. There are many different ways that you can combine the P and G terms to generate the necessary terms.8 The Pentium uses an approach called Kogge-Stone that attempts to minimize the total delay while keeping the amount of circuitry reasonable. The diagram below is the standard diagram that illustrates how a Kogge-Stone adder works. It's rather abstract, but I'll try to explain it. The diagram shows how the P and G signals are merged to produce each output at the bottom. Each square box at the top generates the P and G signals for that bit. Each line corresponds to both the P and the G signal. Each diamond combines two ranges of P and G signals to generate new P and G signals for the combined range. Thus, the signals cover wider ranges of bits as they progress downward, ending with the Gn0 outputs that indicate carries. A diagram of an 8-bit Kogge-Stone adder highlighting the carry out of bit 6 (green) and out of bit 2 (purple). Modification of the diagram by Robey Pointer, Wikimedia Commons. I've labeled a few of the intermediate signals so you can get an idea of how it works. Circuit "A" combines P7 and G7 with P6 and G6 to produce the signals describing two bits: P76 and G76. Similarly, circuit "B" combines P76 and G76 with P54 and G54 to produce the signals describing four bits: P74 and G74. Finally, circuit "C" produces the final outputs for bit 7: P70 and G70. Note that most of the intermediate results are used twice, reducing the amount of circuitry. Moreover, there are at most three levels of combination circuitry, reducing the delay compared to a deeper network. The key point is the P and G values are computed in parallel so the carry bits can all be computed in parallel, without waiting for the carry to ripple through all the bits. (If this explanation doesn't make sense, see my discussion of the Kogge-Stone adder in the Pentium's division circuit for a different—but maybe still confusing—explanation.) Recursive Kogge-Stone lookahead The Kogge-Stone approach can be extended to 64 bits, but the amount of circuitry and wiring becomes overwhelming. Instead, the Pentium uses a recursive, hierarchical approach with two levels of Kogge-Stone lookahead. The lower layer uses eight Kogge-Stone adders as described above, supporting 64 bits in total. The upper layer uses a single eight-bit Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit, treating each of the lower chunks as a single bit. That is, a lower chunk has a propagate signal P indicating that a carry into the chunk will be propagated out, as well as a generate signal G indicating that the chunk generates a carry. The upper Kogge-Stone circuit combines these chunked signals to determine if carries will be generated or propagated by groups of chunks.9 To summarize, each of the eight lower lookahead circuits computes the carries within an 8-bit chunk. The upper lookahead circuit computes the carries into and out of each 8-bit chunk. In combination, the circuits rapidly provide all the carries needed to compute the 64-bit sum. The carry-select adder Suppose you're on a game show: "What is 553 + 246 + c? In 10 seconds, I'll tell you if c is 0 or 1 and whoever gives the answer first wins $1000." Obviously, you shouldn't just sit around until you get c. You should do the two sums now, so you can hit the buzzer as soon as c is announced. This is the concept behind the carry-select adder: perform two additions—with a carry-in and without--and then supply the correct answer as soon as the carry is available. The carry-select adder requires additional hardware—two adders along with a multiplexer to select the result—but it overlaps the time to compute the sum with the time to compute the carry. In effect, the addition and the carry lookahead operations are performed in parallel, with the multiplexer combining the results from each. The Pentium uses a carry-select adder for each 8-bit chunk in the ×3 circuit. The carry from the second-level carry-lookahead selects which sum should be produced for the chunk. Thus, the time to compute the carry is overlapped with the time to compute the sum. Putting the adder pieces together The image below zooms in on an 8-bit chunk of the ×3 multiplier, implementing an 8-bit adder. Eight input lines are at the top (along with some unrelated wires). Note that each input line splits with a signal going to the adder on the left and a signal going to the right. This is what causes the adder to multiply by 3: it adds the input and the input shifted one bit to the left, i.e. multiplied by two. The top part of the adder has eight circuits to produce the propagate and generate signals. These signals go into the 8-bit Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit. Although most of the adder consists of a circuit block repeated eight times, the Kogge-Stone circuitry appears chaotic. This is because each bit of the Kogge-Stone circuit is different—higher bits are more complicated to compute than lower bits. One 8-bit block of the ×3 circuit. The lower half of the circuit block contains an 8-bit carry-select adder. This circuit produces two sums, with multiplexers selecting the correct sum based on the carry into the block. Note that the carry-select adder blocks are narrower than the other circuitry.10 This makes room for a Kogge-Stone block on the left. The second level Kogge-Stone circuitry is split up; the 8-bit carry-lookahead circuitry has one bit implemented in each block of the adder, and produces the carry-in signal for that adder block. In other words, the image above includes 1/8 of the second-level Kogge-Stone circuit. Finally, eight driver circuits amplify the output bits before they are sent to the rest of the floating-point multiplier. The block diagram below shows the pieces are combined to form the ×3 multiplier. The multiplier has eight 8-bit adder blocks (green boxes, corresponding to the image above). Each block computes eight bits of the total sum. Each block provides P70 and G70 signals to the second-level lookahead, which determines if each block receives a carry in. The key point to this architecture is that everything is computed in parallel, making the addition fast. A block diagram of the multiplier. In the diagram above, the first 8-bit block is expanded to show its contents. The 8-bit lookahead circuit generates the P and G signals that determine the internal carry signals. The carry-select adder contains two 8-bit adders that use the carry lookahead values. As described earlier, one adder assumes that the block's carry-in is 1 and the second assumes the carry-in is 0. When the real carry in value is provided by the second-level lookahead circuit, the multiplexer selects the correct sum. The photo below shows how the complete multiplier is constructed from 8-bit blocks. The multiplier produces a 69-bit output; there are 5 "extra" bits on the left. Note that the second-level Kogge-Stone blocks are larger on the right than the left since the lookahead circuitry is more complex for higher-order bits. The full adder circuit. This is the same image as before, but hopefully it makes more sense at this point. Going back to the full ×3 circuit above, you can see that the 8 bits on the right have significantly simpler circuitry. Because there is no carry-in to this block, the carry-select circuitry can be omitted. The block's internal carries, generated by the Kogge-Stone lookahead circuitry, are added using exclusive-NOR gates. The diagram below shows the implementation of an XNOR gate, using inverters and a multiplexer. The XNOR circuit I'll now describe one of the multiplier's circuits at the transistor level, in particular an XNOR gate. It's interesting to look at XNOR because XNOR (like XOR) is a tricky gate to implement and different processors use very different approaches. For instance, the Intel 386 implements XOR from AND-NOR gates (details) while the Z-80 uses pass transistors (details). The Pentium, on the other hand, uses a multiplexer. An exclusive-NOR gate with the components labeled. This is a focus-stacked image. The diagram above shows one of the XNOR gates in the adder's low bits.11 The gate is constructed from four inverters and a pass-transistor multiplexer. Input B selects one of the multiplexer's two inputs: input A or input A inverted. The result is the XNOR function. (Inverter 1 buffers the input, inverter 5 buffers the output, and inverter 4 provides the complemented B signal to drive the multiplexer.) For the photo, I removed the top two metal layers from the chip, leaving the bottom metal layer, called M1. The doped silicon regions are barely visible beneath the metal. When a polysilicon line crosses doped silicon, it forms the gate of a transistor. This CMOS circuit has NMOS transistors at the top and PMOS transistors at the bottom. Each inverter consists of two transistors, while the multiplexer consists of four transistors. The BiCMOS output drivers The outputs from the ×3 circuit require high current. In particular, each signal from the ×3 circuit can drive up to 22 terms in the floating-point multiplier. Moreover, the destination circuits can be a significant distance from the ×3 circuit due to the size of the multiplier. Since the ×3 signals are connected to many transistor gates through long wires, the capacitance is high, requiring high current to change the signals quickly. The Pentium is constructed with a somewhat unusual process called BiCMOS, which combines bipolar transistors and CMOS on the same chip. The Pentium extensively uses BiCMOS circuits since they reduced signal delays by up to 35%. Intel also used BiCMOS for the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, and Xeon processors. However, as chip voltages dropped, the benefit from bipolar transistors dropped too and BiCMOS was eventually abandoned. The schematic below shows a simplified BiCMOS driver that inverts its input. A 0 input turns on the upper inverter, providing current into the bipolar (NPN) transistor's base. This turns on the transistor, causing it to pull the output high strongly and rapidly. A 1 input, on the other hand, will stop the current flow through the NPN transistor's base, turning it off. At the same time, the lower inverter will pull the output low. (The NPN transistor can only pull the output high.) Note the asymmetrical construction of the inverters. Since the upper inverter must provide a large current into the NPN transistor's base, it is designed to produce a strong (high-current) positive output and a weak low output. The lower inverter, on the other hand, is responsible for pulling the output low. Thus, it is constructed to produce a strong low output, while the high output can be weak. The basic circuit for a BiCMOS driver. The driver of the ×3 circuit goes one step further: it uses a BiCMOS driver to drive a second BiCMOS driver. The motivation is that the high-current inverters have fairly large transistor gates, so they need to be driven with high current (but not as much as they produce, so there isn't an infinite regress).12 The schematic below shows the BiCMOS driver circuit that the ×3 multiplier uses. Note the large, box-like appearance of the NPN transistors, very different from the regular MOS transistors. Each box contains two NPN transistors sharing collectors: a larger transistor on the left and a smaller one on the right. You might expect these transistors to work together, but the contiguous transistors are part of two separate circuits. Instead, the small NPN transistor to the left and the large NPN transistor to the right are part of the same circuit. One of the output driver circuits, showing the polysilicon and silicon. The inverters are constructed as standard CMOS circuits with PMOS transistors to pull the output high and NMOS transistors to pull the output low. The inverters are carefully structured to provide asymmetrical current, making them more interesting than typical inverters. Two pullup transistors have a long gate, making these transistors unusually weak. Other parts of the inverters have multiple transistors in parallel, providing more current. Moreover, the inverters have unusual layouts, with the NMOS and PMOS transistors widely separated to make the layout more efficient. For more on BiCMOS in the Pentium, see my article on interesting BiCMOS circuits in the Pentium. Conclusions Hardware support for computer multiplication has a long history going back to the 1950s.13 Early microprocessors, though, had very limited capabilities, so microprocessors such as the 6502 didn't have hardware support for multiplication; users had to implement multiplication in software through shifts and adds. As hardware advanced, processors provided multiplication instructions but they were still slow. For example, the Intel 8086 processor (1978) implemented multiplication in microcode, performing a slow shift-and-add loop internally. Processors became exponentially more powerful over time, as described by Moore's Law, allowing later processors to include dedicated multiplication hardware. The 386 processor (1985) included a multiply unit, but it was still slow, taking up to 41 clock cycles for a multiplication instruction. By the time of the Pentium (1993), microprocessors contained millions of transistors, opening up new possibilities for design. With a seemingly unlimited number of transistors, chip architects could look at complicated new approaches to squeeze more performance out of a system. This ×3 multiplier contains roughly 9000 transistors, a bit more than an entire Z80 microprocessor (1976). Keep in mind that the ×3 multiplier is a small part of the floating-point multiplier, which is part of the floating-point unit in the Pentium. Thus, this small piece of a feature is more complicated than an entire microprocessor from 17 years earlier, illustrating the incredible growth in processor complexity. I plan to write more about the implementation of the Pentium, so follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com) or RSS for updates. (I'm no longer on Twitter.) The Pentium Navajo rug inspired me to examine the Pentium in more detail. Footnotes and references A floating-point multiplication on the Pentium takes three clock cycles, of which the multiplication circuitry is busy for two cycles. (See Agner Fog's optimization manual.) In comparison, integer multiplication (MUL) is much slower, taking 11 cycles. The Nehalem microarchitecture (2008) reduced floating-point multiplication time to 1 cycle. ↩ I'll give a quick outline of the Pentium's floating-point multiplier as a preview. The multiplier is built from a tree of ten carry-save adders to sum the terms. Each carry-save adder is a 4:2 compression adder, taking four input bits and producing two output bits. The output from the carry-save adder is converted to the final result by an adder using Kogge-Stone lookahead and carry select. Multiplying two 64-bit numbers yields 128 bits, but the Pentium produces a 64-bit result. (There are actually a few more bits for rounding.) The low 64 bits can't simply be discarded because they could produce a carry into the preserved bits. Thus, the low 64 bits go into another Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit that doesn't produce a sum, but indicates if there is a carry. Since the datapath is 64 bits wide, but the product is 128 bits, there are many shift stages to move the bits to the right column. Moreover, the adders are somewhat wider than 64 bits as needed to hold the intermediate sums. ↩ The bits 1+1 will set generate, but should propagate be set too? It doesn't make a difference as far as the equations. This adder sets propagate for 1+1 but some other adders do not. The answer depends on if you use an inclusive-or or exclusive-or gate to produce the propagate signal. ↩ The carry Cn at each bit position n can be computed from the G and P signals by considering the various cases: C1 = G0: a carry into bit 1 occurs if a carry is generated from bit 0. C2 = G1 + G0P1: A carry into bit 2 occurs if bit 1 generates a carry or bit 1 propagates a carry from bit 0. C3 = G2 + G1P2 + G0P1P2: A carry into bit 3 occurs if bit 2 generates a carry, or bit 2 propagates a carry generated from bit 1, or bits 2 and 1 propagate a carry generated from bit 0. C4 = G3 + G2P3 + G1P2P3 + G0P1P2P3: A carry into bit 4 occurs if a carry is generated from bit 3, 2, 1, or 0 along with the necessary propagate signals. And so on... Note that the formula gets more complicated for each bit position. The circuit complexity is approximately O(N3), depending on how you measure it. Thus, implementing the carry lookahead formula directly becomes impractical as the number of bits gets large. The Kogge-Stone approach uses approximately O(N log N) transistors, but the wiring becomes excessive for large N since there are N/2 wires of length N/2. Using a tree of Kogge-Stone circuits reduces the amount of wiring. ↩ The 8-bit chunks in the circuitry have nothing to do with bytes. The motivation is that 8 bits is a reasonable size for a chunk, as well as providing a nice breakdown into 8 chunks of 8 bits. Other systems have used 4-bit chunks for carry lookahead (such as minicomputers based on the 74181 ALU chip). ↩ I won't go into the mathematics of merging P and G signals; see, for example, Adder Circuits or Carry Lookahead Adders for additional details. The important factor is that the carry merge operator is associative (actually a monoid), so the sub-ranges can be merged in any order. This flexibility is what allows different algorithms with different tradeoffs. ↩ The idea behind a prefix adder is that we want to see if there is a carry out of bit 0, bits 0-1, bits 0-2, bits 0-3, 0-4, and so forth. These are all the prefixes of the word. Since the prefixes are computed in parallel, it's called a parallel prefix adder. ↩ The lookahead merging process can be implemented in many ways, including Kogge-Stone, Brent-Kung, and Ladner-Fischer, with different tradeoffs. For one example, the diagram below shows that Brent-Kung uses fewer "diamonds" but more layers. Thus, a Brent-Kung adder uses less circuitry but is slower. (You can follow each output upward to verify that the tree reaches the correct inputs.) A diagram of an 8-bit Brent-Kung adder. Diagram by Robey Pointer, Wikimedia Commons.  ↩ The higher-level Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit uses the eight P70 and G70 signals from the eight lower-level lookahead circuits. Note that P70 and G70 indicate that an 8-bit chunk will propagate or generate a carry. The higher-level lookahead circuit treats 8-bit chunks as a unit, while the lower-level lookahead circuit treats 1-bit chunks as a unit. Thus, the higher-level and lower-level lookahead circuits are essentially identical, acting on 8-bit values. ↩ The floating-point unit is built from fixed-width columns, one for each bit. Each column is 38.5 µm wide, so the circuitry in each column must be designed to fit that width. For the most part, the same circuitry is repeated for each of the 64 (or so) bits. The carry-select adder is unusual since it doesn't follow the column width of the rest of the floating-point unit. Instead, it crams 8 circuits into the width of 6.5 regular circuits. This leaves room for one Kogge-Stone circuitry block. ↩ Because there is no carry-in to the lowest 8-bit block of the ×3 circuit, the carry-select circuit is not needed. Instead, each output bit can be computed using an XNOR gate. ↩ The principle of Logical Effort explains that for best performance, you don't want to jump from a small signal to a high-current signal in one step. Instead, a small signal produces a medium signal, which produces a larger signal. By using multiple stages of circuitry, the overall delay can be reduced. ↩ The Booth multiplication technique was described in 1951, while parallel multipliers were proposed in the mid-1960s by Wallace and Dadda. Jumping ahead to higher-radix multiplication, a 1992 paper A Fast Hybrid Multiplier Combining Booth and Wallace/Dadda Algorithms from Motorola discusses radix-4 and radix-8 algorithms for a 32-bit multiplier, but decides that computing the ×3 multiple makes radix-8 impractical. IBM discussed a 32-bit multiplier in 1997: A Radix-8 CMOS S/390 Multiplier. Bewick's 1994 PhD thesis Fast Multiplication: Algorithms and Implementation describes numerous algorithms. For adders, Two-Operand Addition is an interesting presentation on different approaches. CMOS VLSI Design has a good discussion of addition and various lookahead networks. It summarizes the tradeoffs: "Brent-Kung has too many logic levels. Sklansky has too much fanout. And Kogge-Stone has too many wires. Between these three extremes, the Han-Carlson, Ladner-Fischer, and Knowles trees fill out the design space with different compromises between number of stages, fanout, and wire count." The approach used in the Pentium's ×3 multiplier is sometimes called a sparse-tree adder. ↩

What is the origin of the word "mainframe", referring to a large, complex computer? Most sources agree that the term is related to the frames that held early computers, but the details are vague.1 It turns out that the history is more interesting and complicated than you'd expect. Based on my research, the earliest computer to use the term "main frame" was the IBM 701 computer (1952), which consisted of boxes called "frames." The 701 system consisted of two power frames, a power distribution frame, an electrostatic storage frame, a drum frame, tape frames, and most importantly a main frame. The IBM 701's main frame is shown in the documentation below.2 This diagram shows how the IBM 701 mainframe swings open for access to the circuitry. From "Type 701 EDPM [Electronic Data Processing Machine] Installation Manual", IBM. From Computer History Museum archives. The meaning of "mainframe" has evolved, shifting from being a part of a computer to being a type of computer. For decades, "mainframe" referred to the physical box of the computer; unlike modern usage, this "mainframe" could be a minicomputer or even microcomputer. Simultaneously, "mainframe" was a synonym for "central processing unit." In the 1970s, the modern meaning started to develop—a large, powerful computer for transaction processing or business applications—but it took decades for this meaning to replace the earlier ones. In this article, I'll examine the history of these shifting meanings in detail. Early computers and the origin of "main frame" Early computers used a variety of mounting and packaging techniques including panels, cabinets, racks, and bays.3 This packaging made it very difficult to install or move a computer, often requiring cranes or the removal of walls.4 To avoid these problems, the designers of the IBM 701 computer came up with an innovative packaging technique. This computer was constructed as individual units that would pass through a standard doorway, would fit on a standard elevator, and could be transported with normal trucking or aircraft facilities.7 These units were built from a metal frame with covers attached, so each unit was called a frame. The frames were named according to their function, such as the power frames and the tape frame. Naturally, the main part of the computer was called the main frame. An IBM 701 system at General Motors. On the left: tape drives in front of power frames. Back: drum unit/frame, control panel and electronic analytical control unit (main frame), electrostatic storage unit/frame (with circular storage CRTs). Right: printer, card punch. Photo from BRL Report, thanks to Ed Thelen. The IBM 701's internal documentation used "main frame" frequently to indicate the main box of the computer, alongside "power frame", "core frame", and so forth. For instance, each component in the schematics was labeled with its location in the computer, "MF" for the main frame.6 Externally, however, IBM documentation described the parts of the 701 computer as units rather than frames.5 The term "main frame" was used by a few other computers in the 1950s.8 For instance, the JOHNNIAC Progress Report (August 8, 1952) mentions that "the main frame for the JOHNNIAC is ready to receive registers" and they could test the arithmetic unit "in the JOHNNIAC main frame in October."10 An article on the RAND Computer in 1953 stated that "The main frame is completed and partially wired" The main body of a computer called ERMA is labeled "main frame" in the 1955 Proceedings of the Eastern Computer Conference.9 Operator at console of IBM 701. The main frame is on the left with the cover removed. The console is in the center. The power frame (with gauges) is on the right. Photo from NOAA. The progression of the word "main frame" can be seen in reports from the Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) that list almost all the computers in the United States. In the 1955 BRL report, most computers were built from cabinets or racks; the phrase "main frame" was only used with the IBM 650, 701, and 704. By 1961, the BRL report shows "main frame" appearing in descriptions of the IBM 702, 705, 709, and 650 RAMAC, as well as the Univac FILE 0, FILE I, RCA 501, READIX, and Teleregister Telefile. This shows that the use of "main frame" was increasing, but still mostly an IBM term. The physical box of a minicomputer or microcomputer In modern usage, mainframes are distinct from minicomputers or microcomputers. But until the 1980s, the word "mainframe" could also mean the main physical part of a minicomputer or microcomputer. For instance, a "minicomputer mainframe" was not a powerful minicomputer, but simply the main part of a minicomputer.13 For example, the PDP-11 is an iconic minicomputer, but DEC discussed its "mainframe."14. Similarly, the desktop-sized HP 2115A and Varian Data 620i computers also had mainframes.15 As late as 1981, the book Mini and Microcomputers mentioned "a minicomputer mainframe." "Mainframes for Hobbyists" on the front cover of Radio-Electronics, Feb 1978. Even microcomputers had a mainframe: the cover of Radio Electronics (1978, above) stated, "Own your own Personal Computer: Mainframes for Hobbyists", using the definition below. An article "Introduction to Personal Computers" in Radio Electronics (Mar 1979) uses a similar meaning: "The first choice you will have to make is the mainframe or actual enclosure that the computer will sit in." The popular hobbyist magazine BYTE also used "mainframe" to describe a microprocessor's box in the 1970s and early 1980s16. BYTE sometimes used the word "mainframe" both to describe a large IBM computer and to describe a home computer box in the same issue, illustrating that the two distinct meanings coexisted. Definition from Radio-Electronics: main-frame n: COMPUTER; esp: a cabinet housing the computer itself as distinguished from peripheral devices connected with it: a cabinet containing a motherboard and power supply intended to house the CPU, memory, I/O ports, etc., that comprise the computer itself. Main frame synonymous with CPU Words often change meaning through metonymy, where a word takes on the meaning of something closely associated with the original meaning. Through this process, "main frame" shifted from the physical frame (as a box) to the functional contents of the frame, specifically the central processing unit.17 The earliest instance that I could find of the "main frame" being equated with the central processing unit was in 1955. Survey of Data Processors stated: "The central processing unit is known by other names; the arithmetic and ligical [sic] unit, the main frame, the computer, etc. but we shall refer to it, usually, as the central processing unit." A similar definition appeared in Radio Electronics (June 1957, p37): "These arithmetic operations are performed in what is called the arithmetic unit of the machine, also sometimes referred to as the 'main frame.'" The US Department of Agriculture's Glossary of ADP Terminology (1960) uses the definition: "MAIN FRAME - The central processor of the computer system. It contains the main memory, arithmetic unit and special register groups." I'll mention that "special register groups" is nonsense that was repeated for years.18 This definition was reused and extended in the government's Automatic Data Processing Glossary, published in 1962 "for use as an authoritative reference by all officials and employees of the executive branch of the Government" (below). This definition was reused in many other places, notably the Oxford English Dictionary.19 Definition from Bureau of the Budget: frame, main, (1) the central processor of the computer system. It contains the main storage, arithmetic unit and special register groups. Synonymous with (CPU) and (central processing unit). (2) All that portion of a computer exclusive of the input, output, peripheral and in some instances, storage units. By the early 1980s, defining a mainframe as the CPU had become obsolete. IBM stated that "mainframe" was a deprecated term for "processing unit" in the Vocabulary for Data Processing, Telecommunications, and Office Systems (1981); the American National Dictionary for Information Processing Systems (1982) was similar. Computers and Business Information Processing (1983) bluntly stated: "According to the official definition, 'mainframe' and 'CPU' are synonyms. Nobody uses the word mainframe that way." Guide for auditing automatic data processing systems (1961).](mainframe-diagram.jpg "w400") 1967: I/O devices transferring data "independent of the main frame" Datamation, Volume 13. Discusses other sorts of off-line I/O. 1967 Office Equipment & Methods: "By putting your data on magnetic tape and feeding it to your computer in this pre-formatted fashion, you increase your data input rate so dramatically that you may effect main frame time savings as high as 50%." Same in Data Processing Magazine, 1966 Equating the mainframe and the CPU led to a semantic conflict in the 1970s, when the CPU became a microprocessor chip rather than a large box. For the most part, this was resolved by breaking apart the definitions of "mainframe" and "CPU", with the mainframe being the computer or class of computers, while the CPU became the processor chip. However, some non-American usages resolved the conflict by using "CPU" to refer to the box/case/tower of a PC. (See discussion [here](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21336515) and [here](https://superuser.com/questions/1198006/is-it-correct-to-say-that-main-memory-ram-is-a-part-of-cpu).) --> Mainframe vs. peripherals Rather than defining the mainframe as the CPU, some dictionaries defined the mainframe in opposition to the "peripherals", the computer's I/O devices. The two definitions are essentially the same, but have a different focus.20 One example is the IFIP-ICC Vocabulary of Information Processing (1966) which defined "central processor" and "main frame" as "that part of an automatic data processing system which is not considered as peripheral equipment." Computer Dictionary (1982) had the definition "main frame—The fundamental portion of a computer, i.e. the portion that contains the CPU and control elements of a computer system, as contrasted with peripheral or remote devices usually of an input-output or memory nature." One reason for this definition was that computer usage was billed for mainframe time, while other tasks such as printing results could save money by taking place directly on the peripherals without using the mainframe itself.21 A second reason was that the mainframe vs. peripheral split mirrored the composition of the computer industry, especially in the late 1960s and 1970s. Computer systems were built by a handful of companies, led by IBM. Compatible I/O devices and memory were built by many other companies that could sell them at a lower cost than IBM.22 Publications about the computer industry needed convenient terms to describe these two industry sectors, and they often used "mainframe manufacturers" and "peripheral manufacturers." Main Frame or Mainframe? An interesting linguistic shift is from "main frame" as two independent words to a compound word: either hyphenated "main-frame" or the single word "mainframe." This indicates the change from "main frame" being a type of frame to "mainframe" being a new concept. The earliest instance of hyphenated "main-frame" that I found was from 1959 in IBM Information Retrieval Systems Conference. "Mainframe" as a single, non-hyphenated word appears the same year in Datamation, mentioning the mainframe of the NEAC2201 computer. In 1962, the IBM 7090 Installation Instructions refer to a "Mainframe Diag[nostic] and Reliability Program." (Curiously, the document also uses "main frame" as two words in several places.) The 1962 book Information Retrieval Management discusses how much computer time document queries can take: "A run of 100 or more machine questions may require two to five minutes of mainframe time." This shows that by 1962, "main frame" had semantically shifted to a new word, "mainframe." The rise of the minicomputer and how the "mainframe" become a class of computers So far, I've shown how "mainframe" started as a physical frame in the computer, and then was generalized to describe the CPU. But how did "mainframe" change from being part of a computer to being a class of computers? This was a gradual process, largely happening in the mid-1970s as the rise of the minicomputer and microcomputer created a need for a word to describe large computers. Although microcomputers, minicomputers, and mainframes are now viewed as distinct categories, this was not the case at first. For instance, a 1966 computer buyer's guide lumps together computers ranging from desk-sized to 70,000 square feet.23 Around 1968, however, the term "minicomputer" was created to describe small computers. The story is that the head of DEC in England created the term, inspired by the miniskirt and the Mini Minor car.24 While minicomputers had a specific name, larger computers did not.25 Gradually in the 1970s "mainframe" came to be a separate category, distinct from "minicomputer."2627 An early example is Datamation (1970), describing systems of various sizes: "mainframe, minicomputer, data logger, converters, readers and sorters, terminals." The influential business report EDP first split mainframes from minicomputers in 1972.28 The line between minicomputers and mainframes was controversial, with articles such as Distinction Helpful for Minis, Mainframes and Micro, Mini, or Mainframe? Confusion persists (1981) attempting to clarify the issue.29 With the development of the microprocessor, computers became categorized as mainframes, minicomputers or microcomputers. For instance, a 1975 Computerworld article discussed how the minicomputer competes against the microcomputer and mainframes. Adam Osborne's An Introduction to Microcomputers (1977) described computers as divided into mainframes, minicomputers, and microcomputers by price, power, and size. He pointed out the large overlap between categories and avoided specific definitions, stating that "A minicomputer is a minicomputer, and a mainframe is a mainframe, because that is what the manufacturer calls it."32 In the late 1980s, computer industry dictionaries started defining a mainframe as a large computer, often explicitly contrasted with a minicomputer or microcomputer. By 1990, they mentioned the networked aspects of mainframes.33 IBM embraces the mainframe label Even though IBM is almost synonymous with "mainframe" now, IBM avoided marketing use of the word for many years, preferring terms such as "general-purpose computer."35 IBM's book Planning a Computer System (1962) repeatedly referred to "general-purpose computers" and "large-scale computers", but never used the word "mainframe."34 The announcement of the revolutionary System/360 (1964) didn't use the word "mainframe"; it was called a general-purpose computer system. The announcement of the System/370 (1970) discussed "medium- and large-scale systems." The System/32 introduction (1977) said, "System/32 is a general purpose computer..." The 1982 announcement of the 3804, IBM's most powerful computer at the time, called it a "large scale processor" not a mainframe. IBM started using "mainframe" as a marketing term in the mid-1980s. For example, the 3270 PC Guide (1986) refers to "IBM mainframe computers." An IBM 9370 Information System brochure (c. 1986) says the system was "designed to provide mainframe power." IBM's brochure for the 3090 processor (1987) called them "advanced general-purpose computers" but also mentioned "mainframe computers." A System 390 brochure (c. 1990) discussed "entry into the mainframe class." The 1990 announcement of the ES/9000 called them "the most powerful mainframe systems the company has ever offered." The IBM System/390: "The excellent balance between price and performance makes entry into the mainframe class an attractive proposition." IBM System/390 Brochure By 2000, IBM had enthusiastically adopted the mainframe label: the z900 announcement used the word "mainframe" six times, calling it the "reinvented mainframe." In 2003, IBM announced "The Mainframe Charter", describing IBM's "mainframe values" and "mainframe strategy." Now, IBM has retroactively applied the name "mainframe" to their large computers going back to 1959 (link), (link). Mainframes and the general public While "mainframe" was a relatively obscure computer term for many years, it became widespread in the 1980s. The Google Ngram graph below shows the popularity of "microcomputer", "minicomputer", and "mainframe" in books.36 The terms became popular during the late 1970s and 1980s. The popularity of "minicomputer" and "microcomputer" roughly mirrored the development of these classes of computers. Unexpectedly, even though mainframes were the earliest computers, the term "mainframe" peaked later than the other types of computers. N-gram graph from Google Books Ngram Viewer. Dictionary definitions I studied many old dictionaries to see when the word "mainframe" showed up and how they defined it. To summarize, "mainframe" started to appear in dictionaries in the late 1970s, first defining the mainframe in opposition to peripherals or as the CPU. In the 1980s, the definition gradually changed to the modern definition, with a mainframe distinguished as being large, fast, and often centralized system. These definitions were roughly a decade behind industry usage, which switched to the modern meaning in the 1970s. The word didn't appear in older dictionaries, such as the Random House College Dictionary (1968) and Merriam-Webster (1974). The earliest definition I could find was in the supplement to Webster's International Dictionary (1976): "a computer and esp. the computer itself and its cabinet as distinguished from peripheral devices connected with it." Similar definitions appeared in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1976, 1980). A CPU-based definition appeared in Random House College Dictionary (1980): "the device within a computer which contains the central control and arithmetic units, responsible for the essential control and computational functions. Also called central processing unit." The Random House Dictionary (1978, 1988 printing) was similar. The American Heritage Dictionary (1982, 1985) combined the CPU and peripheral approaches: "mainframe. The central processing unit of a computer exclusive of peripheral and remote devices." The modern definition as a large computer appeared alongside the old definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983): "mainframe (1964): a computer with its cabinet and internal circuits; also: a large fast computer that can handle multiple tasks concurrently." Only the modern definition appears in The New Merriram-Webster Dictionary (1989): "large fast computer", while Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989): "mainframe. a large high-speed computer with greater storage capacity than a minicomputer, often serving as the central unit in a system of smaller computers. [MAIN + FRAME]." Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991) and Random House College Dictionary (2001) had similar definitions. The Oxford English Dictionary is the principal historical dictionary, so it is interesting to see its view. The 1989 OED gave historical definitions as well as defining mainframe as "any large or general-purpose computer, exp. one supporting numerous peripherals or subordinate computers." It has seven historical examples from 1964 to 1984; the earliest is the 1964 Honeywell Glossary. It quotes a 1970 Dictionary of Computers as saying that the word "Originally implied the main framework of a central processing unit on which the arithmetic unit and associated logic circuits were mounted, but now used colloquially to refer to the central processor itself." The OED also cited a Hewlett-Packard ad from 1974 that used the word "mainframe", but I consider this a mistake as the usage is completely different.15 Encyclopedias A look at encyclopedias shows that the word "mainframe" started appearing in discussions of computers in the early 1980s, later than in dictionaries. At the beginning of the 1980s, many encyclopedias focused on large computers, without using the word "mainframe", for instance, The Concise Encyclopedia of the Sciences (1980) and World Book (1980). The word "mainframe" started to appear in supplements such as Britannica Book of the Year (1980) and World Book Year Book (1981), at the same time as they started discussing microcomputers. Soon encyclopedias were using the word "mainframe", for example, Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia (1983), Encyclopedia Americana (1983), and World Book (1984). By 1986, even the Doubleday Children's Almanac showed a "mainframe computer." Newspapers I examined old newspapers to track the usage of the word "mainframe." The graph below shows the usage of "mainframe" in newspapers. The curve shows a rise in popularity through the 1980s and a steep drop in the late 1990s. The newspaper graph roughly matches the book graph above, although newspapers show a much steeper drop in the late 1990s. Perhaps mainframes aren't in the news anymore, but people still write books about them. Newspaper usage of "mainframe." Graph from newspapers.com from 1975 to 2010 shows usage started growing in 1978, picked up in 1984, and peaked in 1989 and 1997, with a large drop in 2001 and after (y2k?). The first newspaper appearances were in classified ads seeking employees, for instance, a 1960 ad in the San Francisco Examiner for people "to monitor and control main-frame operations of electronic computers...and to operate peripheral equipment..." and a (sexist) 1966 ad in the Philadelphia Inquirer for "men with Digital Computer Bkgrnd [sic] (Peripheral or Mainframe)."37 By 1970, "mainframe" started to appear in news articles, for example, "The computer can't work without the mainframe unit." By 1971, the usage increased with phrases such as "mainframe central processor" and "'main-frame' computer manufacturers". 1972 had usages such as "the mainframe or central processing unit is the heart of any computer, and does all the calculations". A 1975 article explained "'Mainframe' is the industry's word for the computer itself, as opposed to associated items such as printers, which are referred to as 'peripherals.'" By 1980, minicomputers and microcomputers were appearing: "All hardware categories-mainframes, minicomputers, microcomputers, and terminals" and "The mainframe and the minis are interconnected." By 1985, the mainframe was a type of computer, not just the CPU: "These days it's tough to even define 'mainframe'. One definition is that it has for its electronic brain a central processor unit (CPU) that can handle at least 32 bits of information at once. ... A better distinction is that mainframes have numerous processors so they can work on several jobs at once." Articles also discussed "the micro's challenge to the mainframe" and asked, "buy a mainframe, rather than a mini?" By 1990, descriptions of mainframes became florid: "huge machines laboring away in glass-walled rooms", "the big burner which carries the whole computing load for an organization", "behemoth data crunchers", "the room-size machines that dominated computing until the 1980s", "the giant workhorses that form the nucleus of many data-processing centers", "But it is not raw central-processing-power that makes a mainframe a mainframe. Mainframe computers command their much higher prices because they have much more sophisticated input/output systems." Conclusion After extensive searches through archival documents, I found usages of the term "main frame" dating back to 1952, much earlier than previously reported. In particular, the introduction of frames to package the IBM 701 computer led to the use of the word "main frame" for that computer and later ones. The term went through various shades of meaning and remained fairly obscure for many years. In the mid-1970s, the term started describing a large computer, essentially its modern meaning. In the 1980s, the term escaped the computer industry and appeared in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and newspapers. After peaking in the 1990s, the term declined in usage (tracking the decline in mainframe computers), but the term and the mainframe computer both survive. Two factors drove the popularity of the word "mainframe" in the 1980s with its current meaning of a large computer. First, the terms "microcomputer" and "minicomputer" led to linguistic pressure for a parallel term for large computers. For instance, the business press needed a word to describe IBM and other large computer manufacturers. While "server" is the modern term, "mainframe" easily filled the role back then and was nicely alliterative with "microcomputer" and "minicomputer."38 Second, up until the 1980s, the prototype meaning for "computer" was a large mainframe, typically IBM.39 But as millions of home computers were sold in the early 1980s, the prototypical "computer" shifted to smaller machines. This left a need for a term for large computers, and "mainframe" filled that need. In other words, if you were talking about a large computer in the 1970s, you could say "computer" and people would assume you meant a mainframe. But if you said "computer" in the 1980s, you needed to clarify if it was a large computer. The word "mainframe" is almost 75 years old and both the computer and the word have gone through extensive changes in this time. The "death of the mainframe" has been proclaimed for well over 30 years but mainframes are still hanging on. Who knows what meaning "mainframe" will have in another 75 years? Follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com) or RSS. (I'm no longer on Twitter.) Thanks to the Computer History Museum and archivist Sara Lott for access to many documents. Notes and References The Computer History Museum states: "Why are they called “Mainframes”? Nobody knows for sure. There was no mainframe “inventor” who coined the term. Probably “main frame” originally referred to the frames (designed for telephone switches) holding processor circuits and main memory, separate from racks or cabinets holding other components. Over time, main frame became mainframe and came to mean 'big computer.'" (Based on my research, I don't think telephone switches have any connection to computer mainframes.) Several sources explain that the mainframe is named after the frame used to construct the computer. The Jargon File has a long discussion, stating that the term "originally referring to the cabinet containing the central processor unit or ‘main frame’." Ken Uston's Illustrated Guide to the IBM PC (1984) has the definition "MAIN FRAME A large, high-capacity computer, so named because the CPU of this kind of computer used to be mounted on a frame." IBM states that mainframe "Originally referred to the central processing unit of a large computer, which occupied the largest or central frame (rack)." The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2002) states that the name mainframe "is derived from 'main frame', the cabinet originally used to house the processing unit of such computers." Some discussions of the origin of the word "mainframe" are here, here, here, here, and here. The phrase "main frame" in non-computer contexts has a very old but irrelevant history, describing many things that have a frame. For example, it appears in thousands of patents from the 1800s, including drills, saws, a meat cutter, a cider mill, printing presses, and corn planters. This shows that it was natural to use the phrase "main frame" when describing something constructed from frames. Telephony uses a Main distribution frame or "main frame" for wiring, going back to 1902. Some people claim that the computer use of "mainframe" is related to the telephony use, but I don't think they are related. In particular, a telephone main distribution frame looks nothing like a computer mainframe. Moreover, the computer use and the telephony use developed separately; if the computer use started in, say, Bell Labs, a connection would be more plausible. IBM patents with "main frame" include a scale (1922), a card sorter (1927), a card duplicator (1929), and a card-based accounting machine (1930). IBM's incidental uses of "main frame" are probably unrelated to modern usage, but they are a reminder that punch card data processing started decades before the modern computer. ↩ It is unclear why the IBM 701 installation manual is dated August 27, 1952 but the drawing is dated 1953. I assume the drawing was updated after the manual was originally produced. ↩ This footnote will survey the construction techniques of some early computers; the key point is that building a computer on frames was not an obvious technique. ENIAC (1945), the famous early vacuum tube computer, was constructed from 40 panels forming three walls filling a room (ref, ref). EDVAC (1949) was built from large cabinets or panels (ref) while ORDVAC and CLADIC (1949) were built on racks (ref). One of the first commercial computers, UNIVAC 1 (1951), had a "Central Computer" organized as bays, divided into three sections, with tube "chassis" plugged in (ref ). The Raytheon computer (1951) and Moore School Automatic Computer (1952) (ref) were built from racks. The MONROBOT VI (1955) was described as constructed from the "conventional rack-panel-cabinet form" (ref). ↩ The size and construction of early computers often made it difficult to install or move them. The early computer ENIAC required 9 months to move from Philadelphia to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. For this move, the wall of the Moore School in Philadelphia had to be partially demolished so ENIAC's main panels could be removed. In 1959, moving the SWAC computer required disassembly of the computer and removing one wall of the building (ref). When moving the early computer JOHNNIAC to a different site, the builders discovered the computer was too big for the elevator. They had to raise the computer up the elevator shaft without the elevator (ref). This illustrates the benefits of building a computer from moveable frames. ↩ The IBM 701's main frame was called the Electronic Analytical Control Unit in external documentation. ↩ The 701 installation manual (1952) has a frame arrangement diagram showing the dimensions of the various frames, along with a drawing of the main frame, and power usage of the various frames. Service documentation (1953) refers to "main frame adjustments" (page 74). The 700 Series Data Processing Systems Component Circuits document (1955-1959) lists various types of frames in its abbreviation list (below) Abbreviations used in IBM drawings include MF for main frame. Also note CF for core frame, and DF for drum frame, From 700 Series Data Processing Systems Component Circuits (1955-1959). When repairing an IBM 701, it was important to know which frame held which components, so "main frame" appeared throughout the engineering documents. For instance, in the schematics, each module was labeled with its location; "MF" stands for "main frame." Detail of a 701 schematic diagram. "MF" stands for "main frame." This diagram shows part of a pluggable tube module (type 2891) in mainframe panel 3 (MF3) section J, column 29. The blocks shown are an AND gate, OR gate, and Cathode Follower (buffer). From System Drawings 1.04.1. The "main frame" terminology was used in discussions with customers. For example, notes from a meeting with IBM (April 8, 1952) mention "E. S. [Electrostatic] Memory 15 feet from main frame" and list "main frame" as one of the seven items obtained for the $15,000/month rental cost.  ↩ For more information on how the IBM 701 was designed to fit on elevators and through doorways, see Building IBM: Shaping an Industry and Technology page 170, The Interface: IBM and the Transformation of Corporate Design page 69. This is also mentioned in "Engineering Description of the IBM Type 701 Computer", Proceedings of the IRE Oct 1953, page 1285. ↩ Many early systems used "central computer" to describe the main part of the computer, perhaps more commonly than "main frame." An early example is the "central computer" of the Elecom 125 (1954). The Digital Computer Newsletter (Apr 1955) used "central computer" several times to describe the processor of SEAC. The 1961 BRL report shows "central computer" being used by Univac II, Univac 1107, Univac File 0, DYSEAC and RCA Series 300. The MIT TX-2 Technical Manual (1961) uses "central computer" very frequently. The NAREC glossary (1962) defined "central computer. That part of a computer housed in the main frame." ↩ This footnote lists some other early computers that used the term "main frame." The October 1956 Digital Computer Newsletter mentions the "main frame" of the IBM NORC. Digital Computer Newsletter (Jan 1959) discusses using a RAMAC disk drive to reduce "main frame processing time." This document also mentions the IBM 709 "main frame." The IBM 704 documentation (1958) says "Each DC voltage is distributed to the main frame..." (IBM 736 reference manual) and "Check the air filters in each main frame unit and replace when dirty." (704 Central Processing Unit). The July 1962 Digital Computer Newsletter discusses the LEO III computer: "It has been built on the modular principle with the main frame, individual blocks of storage, and input and output channels all physically separate." The article also mentions that the new computer is more compact with "a reduction of two cabinets for housing the main frame." The IBM 7040 (1964) and IBM 7090 (1962) were constructed from multiple frames, including the processing unit called the "main frame."11 Machines in IBM's System/360 line (1964) were built from frames; some models had a main frame, power frame, wall frame, and so forth, while other models simply numbered the frames sequentially.12 ↩ The 1952 JOHNNIAC progress report is quoted in The History of the JOHNNIAC. This memorandum was dated August 8, 1952, so it is the earliest citation that I found. The June 1953 memorandum also used the term, stating, "The main frame is complete." ↩ A detailed description of IBM's frame-based computer packaging is in Standard Module System Component Circuits pages 6-9. This describes the SMS-based packaging used in the IBM 709x computers, the IBM 1401, and related systems as of 1960. ↩ IBM System/360 computers could have many frames, so they were usually given sequential numbers. The Model 85, for instance, had 12 frames for the processor and four megabytes of memory in 18 frames (at over 1000 pounds each). Some of the frames had descriptive names, though. The Model 40 had a main frame (CPU main frame, CPU frame), a main storage logic frame, a power supply frame, and a wall frame. The Model 50 had a CPU frame, power frame, and main storage frame. The Model 75 had a main frame (consisting of multiple physical frames), storage frames, channel frames, central processing frames, and a maintenance console frame. The compact Model 30 consisted of a single frame, so the documentation refers to the "frame", not the "main frame." For more information on frames in the System/360, see 360 Physical Planning. The Architecture of the IBM System/360 paper refers to the "main-frame hardware." ↩ A few more examples that discuss the minicomputer's mainframe, its physical box: A 1970 article discusses the mainframe of a minicomputer (as opposed to the peripherals) and contrasts minicomputers with large scale computers. A 1971 article on minicomputers discusses "minicomputer mainframes." Computerworld (Jan 28, 1970, p59) discusses minicomputer purchases: "The actual mainframe is not the major cost of the system to the user." Modern Data (1973) mentions minicomputer mainframes several times. ↩ DEC documents refer to the PDP-11 minicomputer as a mainframe. The PDP-11 Conventions manual (1970) defined: "Processor: A unit of a computing system that includes the circuits controlling the interpretation and execution of instructions. The processor does not include the Unibus, core memory, interface, or peripheral devices. The term 'main frame' is sometimes used but this term refers to all components (processor, memory, power supply) in the basic mounting box." In 1976, DEC published the PDP-11 Mainframe Troubleshooting Guide. The PDP-11 mainframe is also mentioned in Computerworld (1977). ↩ Test equipment manufacturers started using the term "main frame" (and later "mainframe") around 1962, to describe an oscilloscope or other test equipment that would accept plug-in modules. I suspect this is related to the use of "mainframe" to describe a computer's box, but it could be independent. Hewlett-Packard even used the term to describe a solderless breadboard, the 5035 Logic Lab. The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) used HP's 1974 ad for the Logic Lab as its earliest citation of mainframe as a single word. It appears that the OED confused this use of "mainframe" with the computer use. 1974 Sci. Amer. Apr. 79. The laboratory station mainframe has the essentials built-in (power supply, logic state indicators and programmers, and pulse sources to provide active stimulus for the student's circuits)." --> Is this a mainframe? The HP 5035A Logic Lab was a power supply and support circuitry for a solderless breadboard. HP's ads referred to this as a "laboratory station mainframe."  ↩↩ In the 1980s, the use of "mainframe" to describe the box holding a microcomputer started to conflict with "mainframe" as a large computer. For example, Radio Electronics (October 1982), started using the short-lived term "micro-mainframe" instead of "mainframe" for a microcomputer's enclosure. By 1985, Byte magazine had largely switched to the modern usage of "mainframe." But even as late as 1987, a review of the Apple IIGC described one of the system's components as the '"mainframe" (i.e. the actual system box)'. ↩ Definitions of "central processing unit" disagreed as to whether storage was part of the CPU, part of the main frame, or something separate. This was largely a consequence of the physical construction of early computers. Smaller computers had memory in the same frame as the processor, while larger computers often had separate storage frames for memory. Other computers had some memory with the processor and some external. Thus, the "main frame" might or might not contain memory, and this ambiguity carried over to definitions of CPU. (In modern usage, the CPU consists of the arithmetic/logic unit (ALU) and control circuitry, but excludes memory.) ↩ Many definitions of mainframe or CPU mention "special register groups", an obscure feature specific to the Honeywell 800 computer (1959). (Processors have registers, special registers are common, and some processors have register groups, but only the Honeywell 800 had "special register groups.") However, computer dictionaries kept using this phrase for decades, even though it doesn't make sense for other computers. I wrote a blog post about special register groups here. ↩ This footnote provides more examples of "mainframe" being defined as the CPU. The Data Processing Equipment Encyclopedia (1961) had a similar definition: "Main Frame: The main part of the computer, i.e. the arithmetic or logic unit; the central processing unit." The 1967 IBM 360 operator's guide defined: "The main frame - the central processing unit and main storage." The Department of the Navy's ADP Glossary (1970): "Central processing unit: A unit of a computer that includes the circuits controlling the interpretation and execution of instructions. Synonymous with main frame." This was a popular definition, originally from the ISO, used by IBM (1979) among others. Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary of Data Processing Terms (1970) defined: "main frame: The basic or essential portion of an assembly of hardware, in particular, the central processing unit of a computer." The American National Standard Vocabulary for Information Processing (1970) defined: "central processing unit: A unit of a computer that includes the circuits controlling the interpretation and execution of instructions. Synonymous with main frame." ↩ Both the mainframe vs. peripheral definition and the mainframe as CPU definition made it unclear exactly what components of the computer were included in the mainframe. It's clear that the arithmetic-logic unit and the processor control circuitry were included, while I/O devices were excluded, but some components such as memory were in a gray area. It's also unclear if the power supply and I/O interfaces (channels) are part of the mainframe. These distinctions were ignored in almost all of the uses of "mainframe" that I saw. An unusual definition in a Goddard Space Center document (1965, below) partitioned equipment into the "main frame" (the electronic equipment), "peripheral equipment" (electromechanical components such as the printer and tape), and "middle ground equipment" (the I/O interfaces). The "middle ground" terminology here appears to be unique. Also note that computers are partitioned into "super speed", "large-scale", "medium-scale", and "small-scale." Definitions from Automatic Data Processing Equipment, Goddard Space Center, 1965. "Main frame" was defined as "The central processing unit of a system including the hi-speed core storage memory bank. (This is the electronic element.)  ↩ This footnote gives some examples of using peripherals to save the cost of mainframe time. IBM 650 documentation (1956) describes how "Data written on tape by the 650 can be processed by the main frame of the 700 series systems." Univac II Marketing Material (1957) discusses various ways of reducing "main frame time" by, for instance, printing from tape off-line. The USAF Guide for auditing automatic data processing systems (1961) discusses how these "off line" operations make the most efficient use of "the more expensive main frame time." ↩ Peripheral manufacturers were companies that built tape drives, printers, and other devices that could be connected to a mainframe built by IBM or another company. The basis for the peripheral industry was antitrust action against IBM that led to the 1956 Consent Decree. Among other things, the consent decree forced IBM to provide reasonable patent licensing, which allowed other firms to build "plug-compatible" peripherals. The introduction of the System/360 in 1964 produced a large market for peripherals and IBM's large profit margins left plenty of room for other companies. ↩ Computers and Automation, March 1965, categorized computers into five classes, from "Teeny systems" (such as the IBM 360/20) renting for $2000/month, through Small, Medium, and Large systems, up to "Family or Economy Size Systems" (such as the IBM 360/92) renting for $75,000 per month. ↩ The term "minicomputer" was supposedly invented by John Leng, head of DEC's England operations. In the 1960s, he sent back a sales report: "Here is the latest minicomputer activity in the land of miniskirts as I drive around in my Mini Minor", which led to the term becoming popular at DEC. This story is described in The Ultimate Entrepreneur: The Story of Ken Olsen and Digital Equipment Corporation (1988). I'd trust the story more if I could find a reference that wasn't 20 years after the fact. ↩ For instance, Computers and Automation (1971) discussed the role of the minicomputer as compared to "larger computers." A 1975 minicomputer report compared minicomputers to their "general-purpose cousins." ↩ This footnote provides more on the split between minicomputers and mainframes. In 1971, Modern Data Products, Systems, Services contained .".. will offer mainframe, minicomputer, and peripheral manufacturers a design, manufacturing, and production facility...." Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys (1972) mentions "mainframes, minicomputers, and IBM-compatible peripherals." Computerworld (1975) refers to "mainframe and minicomputer systems manufacturers." The 1974 textbook "Information Systems: Technology, Economics, Applications" couldn't decide if mainframes were a part of the computer or a type of computer separate from minicomputers, saying: "Computer mainframes include the CPU and main memory, and in some usages of the term, the controllers, channels, and secondary storage and I/O devices such as tape drives, disks, terminals, card readers, printers, and so forth. However, the equipment for storage and I/O are usually called peripheral devices. Computer mainframes are usually thought of as medium to large scale, rather than mini-computers." Studying U.S. Industrial Outlook reports provides another perspective over time. U.S. Industrial Outlook 1969 divides computers into small, medium-size, and large-scale. Mainframe manufacturers are in opposition to peripheral manufacturers. The same mainframe vs. peripherals opposition appears in U.S. Industrial Outlook 1970 and U.S. Industrial Outlook 1971. The 1971 report also discusses minicomputer manufacturers entering the "maxicomputer market."30 1973 mentions "large computers, minicomputers, and peripherals." U.S. Industrial Outlook 1976 states, "The distinction between mainframe computers, minis, micros, and also accounting machines and calculators should merge into a spectrum." By 1977, the market was separated into "general purpose mainframe computers", "minicomputers and small business computers" and "microprocessors." Family Computing Magazine (1984) had a "Dictionary of Computer Terms Made Simple." It explained that "A Digital computer is either a "mainframe", a "mini", or a "micro." Forty years ago, large mainframes were the only size that a computer could be. They are still the largest size, and can handle more than 100,000,000 instructions per second. PER SECOND! [...] Mainframes are also called general-purpose computers." ↩ In 1974, Congress held antitrust hearings into IBM. The thousand-page report provides a detailed snapshot of the meanings of "mainframe" at the time. For instance, a market analysis report from IDC illustrates the difficulty of defining mainframes and minicomputers in this era (p4952). The "Mainframe Manufacturers" section splits the market into "general-purpose computers" and "dedicated application computers" including "all the so-called minicomputers." Although this section discusses minicomputers, the emphasis is on the manufacturers of traditional mainframes. A second "Plug-Compatible Manufacturers" section discusses companies that manufactured only peripherals. But there's also a separate "Minicomputers" section that focuses on minicomputers (along with microcomputers "which are simply microprocessor-based minicomputers"). My interpretation of this report is the terminology is in the process of moving from "mainframe vs. peripheral" to "mainframe vs. minicomputer." The statement from Research Shareholders Management (p5416) on the other hand discusses IBM and the five other mainframe companies; they classify minicomputer manufacturers separately. (p5425) p5426 mentions "mainframes, small business computers, industrial minicomputers, terminals, communications equipment, and minicomputers." Economist Ralph Miller mentions the central processing unit "(the so-called 'mainframe')" (p5621) and then contrasts independent peripheral manufacturers with mainframe manufacturers (p5622). The Computer Industry Alliance refers to mainframes and peripherals in multiple places, and "shifting the location of a controller from peripheral to mainframe", as well as "the central processing unit (mainframe)" p5099. On page 5290, "IBM on trial: Monopoly tends to corrupt", from Harper's (May 1974), mentions peripherals compatible with "IBM mainframe units—or, as they are called, central processing computers." ↩ The influential business newsletter EDP provides an interesting view on the struggle to separate the minicomputer market from larger computers. Through 1968, they included minicomputers in the "general-purpose computer" category. But in 1969, they split "general-purpose computers" into "Group A, General Purpose Digital Computers" and "Group B, Dedicated Application Digital Computers." These categories roughly corresponded to larger computers and minicomputers, on the (dubious) assumption that minicomputers were used for a "dedicated application." The important thing to note is that in 1969 they did not use the term "mainframe" for the first category, even though with the modern definition it's the obvious term to use. At the time, EDP used "mainframe manufacturer" or "mainframer"31 to refer to companies that manufactured computers (including minicomputers), as opposed to manufacturers of peripherals. In 1972, EDP first mentioned mainframes and minicomputers as distinct types. In 1973, "microcomputer" was added to the categories. As the 1970s progressed, the separation between minicomputers and mainframes became common. However, the transition was not completely smooth; 1973 included a reference to "mainframe shipments (including minicomputers)." To specific, the EDP Industry Report (Nov. 28, 1969) gave the following definitions of the two groups of computers: Group A—General Purpose Digital Computers: These comprise the bulk of the computers that have been listed in the Census previously. They are character or byte oriented except in the case of the large-scale scientific machines, which have 36, 48, or 60-bit words. The predominant portion (60% to 80%) of these computers is rented, usually for $2,000 a month or more. Higher level languages such as Fortran, Cobol, or PL/1 are the primary means by which users program these computers. Group B—Dedicated Application Digital Computers: This group of computers includes the "mini's" (purchase price below $25,000), the "midi's" ($25,000 to $50,000), and certain larger systems usually designed or used for one dedicated application such as process control, data acquisition, etc. The characteristics of this group are that the computers are usually word oriented (8, 12, 16, or 24-bits per word), the predominant number (70% to 100%) are purchased, and assembly language (at times Fortran) is the predominant means of programming. This type of computer is often sold to an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for further system integration and resale to the final user. These definitions strike me as rather arbitrary. ↩ In 1981 Computerworld had articles trying to clarify the distinctions between microcomputers, minicomputers, superminicomputers, and mainframes, as the systems started to overlay. One article, Distinction Helpful for Minis, Mainframes said that minicomputers were generally interactive, while mainframes made good batch machines and network hosts. Microcomputers had up to 512 KB of memory, minis were 16-bit machines with 512 KB to 4 MB of memory, costing up to $100,000. Superminis were 16- to 32-bit machines with 4 MB to 8 MB of memory, costing up to $200,000 but with less memory bandwidth than mainframes. Finally, mainframes were 32-bit machines with more than 8 MB of memory, costing over $200,000. Another article Micro, Mini, or Mainframe? Confusion persists described a microcomputer as using an 8-bit architecture and having fewer peripherals, while a minicomputer has a 16-bit architecture and 48 KB to 1 MB of memory. ↩ The miniskirt in the mid-1960s was shortly followed by the midiskirt and maxiskirt. These terms led to the parallel construction of the terms minicomputer, midicomputer, and maxicomputer. The New York Times had a long article Maxi Computers Face Mini Conflict (April 5, 1970) explicitly making the parallel: "Mini vs. Maxi, the reigning issue in the glamorous world of fashion, is strangely enough also a major point of contention in the definitely unsexy realm of computers." Although midicomputer and maxicomputer terminology didn't catch on the way minicomputer did, they still had significant use (example, midicomputer examples, maxicomputer examples). The miniskirt/minicomputer parallel was done with varying degrees of sexism. One example is Electronic Design News (1969): "A minicomputer. Like the miniskirt, the small general-purpose computer presents the same basic commodity in a more appealing way." ↩ Linguistically, one indication that a new word has become integrated in the language is when it can be extended to form additional new words. One example is the formation of "mainframers", referring to companies that build mainframes. This word was moderately popular in the 1970s to 1990s. It was even used by the Department of Justice in their 1975 action against IBM where they described the companies in the systems market as the "mainframe companies" or "mainframers." The word is still used today, but usually refers to people with mainframe skills. Other linguistic extensions of "mainframe" include mainframing, unmainframe, mainframed, nonmainframe, and postmainframe. ↩ More examples of the split between microcomputers and mainframes: Softwide Magazine (1978) describes "BASIC versions for micro, mini and mainframe computers." MSC, a disk system manufacturer, had drives "used with many microcomputer, minicomputer, and mainframe processor types" (1980). ↩ Some examples of computer dictionaries referring to mainframes as a size category: Illustrated Dictionary of Microcomputer Terminology (1978) defines "mainframe" as "(1) The heart of a computer system, which includes the CPU and ALU. (2) A large computer, as opposed to a mini or micro." A Dictionary of Minicomputing and Microcomputing (1982) includes the definition of "mainframe" as "A high-speed computer that is larger, faster, and more expensive than the high-end minicomputers. The boundary between a small mainframe and a large mini is fuzzy indeed." The National Bureau of Standards Future Information Technology (1984) defined: "Mainframe is a term used to designate a medium and large scale CPU." The New American Computer Dictionary (1985) defined "mainframe" as "(1) Specifically, the rack(s) holding the central processing unit and the memory of a large computer. (2) More generally, any large computer. 'We have two mainframes and several minis.'" The 1990 ANSI Dictionary for Information Systems (ANSI X3.172-1990) defined: mainframe. A large computer, usually one to which other computers are connected in order to share its resources and computing power. Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1991) defined "mainframe computer" as "A high-level computer designed for the most intensive computational tasks. Mainframe computers are often shared by multiple users connected to the computer via terminals." ISO 2382 (1993) defines a mainframe as "a computer, usually in a computer center, with extensive capabilities and resources to which other computers may be connected so that they can share facilities." The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2002) had an amusingly critical definition of mainframe: "A type of large computer system (in the past often water-cooled), the primary data processing resource for many large businesses and organizations. Some mainframe operating systems and solutions are over 40 years old and have the capacity to store year values only as two digits." ↩ IBM's 1962 book Planning a Computer System (1962) describes how the Stretch computer's circuitry was assembled into frames, with the CPU consisting of 18 frames. The picture below shows how a "frame" was, in fact, constructed from a metal frame. In the Stretch computer, the circuitry (left) could be rolled out of the frame (right)  ↩ The term "general-purpose computer" is probably worthy of investigation since it was used in a variety of ways. It is one of those phrases that seems obvious until you think about it more closely. On the one hand, a computer such as the Apollo Guidance Computer can be considered general purpose because it runs a variety of programs, even though the computer was designed for one specific mission. On the other hand, minicomputers were often contrasted with "general-purpose computers" because customers would buy a minicomputer for a specific application, unlike a mainframe which would be used for a variety of applications. ↩ The n-gram graph is from the Google Books Ngram Viewer. The curves on the graph should be taken with a grain of salt. First, the usage of words in published books is likely to lag behind "real world" usage. Second, the number of usages in the data set is small, especially at the beginning. Nonetheless, the n-gram graph generally agrees with what I've seen looking at documents directly. ↩ More examples of "mainframe" in want ads: A 1966 ad from Western Union in The Arizona Republic looking for experience "in a systems engineering capacity dealing with both mainframe and peripherals." A 1968 ad in The Minneapolis Star for an engineer with knowledge of "mainframe and peripheral hardware." A 1968 ad from SDS in The Los Angeles Times for an engineer to design "circuits for computer mainframes and peripheral equipment." A 1968 ad in Fort Lauderdale News for "Computer mainframe and peripheral logic design." A 1972 ad in The Los Angeles Times saying "Mainframe or peripheral [experience] highly desired." In most of these ads, the mainframe was in contrast to the peripherals. ↩ A related factor is the development of remote connections from a microcomputer to a mainframe in the 1980s. This led to the need for a word to describe the remote computer, rather than saying "I connected my home computer to the other computer." See the many books and articles on connecting "micro to mainframe." ↩ To see how the prototypical meaning of "computer" changed in the 1980s, I examined the "Computer" article in encyclopedias from that time. The 1980 Concise Encyclopedia of the Sciences discusses a large system with punched-card input. In 1980, the World Book article focused on mainframe systems, starting with a photo of an IBM System/360 Model 40 mainframe. But in the 1981 supplement and the 1984 encyclopedia, the World Book article opened with a handheld computer game, a desktop computer, and a "large-scale computer." The article described microcomputers, minicomputers, and mainframes. Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia (1983) was in the middle of the transition; the article focused on large computers and had photos of IBM machines, but mentioned that future growth is expected in microcomputers. By 1994, the World Book article's main focus was the personal computer, although the mainframe still had a few paragraphs and a photo. This is evidence that the prototypical meaning of "computer" underwent a dramatic shift in the early 1980s from a mainframe to a balance between small and large computers, and then to the personal computer. ↩

Intel released the powerful Pentium processor in 1993, establishing a long-running brand of processors. Earlier, I wrote about the ROM in the Pentium's floating point unit that holds constants such as π. In this post, I'll look at some interesting circuits associated with this ROM. In particular, the circuitry is implemented in BiCMOS, a process that combines bipolar transistors with standard CMOS logic. The photo below shows the Pentium's thumbnail-sized silicon die under a microscope. I've labeled the main functional blocks; the floating point unit is in the lower right with the constant ROM highlighted at the bottom. The various parts of the floating point unit form horizontal stripes. Data buses run vertically through the floating point unit, moving values around the unit. Die photo of the Intel Pentium processor with the floating point constant ROM highlighted in red. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version. The diagram below shows how the circuitry in this post forms part of the Pentium. Zooming in to the bottom of the chip shows the constant ROM, holding 86-bit words: at the left, the exponent section provides 18 bits. At the right, the wider significand section provides 68 bits. Below that, the diagram zooms in on the subject of this article: one of the 86 identical multiplexer/driver circuits that provides the output from the ROM. As you can see, this circuit is a microscopic speck in the chip. Zooming in on the constant ROM's driver circuits at the top of the ROM. The layers In this section, I'll show how the Pentium is constructed from layers. The bottom layer of the chip consists of transistors fabricated on the silicon die. Regions of silicon are doped with impurities to change the electrical properties; these regions appear pinkish in the photo below, compared to the grayish undoped silicon. Thin polysilicon wiring is formed on top of the silicon. Where a polysilicon line crosses doped silicon, a transistor is formed; the polysilicon creates the transistor's gate. Most of these transistors are NMOS and PMOS transistors, but there is a bipolar transistor near the upper right, the large box-like structure. The dark circles are contacts, regions where the metal layer above is connected to the polysilicon or silicon to wire the circuits together. The polysilicon and silicon layers form the Pentium's transistors. This photo shows part of the complete circuit. The Pentium has three layers of metal wiring. The photo below shows the bottom layer, called M1. For the most part, this layer of metal connects the transistors into various circuits, providing wiring over a short distance. The photos in this section show the same region of the chip, so you can match up features between the photos. For instance, the contacts below (black circles) match the black circles above, showing how this metal layer connects to the silicon and polysilicon circuits. You can see some of the silicon and polysilicon in this image, but most of it is hidden by the metal. The Pentium's M1 metal layer is the bottom metal layer. The M2 metal layer (below) sits above the M1 wiring. In this part of the chip, the M2 wires are horizontal. The thicker lines are power and ground. (Because they are thicker, they have lower resistance and can provide the necessary current to the underlying circuitry.) The thinner lines are control signals. The floating point unit is structured so functional blocks are horizontal, while data is transmitted vertically. Thus, a horizontal wire can supply a control signal to all the bits in a functional block. The Pentium's M2 layer. The M3 layer is the top metal layer in the Pentium. It is thicker, so it is better suited for the chip's main power and ground lines as well as long-distance bus wiring. In the photo below, the wide line on the left provides power, while the wide line on the right provides ground. The power and ground are distributed through wiring in the M2 and M1 layers until they are connected to the underlying transistors. At the top of the photo, vertical bus lines are visible; these extend for long distances through the floating point unit. Notice the slightly longer line, fourth from the right. This line provides one bit of data from the ROM, provided by the circuitry described below. The dot near the bottom is a via, connecting this line to a short wire in M2, connected to a wire in M1, connected to the silicon of the output transistors. The Pentium's M3 metal layer. Lower layers are visible, but blurry due to the insulating oxide layers. The circuits for the ROM's output The simplified schematic below shows the circuit that I reverse-engineered. This circuit is repeated 86 times, once for each bit in the ROM's word. You might expect the ROM to provide a single 86-bit word. However, to make the layout work better, the ROM provides eight words in parallel. Thus, the circuitry must select one of the eight words with a multiplexer. In particular, each of the 86 circuits has an 8-to-1 multiplexer to select one bit out of the eight. This bit is then stored in a latch. Finally, a high-current driver amplifies the signal so it can be sent through a bus, traveling to a destination halfway across the floating point unit. A high-level schematic of the circuit. I'll provide a quick review of MOS transistors before I explain the circuitry in detail. CMOS circuitry uses two types of transistors—PMOS and NMOS—which are similar but also opposites. A PMOS transistor is turned on by a low signal on the gate, while an NMOS transistor is turned on by a high signal on the gate; the PMOS symbol has an inversion bubble on the gate. A PMOS transistor works best when pulling its output high, while an NMOS transistor works best when pulling its output low. CMOS circuitry normally uses the two types of MOS transistors in a Complementary fashion to implement logic gates, working together. What makes the circuits below interesting is that they often use NMOS and PMOS transistors independently. The symbol for a PMOS transistor and an NMOS transistor. The detailed schematic below shows the circuitry at the transistor and inverter level. I'll go through each of the components in the remainder of this post. A detailed schematic of the circuit. Click for a larger version. The ROM is constructed as a grid: at each grid point, the ROM can have a transistor for a 0 bit, or no transistor for a 1 bit. Thus, the data is represented by the transistor pattern. The ROM holds 304 constants so there are 304 potential transistors associated with each bit of the output word. These transistors are organized in a 38×8 grid. To select a word from the ROM, a select line activates one group of eight potential transistors. Each transistor is connected to ground, so the transistor (if present) will pull the associated line low, for a 0 bit. Note that the ROM itself consists of only NMOS transistors, making it half the size of a truly CMOS implementation. For more information on the structure and contents of the ROM, see my earlier article. The ROM grid and multiplexer. A ROM transistor can pull a line low for a 0 bit, but how does the line get pulled high for a 1 bit? This is accomplished by a precharge transistor on each line. Before a read from the ROM, the precharge transistors are all activated, pulling the lines high. If a ROM transistor is present on the line, the line will next be pulled low, but otherwise it will remain high due to the capacitance on the line. Next, the multiplexer above selects one of the 8 lines, depending on which word is being accessed. The multiplexer consists of eight transistors. One transistor is activated by a select line, allowing the ROM's signal to pass through. The other seven transistors are in the off state, blocking those ROM signals. Thus, the multiplexer selects one of the 8 bits from the ROM. The circuit below is the "keeper." As explained above, each ROM line is charged high before reading the ROM. However, this charge can fade away. The job of the keeper is to keep the multiplexer's output high until it is pulled low. This is implemented by an inverter connected to a PMOS transistor. If the signal on the line is high, the PMOS transistor will turn on, pulling the line high. (Note that a PMOS transistor is turned on by a low signal, thus the inverter.) If the ROM pulls the line low, the transistor will turn off and stop pulling the line high. This transistor is very weak, so it is easily overpowered by the signal from the ROM. The transistor on the left ensures that the line is high at the start of the cycle. The keeper circuit. The diagram below shows the transistors for the keeper. The two transistors on the left implement a standard CMOS inverter. On the right, note the weak transistor that holds the line high. You might notice that the weak transistor looks larger and wonder why that makes the transistor weak rather than strong. The explanation is that the transistor is large in the "wrong" dimension. The current capacity of an MOS transistor is proportional to the width/length ratio of its gate. (Width is usually the long dimension and length is usually the skinny dimension.) The weak transistor's length is much larger than the other transistors, so the W/L ratio is smaller and the transistor is weaker. (You can think of the transistor's gate as a bridge between its two sides. A wide bridge with many lanes lets lots of traffic through. However, a long, single-lane bridge will slow down the traffic.) The silicon implementation of the keeper. Next, we come to the latch, which remembers the value read from the ROM. This latch will read its input when the load signal is high. When the load signal goes low, the latch will hold its value. Conceptually, the latch is implemented with the circuit below. A multiplexer selects the lower input when the load signal is active, passing the latch input through to the (inverted) output. But when the load signal goes low, the multiplexer will select the top input, which is feedback of the value in the latch. This signal will cycle through the inverters and the multiplexer, holding the value until a new value is loaded. The inverters are required because the multiplexer itself doesn't provide any amplification; the signal would rapidly die out if not amplified by the inverters. The implementation of the latch. The multiplexer is implemented with two CMOS switches, one to select each multiplexer input. Each switch is a pair of PMOS and NMOS transistors that turn on together, allowing a signal to pass through. (See the bottom two transistors below.)1 The upper circuit is trickier. Conceptually, it is an inverter feeding into the multiplexer's CMOS switch. However, the order is switched so the switch feeds into the inverter. The result is not-exactly-a-switch and not-exactly-an-inverter, but the result is the same. You can also view it as an inverter with power and ground that gets cut off when not selected. I suspect this implementation uses slightly less power than the straightforward implementation. The detailed schematic of the latch. The most unusual circuit is the BiCMOS driver. By adding a few extra processing steps to the regular CMOS manufacturing process, bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors can be created. The Pentium extensively used BiCMOS circuits since they reduced signal delays by up to 35%. Intel also used BiCMOS for the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, and Xeon processors. However, as chip voltages dropped, the benefit from bipolar transistors dropped too and BiCMOS was eventually abandoned. The BiCMOS driver circuit. In the Pentium, BiCMOS drivers are used when signals must travel a long distance across the chip. (In this case, the ROM output travels about halfway up the floating point unit.) These long wires have a lot of capacitance so a high-current driver circuit is needed and the NPN transistor provides extra "oomph." The diagram below shows how the driver is implemented. The NPN transistor is the large boxy structure in the upper right. When the base (B) is pulled high, current flows from the collector (C), pulling the emitter (E) high and thus rapidly pulling the output high. The remainder of the circuit consists of three inverters, each composed of PMOS and NMOS transistors. When a polysilicon line crosses doped silicon, it creates a transistor gate, so each crossing corresponds to a transistor. The inverters use multiple transistors in parallel to provide more current; the transistor sources and/or drains overlap to make the circuitry more compact. This diagram shows the silicon and polysilicon for the driver circuit. One interesting thing about this circuit is that each inverter is carefully designed to provide the desired current, with a different current for a high output versus a low output. The first transistor (purple boxes) has two PMOS transistors and two NMOS transistors, so it is a regular inverter, balanced for high and low outputs. (This inverter is conceptually part of the latch.) The second inverter (yellow boxes) has three large PMOS transistors and one smaller NMOS transistor, so it has more ability to pull the output high than low. This transistor turns on the NPN transistor by providing a high signal to the base, so it needs more current in the high state. The third inverter (green boxes) has one weak PMOS transistor and seven NMOS transistors, so it can pull its output low strongly, but can barely pull its output high. This transistor pulls the ROM output line low, so it needs enough current to drive the entire bus line. But this transistor doesn't need to pull the output high—that's the job of the NPN transistor—so the PMOS transistor can be weak. The construction of the weak transistor is similar to the keeper's weak transistor; its gate length is much larger than the other transistors, so it provides less current. Conclusions The diagram below shows how the functional blocks are arranged in the complete circuit, from the ROM at the bottom to the output at the top. The floating point unit is constructed with a constant width for each bit—38.5 µm—so the circuitry is designed to fit into this width. The layout of this circuitry was hand-optimized to fit as tightly as possible, In comparison, much of the Pentium's circuitry was arranged by software using a standard-cell approach, which is much easier to design but not as dense. Since each bit in the floating point unit is repeated many times, hand-optimization paid off here. The silicon and polysilicon of the circuit, showing the functional blocks. This circuit contains 47 transistors. Since it is duplicated once for each bit, it has 4042 transistors in total, a tiny fraction of the Pentium's 3.1 million transistors. In comparison, the MOS 6502 processor has about 3500-4500 transistors, depending on how you count. In other words, the circuit to select a word from the Pentium's ROM is about as complex as the entire 6502 processor. This illustrates the dramatic growth in processor complexity described by Moore's law. I plan to write more about the Pentium so follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com) or RSS for updates. (I'm no longer on Twitter.) You might enjoy reading about the Pentium Navajo rug. Notes The 8-to-1 multiplexer and the latch's multiplexer use different switch implementations: the first is built from NMOS transistors while the second is built from paired PMOS and NMOS transistors. The reason is that NMOS transistors are better at pulling signals slow, while PMOS transistors are better at pulling signals high. Combining the transistors creates a switch that passes low and high signals efficiently, which is useful in the latch. The 8-to-1 multiplexer, however, only needs to pull signals low (due to the precharging), so the NMOS-only multiplexer works in this role. (Note that early NMOS processors like the 6502 and 8086 built multiplexers and pass-transistor logic out of solely NMOS. This illustrates that you can use NMOS-only switches with both logic levels, but performance is better if you add PMOS transistors.) ↩

The cargo cult metaphor is commonly used by programmers. This metaphor was popularized by Richard Feynman's "cargo cult science" talk with a vivid description of South Seas cargo cults. However, this metaphor has three major problems. First, the pop-culture depiction of cargo cults is inaccurate and fictionalized, as I'll show. Second, the metaphor is overused and has contradictory meanings making it a lazy insult. Finally, cargo cults are portrayed as an amusing story of native misunderstanding but the background is much darker: cargo cults are a reaction to decades of oppression of Melanesian islanders and the destruction of their culture. For these reasons, the cargo cult metaphor is best avoided. Members of the John Frum cargo cult, marching with bamboo "rifles". Photo adapted from The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology, (CC BY-NC 4.0). In this post, I'll describe some cargo cults from 1919 to the present. These cargo cults are completely different from the description of cargo cults you usually find on the internet, which I'll call the "pop-culture cargo cult." Cargo cults are extremely diverse, to the extent that anthropologists disagree on the cause, definition, or even if the term has value. I'll show that many of the popular views of cargo cults come from a 1962 "shockumentary" called Mondo Cane. Moreover, most online photos of cargo cults are fake. Feynman and Cargo Cult Science The cargo cult metaphor in science started with Professor Richard Feynman's well-known 1974 commencement address at Caltech.1 This speech, titled "Cargo Cult Science", was expanded into a chapter in his best-selling 1985 book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". He said: Richard Feynman giving the 1974 commencement address at Caltech. Photo from Wikimedia Commons. But the standard anthropological definition of "cargo cult" is entirely different: 2 An anthropology encyclopedia gives a similar definition: As you may see, the pop-culture explanation of a cargo cult and the anthropological definition are completely different, apart from the presence of "cargo" of some sort. Have anthropologists buried cargo cults under layers of theory? Are they even discussing the same thing? My conclusion, after researching many primary sources, is that the anthropological description accurately describes the wide variety of cargo cults. The pop-culture cargo cult description, however, takes features of some cargo cults (the occasional runway) and combines this with movie scenes to yield an inaccurate and fictionalized dscription. It may be hard to believe that the description of cargo cults that you see on the internet is mostly wrong, but in the remainder of this article, I will explain this in detail. Background on Melanesia Cargo cults occur in a specific region of the South Pacific called Melanesia. I'll give a brief (oversimplified) description of Melanesia to provide important background. The Pacific Ocean islands are divided into three cultural areas: Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. Polynesia is the best known, including Hawaii, New Zealand, and Samoa. Micronesia, in the northwest, consists of thousands of small islands, of which Guam is the largest; the name "Micronesia" is Greek for "small island". Melanesia, the relevant area for this article, is a group of islands between Micronesia and Australia, including Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and New Guinea. (New Guinea is the world's second-largest island; confusingly, the country of Papua New Guinea occupies the eastern half of the island, while the western half is part of Indonesia.) Major cultural areas of Oceania. Image by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg. The inhabitants of Melanesia typically lived in small villages of under 200 people, isolated by mountainous geography. They had a simple, subsistence economy, living off cultivated root vegetables, pigs, and hunting. People tended their own garden, without specialization into particular tasks. The people of Melanesia are dark-skinned, which will be important ("Melanesia" and "melanin" have the same root). Technologically, the Melanesians used stone, wood, and shell tools, without knowledge of metallurgy or even weaving. The Melanesian cultures were generally violent3 with everpresent tribal warfare and cannibalism.4 Due to the geographic separation of tribes, New Guinea became the most linguistically diverse country in the world, with over 800 distinct languages. Pidgin English was often the only way for tribes to communicate, and is now one of the official languages of New Guinea. This language, called Tok Pisin (i.e. "talk pidgin"), is now the most common language in Papua New Guinea, spoken by over two-thirds of the population.5 For the Melanesians, religion was a matter of ritual, rather than a moral framework. It is said that "to the Melanesian, a religion is above all a technology: it is the knowledge of how to bring the community into the correct relation, by rites and spells, with the divinities and spirit-beings and cosmic forces that can make or mar man's this-worldly wealth and well-being." This is important since, as will be seen, the Melanesians expected that the correct ritual would result in the arrival of cargo. Catholic and Protestant missionaries converted the inhabitants to Christianity, largely wiping out traditional religious practices and customs; Melanesia is now over 95% Christian. Christianity played a large role in cargo cults, as will be shown below. European explorers first reached Melanesia in the 1500s, followed by colonization.6 By the end of the 1800s, control of the island of New Guinea was divided among Germany, Britain, and the Netherlands. Britain passed responsibility to Australia in 1906 and Australia gained the German part of New Guinea in World War I. As for the islands of Vanuatu, the British and French colonized them (under the name New Hebrides) in the 18th century. The influx of Europeans was highly harmful to the Melanesians. "Native society was severely disrupted by war, by catastrophic epidemics of European diseases, by the introduction of alcohol, by the devastation of generations of warfare, and by the depredations of the labour recruiters."8 People were kidnapped and forced to work as laborers in other countries, a practice called blackbirding. Prime agricultural land was taken by planters to raise crops such as coconuts for export, with natives coerced into working for the planters.9 Up until 1919, employers were free to flog the natives for disobedience; afterward, flogging was technically forbidden but still took place. Colonial administrators jailed natives who stepped out of line.7 Cargo cults before World War II While the pop-culture cargo cults explains them as a reaction to World War II, cargo cults started years earlier. One anthropologist stated, "Cargo cults long preceded [World War II], continued to occur during the war, and have continued to the present." The first writings about cargo cult behavior date back to 1919, when it was called the "Vailala Madness":10 The 1926 book In Unknown New Guinea also describes the Vialala Madness:11 The Melanesians blamed the Europeans for the failure of cargo to arrive. In the 1930s, one story was that because the natives had converted to Christianity, God was sending the ancestors with cargo that was loaded on ships. However, the Europeans were going through the cargo holds and replacing the names on the crates so the cargo was fraudulently delivered to the Europeans instead of the rightful natives. The Mambu Movement occurred in 1937. Mambu, the movement's prophet, claimed that "the Whites had deceived the natives. The ancestors lived inside a volcano on Manum Island, where they worked hard making goods for their descendants: loin-cloths, socks, metal axes, bush-knives, flashlights, mirrors, red dye, etc., even plank-houses, but the scoundrelly Whites took the cargoes. Now this was to stop. The ancestors themselves would bring the goods in a large ship." To stop this movement, the Government arrested Mambu, exiled him, and imprisoned him for six months in 1938. To summarize, these early cargo cults believed that ships would bring cargo that rightfully belonged to the natives but had been stolen by the whites. The return of the cargo would be accompanied by the spirits of the ancestors. Moreover, Christianity often played a large role. A significant racial component was present, with natives driving out the whites or becoming white themselves. Cargo cults in World War II and beyond World War II caused tremendous social and economic upheavals in Melanesia. Much of Melanesia was occupied by Japan near the beginning of the war and the Japanese treated the inhabitants harshly. The American entry into the war led to heavy conflict in the area such as the arduous New Guinea campaign (1942-1945) and the Solomon Islands campaign. As the Americans and Japanese battled for control of the islands, the inhabitants were caught in the middle. Papua and New Guinea suffered over 15,000 civilian deaths, a shockingly high number for such a small region.12 map). Source: US Navy photo 80-G-41099. The impact of the Japanese occupation on cargo cults is usually ignored. One example from 1942 is a cargo belief that the Japanese soldiers were spirits of the dead, who were being sent by Jesus to liberate the people from European rule. The Japanese would bring the cargo by airplane since the Europeans were blocking the delivery of cargo by ship. This would be accompanied by storms and earthquakes, and the natives' skin would change from black to white. The natives were to build storehouses for the cargo and fill the storehouses with food for the ancestors. The leader of this movement, named Tagarab, explained that he had an iron rod that gave him messages about the future. Eventually, the Japanese shot Tagarab, bringing an end to this cargo cult.13 The largest and most enduring cargo cult is the John Frum movement, which started on the island of Tanna around 1941 and continues to the present. According to one story, a mythical person known as John Frum, master of the airplanes, would reveal himself and drive off the whites. He would provide houses, clothes, and food for the people of Tanna. The island of Tanna would flatten as the mountains filled up the valleys and everyone would have perfect health. In other areas, the followers of John Frum believed they "would receive a great quantity of goods, brought by a white steamer which would come from America." Families abandoned the Christian villages and moved to primitive shelters in the interior. They wildly spent much of their money and threw the rest into the sea. The government arrested and deported the leaders, but that failed to stop the movement. The identity of John Frum is unclear; he is sometimes said to be a white American while in other cases natives have claimed to be John Frum.14 The cargo cult of Kainantu17 arose around 1945 when a "spirit wind" caused people in the area to shiver and shake. Villages built large "cargo houses" and put stones, wood, and insect-marked leaves inside, representing European goods, rifles, and paper letters respectively. They killed pigs and anointed the objects, the house, and themselves with blood. The cargo house was to receive the visiting European spirit of the dead who would fill the house with goods. This cargo cult continued for about 5 years, diminishing as people became disillusioned by the failure of the goods to arrive. The name "Cargo Cult" was first used in print in 1945, just after the end of World War II.15 The article blamed the problems on the teachings of missionaries, with the problems "accentuated a hundredfold" by World War II. In a 1946 episode, agents of the Australian government found a group of New Guinea highlanders who believed that the arrival of the whites signaled that the end of the world was at hand. The highlanders butchered all their pigs in the expectation that "Great Pigs" would appear from the sky in three days. At this time, the residents would exchange their black skin for white skin. They created mock radio antennas of bamboo and rope to receive news of the millennium.16 The New York Times described Cargo Cults in 1948 as "the belief that a convoy of cargo ships is on its way, laden with the fruits of the modern world, to outfit the leaf huts of the natives." The occupants of the British Solomon Islands were building warehouses along the beaches to hold these goods. Natives marched into a US Army camp, presented $3000 in US money, and asked the Army to drive out the British. A 1951 paper described cargo cults: "The insistence that a 'cargo' of European goods is to be sent by the ancestors or deceased spirits; this may or may not be part of a general reaction against Europeans, with an overtly expressed desire to be free from alien domination. Usually the underlying theme is a belief that all trade goods were sent by ancestors or spirits as gifts for their descendants, but have been misappropriated on the way by Europeans."17 In 1959, The New York Times wrote about cargo cults: "Rare Disease and Strange Cult Disturb New Guinea Territory; Fatal Laughing Sickness Is Under Study by Medical Experts—Prophets Stir Delusions of Food Arrivals". The article states that "large native groups had been infected with the idea that they could expect the arrival of spirit ships carrying large supplies of food. In false anticipation of the arrival of the 'cargoes', 5000 to 7000 native have been known to consume their entire food reserve and create a famine." As for "laughing sickness", this is now known to be a prion disease transmitted by eating human brains. In some communities, this disease, also called Kuru, caused 50% of all deaths. A detailed 1959 article in Scientific American, "Cargo Cults", described many different cargo cults.16 It lists various features of cargo cults, such as the return of the dead, skin color switching from black to white, threats against white rule, and belief in a coming messiah. The article finds a central theme in cargo cults: "The world is about to end in a terrible cataclysm. Thereafter God, the ancestors or some local culture hero will appear and inaugurate a blissful paradise on earth. Death, old age, illness and evil will be unknown. The riches of the white man will accrue to the Melanesians." In 1960, the celebrated naturalist David Attenborough created a documentary The People of Paradise: Cargo Cult.18 Attenborough travels through the island of Tanna and encounters many artifacts of the John Frum cult, such as symbolic gates and crosses, painted brilliant scarlet and decorated with objects such as a shaving brush, a winged rat, and a small carved airplane. Attenborough interviews a cult leader who claims to have talked with the mythical John Frum, said to be a white American. The leader remains in communication with John Frum through a tall pole said to be a radio mast, and an unseen radio. (The "radio" consisted of an old woman with electrical wire wrapper around her waist, who would speak gibberish in a trance.) "Symbols of the cargo cult." In the center, a representation of John Frum with "scarlet coat and a white European face" stands behind a brilliantly painted cross. A wooden airplane is on the right, while on the left (outside the photo) a cage contains a winged rat. From Journeys to the Past, which describes Attenborough's visit to the island of Tanna. In 1963, famed anthropologist Margaret Mead brought cargo cults to the general public, writing Where Americans are Gods: The Strange Story of the Cargo Cults in the mass-market newspaper supplement Family Weekly. In just over a page, this article describes the history of cargo cults before, during, and after World War II.19 One cult sat around a table with vases of colorful flowers on them. Another cult threw away their money. Another cult watched for ships from hilltops, expecting John Frum to bring a fleet of ships bearing cargo from the land of the dead. One of the strangest cargo cults was a group of 2000 people on New Hanover Island, "collecting money to buy President Johnson of the United States [who] would arrive with other Americans on the liner Queen Mary and helicopters next Tuesday." The islanders raised $2000, expecting American cargo to follow the president. Seeing the name Johnson on outboard motors confirmed their belief that President Johnson was personally sending cargo.20 A 1971 article in Time Magazine22 described how tribesmen brought US Army concrete survey markers down from a mountaintop while reciting the Roman Catholic rosary, dropping the heavy markers outside the Australian government office. They expected that "a fleet of 500 jet transports would disgorge thousands of sympathetic Americans bearing crates of knives, steel axes, rifles, mirrors and other wonders." Time magazine explained the “cargo cult” as "a conviction that if only the dark-skinned people can hit on the magic formula, they can, without working, acquire all the wealth and possessions that seem concentrated in the white world... They believe that everything has a deity who has to be contacted through ritual and who only then will deliver the cargo." Cult leaders tried "to duplicate the white man’s magic. They hacked airstrips in the rain forest, but no planes came. They built structures that look like white men’s banks, but no money materialized."21 National Geographic, in an article Head-hunters in Today's World (1972), mentioned a cargo-cult landing field with a replica of a radio aerial, created by villagers who hoped that it would attract airplanes bearing gifts. It also described a cult leader in South Papua who claimed to obtain airplanes and cans of food from a hole in the ground. If the people believed in him, their skins would turn white and he would lead them to freedom. These sources and many others23 illustrate that cargo cults do not fit a simple story. Instead, cargo cults are extremely varied, happening across thousands of miles and many decades. The lack of common features between cargo cults leads some anthropologists to reject the idea of cargo cults as a meaningful term.24 In any case, most historical cargo cults have very little in common with the pop-culture description of a cargo cult. Isles of the South Pacific, 1968.](nampas.jpg "w300") --> Cargo beliefs were inspired by Christianity Cargo cult beliefs are closely tied to Christianity, a factor that is ignored in pop-culture descriptions of cargo cults. Beginning in the mid-1800s, Christian missionaries set up churches in New Guinea to convert the inhabitants. As a result, cargo cults incorporated Christian ideas, but in very confusing ways. At first, the natives believed that missionaries had come to reveal the ritual secrets and restore the cargo. By enthusiastically joining the church, singing the hymns, and following the church's rituals, the people would be blessed by God, who would give them the cargo. This belief was common in the 1920s and 1930s, but as the years went on and the people didn't receive the cargo, they theorized that the missionaries had removed the first pages of the Bible to hide the cargo secrets. A typical belief was that God created Adam and Eve in Paradise, "giving them cargo: tinned meat, steel tools, rice in bags, tobacco in tins, and matches, but not cotton clothing." When Adam and Eve offended God by having sexual intercourse, God threw them out of Paradise and took their cargo. Eventually, God sent the Flood but Noah was saved in a steamship and God gave back the cargo. Noah's son Ham offended God, so God took the cargo away from Ham and sent him to New Guinea, where he became the ancestor of the natives. Other natives believed that God lived in Heaven, which was in the clouds and reachable by ladder from Sydney, Australia (source). God, along with the ancestors, created cargo in Heaven—"tinned meat, bags of rice, steel tools, cotton cloth, tinned tobacco, and a machine for making electric light"—which would be flown from Sydney and delivered to the natives, who thus needed to clear an airstrip (source).25 Another common belief was that symbolic radios could be used to communicate with Jesus. For instance, a Markham Valley cargo group in 1943 created large radio houses so they could be informed of the imminent Coming of Jesus, at which point the natives would expel the whites (source). The "radio" consisted of bamboo cylinders connected to a rope "aerial" strung between two poles. The houses contained a pole with rungs so the natives could climb to Jesus along with cane "flashlights" to see Jesus. A tall mast with a flag and cross on top. This was claimed to be a special radio mast that enabled communication with John Frum. It was decorated with scarlet leaves and flowers. From Attenborough's Cargo Cult. Mock radio antennas are also discussed in a 1943 report26 from a wartime patrol that found a bamboo "wireless house", 42 feet in diameter. It had two long poles outside and with an "aerial" of rope between them, connected to the "radio" inside, a bamboo cylinder. Villagers explained that the "radio" was to receive messages of the return of Jesus, who would provide weapons for the overthrow of white rule. The villagers constructed ladders outside the house so they could climb up to the Christian God after death. They would shed their skin like a snake, getting a new white skin, and then they would receive the "boats and white men's clothing, goods, etc." Mondo Cane and the creation of the pop-culture cargo cult As described above, cargo cults expected the cargo to arrive by ships much more often than airplanes. So why do pop-culture cargo cults have detailed descriptions of runways, airplanes, wooden headphones, and bamboo control towers?27 My hypothesis is that it came from a 1962 movie called Mondo Cane. This film was the first "shockumentary", showing extreme and shocking scenes from around the world. Although the film was highly controversial, it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival and was a box-office success. The film made extensive use of New Guinea with multiple scandalous segments, such as a group of "love-struck" topless women chasing men,29 a woman breastfeeding a pig, and women in cages being fattened for marriage. The last segment in the movie showed "the cult of the cargo plane": natives forlornly watching planes at the airport, followed by scenes of a bamboo airplane sitting on a mountaintop "runway" along with bamboo control towers. The natives waited all day and then lit torches to illuminate the runway at nightfall. These scenes are very similar to the pop-culture descriptions of cargo cults so I suspect this movie is the source. A still from the 1962 movie "Mondo Cane", showing a bamboo airplane sitting on a runway, with flaming torches acting as beacons. I have my doubts about its accuracy. The film claims that all the scenes "are true and taken only from life", but many of the scenes are said to be staged. Since the cargo cult scenes are very different from anthropological reports and much more dramatic, I think they were also staged and exaggerated.28 It is known that the makers of Mondo Cane paid the Melanesian natives generously for the filming (source, source). Did Feynman get his cargo cult ideas from Mondo Cane? It may seem implausible since the movie was released over a decade earlier. However, the movie became a cult classic, was periodically shown in theaters, and influenced academics.30 In particular, Mondo Cane showed at the famed Cameo theater in downtown Los Angeles on April 3, 1974, two months before Feynman's commencement speech. Mondo Cane seems like the type of offbeat movie that Feynman would see and the theater was just 11 miles from Caltech. While I can't prove that Feynman went to the showing, his description of a cargo cult strongly resembles the movie.31 Fake cargo-cult photos fill the internet Fakes and hoaxes make researching cargo cults online difficult. There are numerous photos online of cargo cults, but many of these photos are completely made up. For instance, the photo below has illustrated cargo cults for articles such as Cargo Cult, UX personas are useless, A word on cargo cults, The UK Integrated Review and security sector innovation, and Don't be a cargo cult. However, this photo is from a Japanese straw festival and has nothing to do with cargo cults. An airplane built from straw, one creation at a Japanese straw festival. I've labeled the photo with "Not cargo cult" to ensure it doesn't get reused in cargo cult articles. Another example is the photo below, supposedly an antenna created by a cargo cult. However, it is actually a replica of the Jodrell Bank radio telescope, built in 2007 by a British farmer from six tons of straw (details). The farmer's replica ended up erroneously illustrating Cargo Cult Politics, The Cargo Cult & Beliefs, The Cargo Cult, Cargo Cults of the South Pacific, and Cargo Cult, among others.32 A British farmer created this replica radio telescope. Photo by Mike Peel, (CC BY-SA 4.0). Other articles illustrate cargo cults with the aircraft below, suspiciously sleek and well-constructed. However, the photo actually shows a wooden wind tunnel model of the Buran spacecraft, abandoned at a Russian airfield as described in this article. Some uses of the photo are Are you guilty of “cargo cult” thinking without even knowing it? and The Cargo Cult of Wealth. This is an abandoned Soviet wind tunnel model of the Buran spacecraft. Photo by Aleksandr Markin. Many cargo cult articles use one of the photo below. I tracked them down to the 1970 movie "Chariots of the Gods" (link), a dubious documentary claiming that aliens have visited Earth throughout history. The segment on cargo cults is similar to Mondo Cane with cultists surrounding a mock plane on a mountaintop, lighting fires along the runway. However, it is clearly faked, probably in Africa: the people don't look like Pacific Islanders and are wearing wigs. One participant wears leopard skin (leopards don't live in the South Pacific). The vegetation is another giveaway: the plants are from Africa, not the South Pacific.33 Two photos of a straw plane from "Chariots of the Gods". The point is that most of the images that illustrate cargo cults online are fake or wrong. Most internet photos and information about cargo cults have just been copied from page to page. (And now we have AI-generated cargo cult photos.) If a photo doesn't have a clear source (including who, when, and where), don't believe it. Conclusions The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided for three reasons. First, the metaphor is essentially meaningless and heavily overused. The influential "Jargon File" defined cargo-cult programming as "A style of (incompetent) programming dominated by ritual inclusion of code or program structures that serve no real purpose."34 Note that the metaphor in cargo-cult programming is the opposite of the metaphor in cargo-cult science: Feyman's cargo-cult science has no chance of working, while cargo-cult programming works but isn't understood. Moreover, both metaphors differ from the cargo-cult metaphor in other contexts, referring to the expectation of receiving valuables without working.35 The popular site Hacker News is an example of how "cargo cult" can be applied to anything: agile programming, artificial intelligence, cleaning your desk. Go, hatred of Perl, key rotation, layoffs, MBA programs, microservices, new drugs, quantum computing, static linking, test-driven development, and updating the copyright year are just a few things that are called "cargo cult".36 At this point, cargo cult is simply a lazy, meaningless attack. The second problem with "cargo cult" is that the pop-culture description of cargo cults is historically inaccurate. Actual cargo cults are much more complex and include a much wider (and stranger) variety of behaviors. Cargo cults started before World War II and involve ships more often than airplanes. Cargo cults mix aspects of paganism and Christianity, often with apocalyptic ideas of the end of the current era, the overthrow of white rule, and the return of dead ancestors. The pop-culture description discards all this complexity, replacing it with a myth. Finally, the cargo cult metaphor turns decades of harmful colonialism into a humorous anecdote. Feynman's description of cargo cults strips out the moral complexity: US soldiers show up with their cargo and planes, the indigenous residents amusingly misunderstand the situation, and everyone carries on. However, cargo cults really were a response to decades of colonial mistreatment, exploitation, and cultural destruction. Moreover, cargo cults were often harmful: expecting a bounty of cargo, villagers would throw away their money, kill their pigs, and stop tending their crops, resulting in famine. The pop-culture cargo cult erases the decades of colonial oppression, along with the cultural upheaval and deaths from World War II. Melanesians deserve to be more than the punch line in a cargo cult story. Thus, it's time to move beyond the cargo cult metaphor. Notes and references As an illustration of the popularity of Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" commencement address, it has been on Hacker News at least 15 times. ↩ The first cargo cult definition above comes from The Trumpet Shall Sound; A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia. The second definition is from the Cargo Cult entry in The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Written by Lamont Lindstrom, a professor who studies Melanesia, the entry comprehensively describes the history and variety of cargo cults, as well as current anthropological analysis. For an early anthropological theory of cargo cults, see An Empirical Case-Study: The Problem of Cargo Cults in "The Revolution in Anthropology" (Jarvie, 1964). This book categorizes cargo cults as an apocalyptic millenarian religious movement with a central tenet: When the millennium comes it will largely consist of the arrival of ships and/or aeroplanes loaded up with cargo; a cargo consisting either of material goods the natives long for (and which are delivered to the whites in this manner), or of the ancestors, or of both.  ↩ European colonization brought pacification and a reduction in violence. The Cargo Cult: A Melanesian Type-Response to Change describes this pacification and termination of warfare as the Pax Imperii, suggesting that pacification came as a relief to the Melanesians: "They welcomed the cessation of many of the concomitants of warfare: the sneak attack, ambush, raiding, kidnapping of women and children, cannibalism, torture, extreme indignities inflicted on captives, and the continual need to be concerned with defense." That article calls the peace the Pax Imperii. Warfare among the Enga people of New Guinea is described in From Spears to M-16s: Testing the Imbalance of Power Hypothesis among the Enga. The Enga engaged in tribal warfare for reasons such as "theft of game from traps, quarrels over possessions, or work sharing within the group." The surviving losers were usually driven off the land and forced to settle elsewhere. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Australian administration banned tribal fighting and pacified much of the area. However, after the independence of Papua New Guinea in 1975, warfare increased along with the creation of criminal gangs known as Raskols (rascals). The situation worsened in the late 1980s with the introduction of shotguns and high-powered weapons to warfare. Now, Papua New Guinea has one of the highest crime rates in the world along with one of the lowest police-to-population ratios in the world. ↩ When you hear tales of cannibalism, some skepticism is warranted. However, cannibalism is proved by the prevalence of kuru, or "laughing sickness", a fatal prion disease (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) spread by consuming human brains. Also see Headhunters in Today's World, a 1972 National Geographic article that describes the baking of heads and the eating of brains. ↩ A 1957 dictionary of Pidgin English can be found here. Linguistically, Tok Pisin is a creole, not a pidgin. ↩ The modern view is that countries such as Great Britain acquired colonies against the will of the colonized, but the situation was more complex in the 19th century. Many Pacific islands desperately wanted to become European colonies, but were turned down for years because the countries were viewed as undesiable burdens. For example, Fiji viewed colonization as the solution to the chaos caused by the influx of white settlers in the 1800s. Fijian political leaders attempted to cede the islands to a European power that could end the lawlessness, but were turned down. In 1874, the situation changed when Disraeli was elected British prime minister. His pro-imperial policies, along with the Royal Navy's interest in obtaining a coaling station, concerns about American expansion, and pressure from anti-slavery groups, led to the annexation of Fiji by Britain. The situation in Fiji didn't particularly improve from annexation. (Fiji obtained independence almost a century later, in 1970.) As an example of the cost of a colony, Australia was subsidizing Papua New Guinea (with a population of 2.5 million) with over 100 million dollars a year in the early 1970s. (source) ↩ When reading about colonial Melanesia, one notices a constant background of police activity. Even when police patrols were very rare (annual in some parts), they were typically accompanied by arbitrary arrests and imprisonment. The most common cause for arrest was adultery; it may seem strange that the police were so concerned with it, but it turns out that adultery was the most common cause of warfare between tribes, and the authorities were trying to reduce the level of warfare. Cargo cult activity could be punished by six months of imprisonment. Jailing tended to be ineffective in stopping cargo cults, however, as it was viewed as evidence that the Europeans were trying to stop the cult leaders from spreading the cargo secrets that they had uncovered. ↩ See The Trumpet Shall Sound. ↩ The government imposed a head tax, which for the most part could only be paid through employment. A 1924 report states, "The primary object of the head tax was not to collect revenue but to create among the natives a need for money, which would make labour for Europeans desirable and would force the natives to accept employment." ↩ The Papua Annual Report, 1919-20 includes a report on the "Vailala Madness", starting on page 118. It describes how villages with the "Vialala madness" had "ornamented flag-poles, long tables, and forms or benches, the tables being usually decorated with flowers in bottles of water in imitation of a white man's dining table." Village men would sit motionless with their backs to the tables. Their idleness infuriated the white men, who considered the villagers to be "fit subjects for a lunatic asylum." ↩ The Vailala Madness is also described in The Missionary Review of the World, 1924. The Vaialala Madness also involved seizure-like physical aspects, which typically didn't appear in later cargo cult behavior. The 1957 book The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia is an extensive discussion of cargo cults, as well as earlier activity and movements. Chapter 4 covers the Vailala Madness in detail. ↩ The battles in the Pacific have been extensively described from the American and Japanese perspectives, but the indigenous residents of these islands are usually left out of the narratives. This review discusses two books that provide the Melanesian perspective. I came across the incredible story of Sergeant Major Vouza of the Native Constabulary. While this story is not directly related to cargo cults, I wanted to include it as it illustrates the dedication and suffering of the New Guinea natives during World War II. Vouza volunteered to scout behind enemy lines for the Marines at Guadalcanal but he was captured by the Japanese, tied to a tree, tortured, bayonetted, and left for dead. He chewed through his ropes, made his way through the enemy force, and warned the Marines of an impending enemy attack. SgtMaj Vouza, British Solomon Islands Constabulary. From The Guadalcanal Campaign, 1949. Vouza described the event in a letter: Letter from SgtMaj Vouza to Hector MacQuarrie, 1984. From The Guadalcanal Campaign.  ↩ The Japanese occupation and the cargo cult started by Tagareb are described in detail in Road Belong Cargo, pages 98-110. ↩ See "John Frum Movement in Tanna", Oceania, March 1952. The New York Times described the John Frum movement in detail in a 1970 article: "On a Pacific island, they wait for the G.I. who became a God". A more modern article (2006) on John Frum is In John They Trust in the Smithsonian Magazine. As for the identity of John Frum, some claim that his name is short for "John from America". Others claim it is a modification of "John Broom" who would sweep away the whites. These claims lack evidence. ↩ The quote is from Pacific Islands Monthly, November 1945 (link). The National Library of Australia has an extensive collection of issues of Pacific Islands Monthly online. Searching these magazines for "cargo cult" provides an interesting look at how cargo cults were viewed as they happened. ↩ Scientific American had a long article titled Cargo Cults in May 1959, written by Peter Worsley, who also wrote the classic book The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia. The article lists the following features of cargo cults: Myth of the return of the dead Revival or modification of paganism Introduction of Christian elements Cargo myth Belief that Negroes will become white men and vice versa Belief in a coming messiah Attempts to restore native political and economic control Threats and violence against white men Union of traditionally separate and unfriendly groups Different cargo cults contained different subsets of these features but no specific feature The article is reprinted here; the detailed maps show the wide distribution of cargo cults. ↩↩ See A Cargo Movement in the Eastern Central Highlands of New Guinea, Oceania, 1952. ↩↩ The Attenborough Cargo Cult documentary can be watched on YouTube. I'll summarize some highlights with timestamps: 5:20: A gate, palisade, and a cross all painted brilliant red. 6:38: A cross decorated with a wooden bird and a shaving brush. 7:00: A tall pole claimed to be a special radio mast to talk with John Frum. 8:25: Interview with trader Bob Paul. He describes "troops" marching with wooden guns around the whole island. 12:00: Preparation and consumption of kava, the intoxicating beverage. 13:08: Interview with a local about John Frum. 14:16: John Frum described as a white man and a big fellow. 16:29: Attenborough asks, "You say John Frum has not come for 19 years. Isn't this a long time for you to wait?" The leader responds, "No, I can wait. It's you waiting for two thousand years for Christ to come and I must wait over 19 years." Attenborough accepts this as a fair point. 17:23: Another scarlet gate, on the way to the volcano, with a cross, figure, and model airplane. 22:30: Interview with the leader. There's a discussion of the radio, but Attenborough is not allowed to see it. 24:21: John Frum is described as a white American. The expedition is also described in David Attenborough's 1962 book Quest in Paradise.  ↩ I have to criticize Mead's article for centering Americans as the heroes, almost a parody of American triumphalism. The title sets the article's tone: "Where Americans are Gods..." The article explains, "The Americans were lavish. They gave away Uncle Sam's property with a generosity which appealed mightily... so many kind, generous people, all alike, with such magnificent cargoes! The American servicemen, in turn, enjoyed and indulged the islanders." The article views cargo cults as a temporary stage before moving to a prosperous American-style society as islanders realized that "American things could come [...] only by work, education, persistence." A movement leader named Paliau is approvingly quoted: "We would like to have the things Americans have. [...] We think Americans have all these things because they live under law, without endless quarrels. So we must first set up a new society." On the other hand, by most reports, the Americans treated the residents of Melanesia much better than the colonial administrators. Americans paid the natives much more (which was viewed as overpaying them by the planters). The Americans treated the natives with much more respect; natives worked with Americans almost as equals. Finally, it appeared to the natives that black soldiers were treated as equals to white soldiers. (Obviously, this wasn't entirely accurate.) The Melanesian experience with Americans also strengthened Melanesian demands for independence. Following the war, the reversion to colonial administration produced a lot of discontent in the natives, who realized that their situation could be much better. (See World War II and Melanesian self-determination.) ↩ The Johnson cult was analyzed in depth by Billings, an anthropologist who wrote about it in Cargo Cult as Theater: Political Performance in the Pacific. See also Australian Daily News, June 12, 1964, and Time Magazine, July 19, 1971. ↩ In one unusual case, the islanders built an airstrip and airplanes did come. Specifically, the Miyanmin people of New Guinea hacked an airstrip out of the forest in 1966 using hand tools. The airstrip was discovered by a patrol and turned out to be usable, so Baptist missionaries made monthly landings, bringing medicine and goods for a store. It is pointed out that the only thing preventing this activity from being considered a cargo cult is that in this case, it was effective. See A Small Footnote to the 'Big Walk', p. 59. ↩ See "New Guinea: Waiting for That Cargo", Time Magazine, July 19, 1971.  ↩ In this footnote, I'll list some interesting cargo cult stories that didn't fit into the body of the article. The 1964 US Bureau of Labor Statistics report on New Guinea describes cargo cults: "A simplified explanation of them is often given namely that contact with Western culture has given the indigene a desire for a better economic standard of living this desire has not been accompanied by the understanding that economic prosperity is achieved by human effort. The term cargo cult derives from the mystical expectation of the imminent arrival by sea or air of the good things of this earth. It is believed sufficient to build warehouses of leaves and prepare air strips to receive these goods. Activity in the food gardens and daily community routine chores is often neglected so that economic distress is engendered." Cargo Cult Activity in Tangu (Burridge) is a 1954 anthropological paper discussing stories of three cargo cults in Tangu, a region of New Guinea. The first involved dancing around a man in a trance, which was supposed to result in the appearance of "rice, canned meat, lava-lavas, knives, beads, etc." In the second story, villagers built a shed in a cemetery and then engaged in ritualized sex acts, expecting the shed to be filled with goods. However, the authorities forced the participants to dismantle the shed and throw it into the sea. In the third story, the protagonist is Mambu, who stowed away on a steamship to Australia, where he discovered the secrets of the white man's cargo. On his return, he collected money to help force the Europeans out, until he was jailed. He performed "miracles" by appearing outside jail as well as by producing money out of thin air. Reaction to Contact in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea (Berndt, 1954) has a long story about Berebi, a leader who was promised a rifle, axes, cloth, knives, and valuable cowrie by a white spirit. Berebi convinces his villagers to build storehouses and they filled the houses with stones that would be replaced by goods. They take part in many pig sacrifices and various rituals, and endure attacks of shivering and paralysis, but they fail to receive any goods and Berebi concludes that the spirit deceived him. ↩ Many anthropologists view the idea of cargo cults as controversial. One anthropologist states, "What I want to suggest here is that, similarly, cargo cults do not exist, or at least their symptoms vanish when we start to doubt that we can arbitrarily extract a few features from context and label them an institution." See A Note on Cargo Cults and Cultural Constructions of Change (1988). The 1992 paper The Yali Movement in Retrospect: Rewriting History, Redefining 'Cargo Cult' summarizes the uneasiness that many anthropologists have with the term "cargo cult", viewing it as "tantamount to an invocation of colonial power relationships." The book Cargo, Cult, and Culture Critique (2004) states, "Some authors plead quite convincingly for the abolition of the term itself, not only because of its troublesome implications, but also because, in their view, cargo cults do not even exist as an identifiable object of study." One paper states that the phrase is both inaccurate and necessary, proposing that it be written crossed-out (sous rature in Derrida's post-modern language). Another paper states: "Cargo cults defy definition. They are inherently troublesome and problematic," but concludes that the term is useful precisely because of this troublesome nature. At first, I considered the idea of abandoning the label "cargo cult" to be absurd, but after reading the anthropological arguments, it makes more sense. In particular, the category "cargo cult" is excessively broad, lumping together unrelated things and forcing them into a Procrustean ideal: John Frum has very little in common with Vaialala Madness, let alone the Johnson Cult. I think that the term "cargo cult" became popular due to its catchy, alliterative name. (Journalists love alliterations such as "Digital Divide" or "Quiet Quitting".) ↩ It was clear to the natives that the ancestors, and not the Europeans, must have created the cargo because the local Europeans were unable to repair complex mechanical devices locally, but had to ship them off. These ships presumably took the broken devices back to the ancestral spirits to be repaired. Source: The Trumpet Shall Sound, p119. ↩ The report from the 1943 patrol is discussed in Berndt's "A Cargo Movement in the Eastern Central Highlands of New Guinea", Oceania, Mar. 1953 (link), page 227. These radio houses are also discussed in The Trumpet Shall Sound, page 199. ↩ Wooden airplanes are a staple of the pop-culture cargo cult story, but they are extremely rare in authentic cargo cults. I searched extensively, but could find just a few primary sources that involve airplanes. The closest match that I could find is Vanishing Peoples of the Earth, published by National Geographic in 1968, which mentions a New Guinea village that built a "crude wooden airplane", which they thought "offers the key to getting cargo". The photo below, from 1950, shows a cargo-house built in the shape of an airplane. (Note how abstract the construction is, compared to the realistic straw airplanes in faked photos.) The photographer mentioned that another cargo house was in the shape of a jeep, while in another village, the villagers gather in a circle at midnight to await the arrival of heavily laden cargo boats. The photo is from They Still Believe in Cargo Cult, Pacific Islands Monthly, May 1950. David Attenborough's Cargo Cult documentary shows a small wooden airplane, painted scarlet red. This model airplane is very small compared to the mock airplanes described in the pop-culture cargo cult. A closeup of the model airplane. From Attenborough's Cargo Cult documentary. The photo below shows the scale of the aircraft, directly in front of Attenborough. In the center, a figure of John Frum has a "scarlet coat and a white, European face." On the left, a cage contains a winged rat for some reason. David Attenborough visiting a John Frum monument on Tanna, near Sulfur Bay. From Attenborough's Cargo Cult documentary.  ↩ The photo below shows another scene from the movie Mondo Cane that is very popular online in cargo cult articles. I suspect that the airplane is not authentic but was made for the movie. Screenshot from Mondo Cane, showing the cargo cultists posed in front of their airplane.  ↩ The tale of women pursuing men was described in detail in the 1929 anthropological book The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia, specifically the section "Yausa—Orgiastic Assaults by Women" (pages 231-234). The anthropologist heard stories about these attacks from natives, but didn't observe them firsthand and remained skeptical. He concluded that "The most that can be said with certainty is that the yausa, if it happened at all, happened extremely rarely". Unlike the portrayal in Mondo Cane, these attacks on men were violent and extremely unpleasant (I won't go into details). Thus, it is very likely that this scene in Mondo Cane was staged, based on the stories. ↩ The movie Mondo Cane directly influenced the pop-culture cargo cult as shown by several books. The book River of Tears: The Rise of the Rio Tinto-Zinc Mining Corporation explains cargo cults and how one tribe built an "aeroplane on a hilltop to attract the white man's aeroplane and its cargo", citing Mondo Cane. Likewise, the book Introducing Social Change states that underdeveloped nations are moving directly from ships to airplanes without building railroads, bizarrely using the cargo cult scene in Mondo Cane as an example. Finally, the religious book Open Letter to God uses the cargo cult in Mondo Cane as an example of the suffering of godless people. ↩ Another possibility is that Feynman got his cargo cult ideas from the 1974 book Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddle of Culture. It has a chapter "Phantom Cargo", which starts with a description suspiciously similar to the scene in Mondo Cane: The scene is a jungle airstrip high in the mountains of New Guinea. Nearby are thatch-roofed hangars, a radio shack, and a beacon tower made of bamboo. On the ground is an airplane made of sticks and leaves. The airstrip is manned twenty-four hours a day by a group of natives wearing nose ornaments and shell armbands. At night they keep a bonfire going to serve as a beacon. They are expecting the arrival of an important flight: cargo planes filled with canned food, clothing, portable radios, wrist watches, and motorcycles. The planes will be piloted by ancestors who have come back to life. Why the delay? A man goes inside the radio shack and gives instructions into the tin-can microphone. The message goes out over an antenna constructed of string and vines: “Do you read me? Roger and out.” From time to time they watch a jet trail crossing the sky; occasionally they hear the sound of distant motors. The ancestors are overhead! They are looking for them. But the whites in the towns below are also sending messages. The ancestors are confused. They land at the wrong airport.  ↩ Some other uses of the radio telescope photo as a cargo-cult item are Cargo cults, Melanesian cargo cults and the unquenchable thirst of consumerism, Cargo Cult : Correlation vs. Causation, Cargo Cult Agile, Stop looking for silver bullets, and Cargo Cult Investing. ↩ Chariots of the Gods claims to be showing a cargo cult from an isolated island in the South Pacific. However, the large succulent plants in the scene are Euphorbia ingens and tree aloe, which grow in southern Africa, not the South Pacific. The rock formations at the very beginning look a lot like Matobo Hills in Zimbabwe. Note that these "Stone Age" people are astounded by the modern world but ignore the cameraman who is walking among them. Many cargo cults articles use photos that can be traced back from this film, such as The Scrum Cargo Cult, Is Your UX Cargo Cult, The Remote South Pacific Island Where They Worship Planes, The Design of Everyday Games, Don’t be Fooled by the Bitcoin Core Cargo Cult, The Dying Art of Design, Retail Apocalypse Not, You Are Not Google, and Cargo Cults. The general theme of these articles is that you shouldn't copy what other people are doing without understanding it, which is somewhat ironic. ↩ The Jargon File defined "cargo-cult programming" in 1991: cargo-cult programming: n. A style of (incompetent) programming dominated by ritual inclusion of code or program structures that serve no real purpose. A cargo-cult programmer will usually explain the extra code as a way of working around some bug encountered in the past, but usually, neither the bug nor the reason the code avoided the bug were ever fully understood. The term cargo-cult is a reference to aboriginal religions that grew up in the South Pacific after World War II. The practices of these cults center on building elaborate mockups of airplanes and military style landing strips in the hope of bringing the return of the god-like airplanes that brought such marvelous cargo during the war. Hackish usage probably derives from Richard Feynman's characterization of certain practices as "cargo-cult science" in `Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman'. This definition of "cargo-cult programming" came from a 1991 Usenet post to alt.folklore.computers, quoting Kent Williams. The definition was added to the much-expanded 1991 Jargon File, which was published as The New Hacker's Dictionary in 1993. ↩ Overuse of the cargo cult metaphor isn't specific to programming, of course. The book Cargo Cult: Strange Stories of Desire from Melanesia and Beyond describes how "cargo cult" has been applied to everything from advertisements, social welfare policy, and shoplifting to the Mormons, Euro Disney, and the state of New Mexico. This book, by Lamont Linstrom, provides a thorough analysis of writings on cargo cults. It takes a questioning, somewhat trenchant look at these writings, illuminating the development of trends in these writings and the lack of objectivity. I recommend this book to anyone interested in the term "cargo cult" and its history. ↩ Some more things that have been called "cargo cult" on Hacker News: the American worldview, ChatGPT fiction, copy and pasting code, hiring, HR, priorities, psychiatry, quantitative tests, religion, SSRI medication, the tech industry, Uber, and young-earth creationism. ↩