25

In the USSR there flourished some very interesting machines, including the БЭСМ and МЭСМ lines, the Сетунь, the ЭВМ Стрела and others.

Maybe the most famous ones are

  • БЭСМ-4, which is said to have done the first computer animation,
  • the БЭСМ-6, a 48-bit mainframe supporting the Soyuz project sending stuff to outer space,
  • or the ternary (not binary!) Setun.

These here computers I've listed look like real successes to me. But then suddenly, around 1980 I would guess, the БЭСМ line stopped being developed any further, the 1801s had their microprograms altered to interpret PDP-11 instructions (this presumably means eschewing the native instruction set they had before, Elektronica NC, about which there is very little information online), chips like the КР1858ВМ1 and other Z80 and 8080 clones started being more common, the Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal, etc etc,

I'm not sure how much of this is to do with miniaturization. In the West there are examples of big machines being later implemented on single chips (Harris 6120, TI9900, etc. etc), but I don't see that kind of thing happen with any of the indigenous Russian designs. So I tentatively suggest that this change was not merely a result of technological advancement, but that interest in Western computers grew, and interest in native computers waned.

Why did this happen?

10
  • 14
    The cost of hardware incompatibility is software shortage.
    – Brian H
    Mar 29 at 12:59
  • 7
    @OmarL You assume the existence of platform independent programming languages and operating systems. This is an interesting assumption pre-System/360. Mar 29 at 13:56
  • 4
    As a result of the decision of the Council of Minister of the USSR in the late 1960s to focus on producing "compatible" systems (commonly believed to be able to benefit from smuggling software, but, likely, also to be able to benefit from Western peripherals and specifically media, as opposed to the Soviet/Comecon ones which were of notoriously bad quality and reliability), funding for development of original CPU architectures had stopped.
    – Leo B.
    Mar 29 at 21:56
  • 2
    @Raffzahn, this intra-Soviet institutions competition is a very important point. The competition is not strictly economic but on who convinces the Minister. Playing on traditional Russian suspicion for indigenous designs (amongst other things), the "clone" side won the argument. As for Comecon, it was in their interest; in fact, East Germans already had considerable success cloning IBM.
    – Zeus
    Mar 30 at 1:11
  • 3
    ...While there are many accounts of this story, for a broader outlook, I can't recommend enough Red Plenty by Francis Spufford. It explicitly touches on this subject.
    – Zeus
    Mar 30 at 1:13

5 Answers 5

37

I'm not sure your question is correct. You posit that native Soviet designs were ahead until some point around 1980, when "suddenly" clones of Western designs took over. In fact, Comecon countries started cloning Western machines way earlier. Three examples from the top of my mind, cloning the most successful Western designs of their time:

  • There was the ES EVM (ЕС ЭВМ) series of IBM System/360 / System/370 compatible machines. Work began in 1968, production began in 1972.

  • The Hungarian TPA series of machines started with a clone of the PDP-8 in 1968, and later included clones of the PDP-11 (1977) and the VAX.

  • Production of the SM EVM (СМ ЭВМ), a Soviet PDP-11 clone, started in 1975.

The PDP-8 FAQ lists two more Soviet PDP-8 clones (Electronica-100, Saratov-2), but without giving dates. Similarly, the PDP-11's Wikipedia page has a long list of unlicensed clones from Comecon countries, though I don't know how many of those predate 1980.

It's interesting to compare the BESM-6 (БЭСМ-6) from your question with the ES EVM. Both are mainframes designed in the mid-60s, with production starting in the late 60s and ending (with various modifications and improvements along the way) in the 80s. 355 BESM-6 were made, but - if you include production in other Comecon countries - more than 15000 ES EVM.

In general, the number of computers produced in the East was rather low: Wikipedia cites a source stating that "by 1972 the Comecon countries had produced around 7,500 computers, compared to 120,000 in the rest of the world." Reproducing Western architectures meant that software was (more or less) readily available (and definitely easier to smuggle ;-) ), whereas it had to be rewritten for home grown designs.

10
  • 1
    In that context Leo's questions about various aspects of the BESM-6 are quite interesting. For example languages, seem to follow quite close what IBM delivered for the /360 family. Most easy to spot when looking ah his assembler examples.
    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 14:07
  • @Raffzahn - Sorry, you've lost me. Which questions? Which assembler examples? Mar 29 at 14:11
  • 2
    Various questions by Leo/besm-6
    – Raffzahn
    Mar 29 at 14:28
  • 1
    Yes, you are right, IZOT did start production in 1968, but the IZOT 1016S - which was the PDP-11 clone came later - there might have been a PDP-8 clone in 1968 - but I can't find anything about it
    – mmomtchev
    Mar 30 at 17:58
  • 1
    It was the IZOT-301 - PDP-8 clone
    – mmomtchev
    Mar 30 at 18:02
16

I highly recommend Jimmy Maher’s series, “Tales of the Mirror World,” posted on the Digital Antiquarian blog. (Which anyone who scrolls this far down the page should definitely be reading!)

In particular, part II covers the inflection point, around 1970, when the Soviet Union gave up on designing systems like the BESM mainframe, which was technically on par with Western computers despite not being made from integrated circuits, but which the Soviet Union was unable to produce in quantity. The main problem it had was not in its computer designs, as the Rand Corporation noted at the time, but its ability to produce them. In 1970, the Soviet Union only had approximately five thousand computers.

The article gives as an example:

A popular story that circulated around Western intelligence circles for years involved Viktor Belenko, a Soviet pilot who went rogue, flying his state-of-the-art MIG-25 fighter jet to a Japanese airport and defecting there in 1976. When American engineers examined his MIG-25, they found a plane that was indeed a technological marvel in many respects, able to fly faster and higher than any Western fighter. Yet its electronics used unreliable vacuum tubes rather than transistors, much less integrated circuits — a crippling disadvantage on the field of battle. The contrast with the West, which had left the era of the vacuum tube behind almost two decades ago, was so extreme that there was some discussion of whether Belenko might be a double agent, his whole defection a Soviet plot to convince the West that they were absurdly far behind in terms of electronics technology. Sadly for the Soviets, the vacuum tubes weren’t the result of any elaborate KGB plot, but rather just a backward electronics industry.

The Ryad project that began in 1970 marked a departure from the BESM-6, in that it was a copy of the IBM 360. It would not be the last: Leo D. Bores, an American surgeon who saw the Agat microcomputer called it a copy of the Apple II, and a bad one. DEC was aware that the Eastern Bloc was copying its designs, and began etching messages in pidgin Russian into their CPUs, where they would show up on X-ray scans. One of them was intended to say, “CVAX: When you care enough to steal the very best.” The East German team reverse-engineering the CPU, either unfamiliar with the Hallmark greeting-card slogan the Americans were riffing off of, or wanting to flatter their Russian overlords, told them that it said, “Why steal? You already have the best.” Similarly, the KP580BM80A is, as the name suggests, a copy of the Intel 8080.

Up until the 1970s, the Soviet Union had sometimes been able to buy chip-fabricating equipment from the West, but the Carter and Reagan administrations put export restrictions on American technology that ended those transactions. Starting in 1970, the Soviets began trying to split up the design and manufacturing of different computer components among its Warsaw Pact allies.

There was at least one locally designed computer of the ’80s that deserves mention, however: the Electronica BK-0010. Its CPU was compatible with the instruction set of the American PDP-11, but was an original design, and the machine was a 16-bit personal computer at a time when most American home computers were still 8-bit. It cost one-fifth as much as the Agat, although that meant there was always a long waiting-list to get one, and some people instead tried putting one together from kits. It was created to fulfill a promise by the new Soviet Premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, to put a computer in every classroom.

1
  • 22
    Sadly, as I write, I just learned that Club 8-bit, one of the most important museums of Soviet computer history, and its more than 500 vintage computers, was destroyed in an attack on Ukraine.
    – Davislor
    Mar 30 at 2:01
13
  1. Economy of scale.

    The "scale" part requires an economy to back the development and the production by buying the products. The iron curtain separated the "west" (an economy with ~1 billion people) and the "east" (~300 million people with much less GDP per capita). Other parts of the world are not counted because they came late to the party.

  2. Administrative approach vs free market approach. Only the first western projects were government-run (with the usual governmental overhead). Then, the market took off.

  3. A lot of effort in the east went to making the designs intentionally different than the western approach to the same task - and not necessarily better. Here goes Setun as well.

  4. Once sufficiently lagged and constrained in R&D resources, the east was much more interested in cloning and reverse-engineering the western designs. This was much more successful than reinventing a wheel after a wheel.

And then, what exactly did the East better? (I am from the East, I know the answer.)

3
  • 5
    Didn't the best DOS computer viruses come from the east? (Back when these were technological marvels, not steal your money things.)
    – Joshua
    Mar 29 at 18:37
  • 1
    Yes, there was a brief period starting in 1990 when lots of major state-owned IT companies with very skilled engineers specialized in reverse engineering - a very rare skill in the commercial IT world - became suddenly unemployed. By 1995 most of them were employed in the new private IT sector and the virus writing came to a halt. There was the Dark Avenger from Sofia, one of the best known legends of this era.
    – mmomtchev
    Mar 30 at 17:16
  • what exactly did the East better? -- the 3" floppy disk.
    – chx
    Mar 31 at 0:21
5

There is still development of original computer architectures in Russia, but they don't seem to get used commercially very much. In the post-Soviet era, most businesses preferred imported computers, for both performance and reliability.

The Elbrus brand name covers several ISAs, which are mostly used in space and defence systems.

5

COCOM and similar things were mentioned. But that "marvellous design" OmarL mentioned was seen in the USSR at the time as heterogeneity and inefficient fund spending. They wanted a one size fit all, something similar to the position of the IBM at the time.

In 1969 the decision came to copy Western designs. (It was made by a joint ministry group, as far as I understand.) This decision is widely cited as the beginning of the downfall of the Soviet computer development, and not only by Russians themselves. The Soviets switching to IBM was seen as a great success for US. The scaling-down of the hardware, especially in the late 80s, additionally made the gap larger with the time.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.