Thomas J. Watson (IBM) profile 1941

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

This is a profile of the 'supersalesman' of IBM. Pretty
good description of IBM life at that time.


Two parts
https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1941-05-24/page/n11

https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1941-05-31/page/n23


I have mixed opinions of Watson. On the one hand, he did
build a company that revolutionized information technology.
The fundamentals he created are with us today even if the
hardware is different. Although he personally was not
an engineer, he knew how to recruit the best. Other companies
tried to do what IBM did but failed. Contrary to myth, he
was very supportive of electronics and computers. He
was generous with his company's money.

On the other hand, he was an absolute dictator. He
created a cult of personality. It was his way or
the highway, even when he was technologically wrong.
Fortunately, most of the time he did make the right
decisions.

He did pay his workers well, but he demanded an awful
lot from them. They were to be devoted to the IBM way--
Watson's way--24/7.


Watson was naïve about war. He believe in "world peace
through world trade". He figured countries that were
happily making money would be too busy to go to war. He was
wrong.

His monopoly position is tricky. He clearly had a
monopoly in I.T. On the one hand, he earned it through
superior service and equipment. He had good patents.
On the other hand, he got some good patents through
acquisitions, not internal inventions. He was
aggressive.

[menti...@gmail.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer) -- is a question-answering computer system.

https://wiki.opencog.org/w/Mens_Latina -- is a Latin-language question-answering AI.

[robin....@gmail.com]

He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
five computers." [need to check source]

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 9:01:18 AM UTC-4, robin...@gmail.com wrote:

> He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
> five computers." [need to check source]

He never said it.

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 06:01:14 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
wrote:

Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such
a machine. … As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 10:20:37 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 06:01:14 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com

Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.

[Rich Alderson]

robin....@gmail.com writes:

> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 10:20:37 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 06:01:14 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com
> > wrote:

> >=20
> > >On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 7:24:48 AM UTC+11, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.co=

> m wrote:
> > >> This is a profile of the 'supersalesman' of IBM. Pretty
> > >> good description of IBM life at that time.

> > >>=20
> > >>=20
> > >> Two parts
> > >> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1941-05-24/page=
> /n11
> > >>=20
> > >> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1941-05-31/page=
> /n23
> > >>=20
> > >>=20

> > >> I have mixed opinions of Watson. On the one hand, he did
> > >> build a company that revolutionized information technology.
> > >> The fundamentals he created are with us today even if the
> > >> hardware is different. Although he personally was not
> > >> an engineer, he knew how to recruit the best. Other companies
> > >> tried to do what IBM did but failed. Contrary to myth, he
> > >> was very supportive of electronics and computers. He
> > >> was generous with his company's money.

> > >>=20

> > >> On the other hand, he was an absolute dictator. He
> > >> created a cult of personality. It was his way or
> > >> the highway, even when he was technologically wrong.
> > >> Fortunately, most of the time he did make the right
> > >> decisions.

> > >>=20

> > >> He did pay his workers well, but he demanded an awful
> > >> lot from them. They were to be devoted to the IBM way--
> > >> Watson's way--24/7.

> > >>=20
> > >>=20
> > >> Watson was na=C3=AFve about war. He believe in "world peace

> > >> through world trade". He figured countries that were
> > >> happily making money would be too busy to go to war. He was
> > >> wrong.

> > >>=20

> > >> His monopoly position is tricky. He clearly had a
> > >> monopoly in I.T. On the one hand, he earned it through
> > >> superior service and equipment. He had good patents.
> > >> On the other hand, he got some good patents through
> > >> acquisitions, not internal inventions. He was
> > >> aggressive.
> > >
> > >He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
> > >five computers." [need to check source]

> >=20

> > Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
> > meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
> > developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
> > across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such

> > a machine. =E2=80=A6 As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get

> > orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
>
> Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.

So you'll tkae the word of a bunch of amateurs over the published history of
IBM????

--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
robin....@gmail.com wrote:

> Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.

Two years before the end of WWII - seems very unlikely.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:00:05 PM UTC-4, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
> robin....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
>
> Two years before the end of WWII - seems very unlikely.

Both Junior's memoirs and "Building IBM" are quite clear that
Watson Sr looked toward electronics early on (circa 1940)
and then to computers. IBM did develop the Harvard Mark I
calculating machine and then its own SSEC machine early on.

[Scott Lurndal]

To be fair, Wikipedia actually states:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" is often attributed
to Thomas Watson, Senior in 1943 and Junior at several dates in the
1950s. This misquote is from the 1953 IBM annual stockholders' meeting.
Thomas Watson Jr. was describing the market acceptance of the IBM 701
computer. Before production began, Watson visited with 20 companies
that were potential customers. This is what he said at the stockholders'
meeting, "as a result of our trip, on which we expected to get orders for
five machines, we came home with orders for 18.\u201d[5]

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
wrote:

If the 701 had existing in 1943, WWII might have gone a lot
differently.

[John Levine]

In article <75372ae2-6d65-4291...@googlegroups.com>,

<robin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
>> >five computers." [need to check source]
>>
>> Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
>> meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
>> developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
>> across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such
>> a machine. … As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
>> orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
>
>Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.

I think there's a bunch of quotes conflated.

The one I heard was that five electronic computers could do all the
calculating that was being done at the time in the US. That may well
have been true, but as it turned out, as calculating got cheaper,
people did a lot more of it.



--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 6:02:37 AM UTC+11, Rich Alderson wrote:

The official history has probably been sanitised.

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 7:00:05 AM UTC+11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
> r.....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
>
> Two years before the end of WWII - seems very unlikely.

IBM approved the project to build the Harvard Mark I in 1939.

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 7:07:32 AM UTC+11, h.....@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:00:05 PM UTC-4, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > r.....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
> >
> > Two years before the end of WWII - seems very unlikely.
>
> Both Junior's memoirs and "Building IBM" are quite clear that
> Watson Sr looked toward electronics early on (circa 1940)

More precisely, 1939.

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:06:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
<jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

>In article <75372ae2-6d65-4291...@googlegroups.com>,
> <robin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
>>> >five computers." [need to check source]
>>>
>>> Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
>>> meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
>>> developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
>>> across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such
>>> a machine. … As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
>>> orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
>>
>>Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
>
>I think there's a bunch of quotes conflated.
>
>The one I heard was that five electronic computers could do all the
>calculating that was being done at the time in the US. That may well
>have been true, but as it turned out, as calculating got cheaper,
>people did a lot more of it.

In 1943 nobody had ever seen a working electronic computer and so
nobody had any idea of their capabilities. So the notion that the
head of IBM would make a statement in 1943 concerning the number of
them that could do all the calculating in the world is nonsense on the
face of it. And his 1953 statement is a matter of historical record.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:08:18 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
wrote:

Hat. Tinfoil.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:31:15 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
wrote:

And it didn't actually run until 1944. Further, it was not electronic
and it was horrendously slow.

By the way if you can find a statement in wikipedia to the effect that
Watson made a statement about 5 computers in 1943, please provide a
link.

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:32:40 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:06:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine

> <j.....@taugh.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <75372ae2-6d65-4291-92bd-cb60297cf7f8.@googlegroups.com>,

> > <r.....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
> >>> >five computers." [need to check source]
> >>>
> >>> Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
> >>> meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
> >>> developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
> >>> across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such
> >>> a machine. … As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
> >>> orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
> >>
> >>Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
> >
> >I think there's a bunch of quotes conflated.
> >
> >The one I heard was that five electronic computers could do all the
> >calculating that was being done at the time in the US. That may well
> >have been true, but as it turned out, as calculating got cheaper,
> >people did a lot more of it.
>
> In 1943 nobody had ever seen a working electronic computer

Zuse had his working in 1939, and the ABC entirely electronic
computer was running in 1942.

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:37:28 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:31:15 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com

Go look yourself. I found it easily enough.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:03:56 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:37:28 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:31:15 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 7:00:05 AM UTC+11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> >> r.....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
>> >>
>> >> Two years before the end of WWII - seems very unlikely.
>> >
>> >IBM approved the project to build the Harvard Mark I in 1939.
>>
>> And it didn't actually run until 1944. Further, it was not electronic
>> and it was horrendously slow.
>>
>> By the way if you can find a statement in wikipedia to the effect that
>> Watson made a statement about 5 computers in 1943, please provide a
>> link.
>
>Go look yourself. I found it easily enough.

No. You made the assertion that it was in wikipedia. So it's up to
you to support that assertion. If you can't then the default
assumption is that you made it up.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:01:07 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:32:40 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:06:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>> <j.....@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <75372ae2-6d65-4291-92bd-cb60297cf7f8.@googlegroups.com>,
>> > <r.....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
>> >>> >five computers." [need to check source]
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
>> >>> meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
>> >>> developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
>> >>> across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such
>> >>> a machine. … As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
>> >>> orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
>> >>
>> >>Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
>> >
>> >I think there's a bunch of quotes conflated.
>> >
>> >The one I heard was that five electronic computers could do all the
>> >calculating that was being done at the time in the US. That may well
>> >have been true, but as it turned out, as calculating got cheaper,
>> >people did a lot more of it.
>>
>> In 1943 nobody had ever seen a working electronic computer
>
>Zuse had his working in 1939, and the ABC entirely electronic
>computer was running in 1942.

I was starting to make allowances for the possibility that you might
have some Sheldon-Cooper-esque neurological disorder, but it seems
your anal-retentiveness is selective.

Zuse never, at any time, produced an electronic computer--his was
electromechanical and it was also pretty much unknown at the time.

Whether the ABC counts as a computer is debatable--it was neither
programmable nor Turing-complete and again was quite obscure.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 8:12:13 AM UTC-6, robin...@gmail.com wrote:

> Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.

Given that the IBM 701 was known as the Defense Calculator because it was made to
help in the Korean War, Wikipedia has the misprint.

John Savard

[Scott Lurndal]

No, it doesn't. Read the damn wiki article, not what someone wrote (wrongly) about
it on some usenet newsgroup posting.

[John Levine]

In article <us4k6f56di6qjkppu...@4ax.com>,

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Zuse never, at any time, produced an electronic computer--his was
>electromechanical and it was also pretty much unknown at the time.

FYI, the Zuse Z22 used vacuum tubes and the Z23 was the same design
in transistors, but those were in the mid 1950s when they were
respectable but not unusual.

>Whether the ABC counts as a computer is debatable--it was neither
>programmable nor Turing-complete and again was quite obscure.

Agreed. The first that most people heard of electronic computers
was when the Eniac was declassified in Feb 1946.

[Scott Lurndal]

John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:
>In article <us4k6f56di6qjkppu...@4ax.com>,
>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Zuse never, at any time, produced an electronic computer--his was
>>electromechanical and it was also pretty much unknown at the time.
>
>FYI, the Zuse Z22 used vacuum tubes and the Z23 was the same design
>in transistors, but those were in the mid 1950s when they were
>respectable but not unusual.

Dr. Atanasoff's (whom I once took to dinner) ABC computer used vacuum tubes
and had a capacitive drum for memory (which I once kept in my office for a couple
weeks back in the early 80's) was built in 1937.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff%E2%80%93Berry_computer>

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 8:06:53 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote:
> In article <75372ae2-6d65-4291...@googlegroups.com>,
> <robin....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
> >> >five computers." [need to check source]
> >>
> >> Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
> >> meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
> >> developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
> >> across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such
> >> a machine. … As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
> >> orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
> >
> >Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
>
> I think there's a bunch of quotes conflated.
>
> The one I heard was that five electronic computers could do all the
> calculating that was being done at the time in the US. That may well
> have been true, but as it turned out, as calculating got cheaper,
> people did a lot more of it.

We should note there were two kinds of calculations subject
to automation. The big one of interest was for science
and engineering since that was hairy and slow. As we all
know, the demand for firing tables inspired the ENIAC.

The development of the Cold War and the desire for nuclear
weapons, jet planes, and guided missiles, also generated
a heavy demand for calculations. I believe most of IBM 701s
were delivered for defense purposes.

Anyway, had there been no cold war, I dare say the history
of computers would've been very different. Defense
contractors and the military had deep pockets which paid
for those heavy-duty machines. Had there been no cold
war, I think computer development would've gone much
slower.

The second need for computation was for business purposes.
That kind of work was much less heavy duty. For instance,
a sci/eng machine might have parallel bit handling and
machine division and floating point to save time, while
business might not have floating point at all and software
division. The IBM history explains the architectural
differences of IBM's 701 and 702 early computers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_701

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_702

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 9:08:19 PM UTC-4, robin...@gmail.com wrote:

> > So you'll tkae the word of a bunch of amateurs over the published history of
> > IBM????
>
> The official history has probably been sanitised.

Those books have been out for years without criticism.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 9:37:28 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:

> >IBM approved the project to build the Harvard Mark I in 1939.
>
> And it didn't actually run until 1944. Further, it was not electronic
> and it was horrendously slow.

Was the Harvard Mark I really all that slow by the standards
of its day? Yes, it was a mechanical machine, and a trig
or log took a full minute. But so was everything else at that
point in time.

At that time, the only alternative to the Mark I was a bunch of
humans punching desk calculators. They were even slower.
The Mark I had the advantage of continuous operation, passing
results of one equation automatically to the next and other
logic.

As best as I can tell, the Mark I was a powerful tool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Mark_I

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:25:08 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 9:37:28 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> >IBM approved the project to build the Harvard Mark I in 1939.
>>
>> And it didn't actually run until 1944. Further, it was not electronic
>> and it was horrendously slow.
>
>Was the Harvard Mark I really all that slow by the standards
>of its day? Yes, it was a mechanical machine, and a trig
>or log took a full minute. But so was everything else at that
>point in time.

It was horrendously slow by the standards of 5 of them doing all the
calculations in the world. It could do 3 additions a second. What
did a building full of bookkeepers with adding machines average?

>At that time, the only alternative to the Mark I was a bunch of
>humans punching desk calculators. They were even slower.

Individually less, but not collectively.

>The Mark I had the advantage of continuous operation, passing
>results of one equation automatically to the next and other
>logic.
>
>As best as I can tell, the Mark I was a powerful tool.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Mark_I

It was for the time but it wasn't a replacement for large numbers of
people with calculators.

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 9:42:12 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:

It was.

The hand calculations would have been repeated a number of times
in order to ensure that no (human) errors were made.

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 9:17:50 AM UTC+11, h......@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 8:06:53 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote:

> > In article <75372ae2-6d65-4291-92bd-cb60297cf..@googlegroups.com>,

And it might not.
Pilot ACE (1951) did not have any of those.

Division was added much later.

DEUCE (1955) did not have floating-point, nor parallel bit handling.
However, it did have hardware integer multiplication and division.
It also had parallel processing and array operations.

[Peter Flass]

IBM 1130, SDS 9xx, no hardware floating-point. I think division was a later
addition on the 9xx machines.

--
Pete

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:04:19 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
wrote:

So what? In an hour 5 of them can do 50,000 additions. How many
additions can ten million bookkeepers do in that hour?

[John Levine]

In article <8f7a55a2-820f-4a5d...@googlegroups.com>,

<robin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Mark_I
>>
>> It was for the time but it wasn't a replacement for large numbers of
>> people with calculators.
>
>It was.
>
>The hand calculations would have been repeated a number of times
>in order to ensure that no (human) errors were made.

On those early computers, it was pretty common to run every
calculation twice to see if it got the same answer.

The IBM SSEC was IBM's next computer after the Mark I, partly relay
partly electronic. John Backus, who later would lead the Fortran
project said in an interview:

You had the machine for two weeks all to yourself, just to check out
your tapes and plug-boards and things like that. And then, of course,
you had to be there the entire time the program was running, because
it would stop every three minutes, and only the people who had
programmed it could see how to get it running again.

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 9:54:57 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:01:07 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com

Did you know that you are behaving like a two-year-old?

Maybe your behaviour was noticed by your friends .... oh,
you don't have any? That's understandable

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 9:54:57 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:01:07 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com

> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:32:40 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:06:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
> >> <j.....@taugh.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <75372ae2-6d65-4291-92bd-cb60297cf7f8.@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > <r.....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> >He is famous for the line "I think that there is a world market for
> >> >>> >five computers." [need to check source]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes you do. The actual statement, at the April 28, 1953 stockholders
> >> >>> meeting, was, referring specifically to the 701: "I.B.M. had
> >> >>> developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan
> >> >>> across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such
> >> >>> a machine. … As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
> >> >>> orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
> >> >>
> >> >>Wiki gives the year as 1943, a decade before your date.
> >> >
> >> >I think there's a bunch of quotes conflated.
> >> >
> >> >The one I heard was that five electronic computers could do all the
> >> >calculating that was being done at the time in the US. That may well
> >> >have been true, but as it turned out, as calculating got cheaper,
> >> >people did a lot more of it.
> >>
> >> In 1943 nobody had ever seen a working electronic computer
> >
> >Zuse had his working in 1939, and the ABC entirely electronic
> >computer was running in 1942.
>

> Zuse never, at any time, produced an electronic computer--his was
> electromechanical and it was also pretty much unknown at the time.
>
> Whether the ABC counts as a computer is debatable--it was neither
> programmable nor Turing-complete and again was quite obscure.

The ABC computer was publicized in an issue of Des Moines Register
(Iowa) on 15 January 1941.

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com

If it was publicized in the New York Times you might have an argument.
That something was mentioned in a local newspaper doesn't make it well
known.

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:51:08 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com

<plonk>

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 9:38:48 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), r......@gmail.com

Have you looked in that newspaper?

> That something was mentioned in a local newspaper doesn't make it well
> known.

It was well-enough known for John Mauchly to spend time with Atanasoff
in June 1941.

[Peter Flass]

“The newspaper of record.”

--
Pete

[Gerard Schildberger]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), robin wrote:
> >On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 9:54:57 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:

)) If it was publicized in the New York Times you might have an argument.
)) That something was mentioned in a local newspaper doesn't make it well
)) known.

Well, that's not quite true. I live in a pretty small town (around 1,000
or so), and our local and almost minuscule subscriber newspaper had
something about the start of what was later called WW II. Most likely,
other papers might have carried a similar story. ____ Gerard Schildberger

[J. Clarke]

So do you have evidence that any other newspaper carried an article
about the ABC computer?

[Gerard Schildberger]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 9:07:21 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:

Not my dog.

[J. Clarke]

You woke it up. Now you get to deal with it.

[Scott Lurndal]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
>wrote:

>>The ABC computer was publicized in an issue of Des Moines Register
>>(Iowa) on 15 January 1941.
>
>If it was publicized in the New York Times you might have an argument.
>That something was mentioned in a local newspaper doesn't make it well
>known.

It was well known in the industry. Among those that make computers, if not those
(like you) who simply use them.

There was a significant legal case in the 70's between honeywell and sperry
which was well covered in datamation, computerworld, et alia.

[Peter Flass]

At that point it seemed as much ancient history to me as the Norman
invasion.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Yes, but that’s bavkwards.

>
>
>>>>>> and so
>>>>>> nobody had any idea of their capabilities. So the notion that the
>>>>>> head of IBM would make a statement in 1943 concerning the number of
>>>>>> them that could do all the calculating in the world is nonsense on the
>>>>>> face of it. And his 1953 statement is a matter of historical record.
>
>

--
Pete

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:07:18 -0700
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> The ABC computer was publicized in an issue of Des Moines Register
> >>> (Iowa) on 15 January 1941.
> >

> > There was a significant legal case in the 70's between honeywell and
> > sperry which was well covered in datamation, computerworld, et alia.
> >
>
> At that point it seemed as much ancient history to me as the Norman
> invasion.

So how do the late 1980s seem to you now ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[J. Clarke]

Yep. The issue was whether Watson would, in 1943, have had any idea
what the actual capabilities of an electronic computer might be. What
was well known 30 years later is not really relevant to that question.

[Gerard Schildberger]

--- snipped ---

> >> >)) That something was mentioned in a local newspaper doesn't make it well
> >> >)) known.

> >Not my dog.

> You woke it up. Now you get to deal with it.

It was your statement that something that is mentioned in a local
newspaper doesn't make it well known.

I said, that's not true. Small papers can have news that are also
printed in large circulation papers, and vice-versa.
________________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger

[J. Clarke]

If I had asserted that something mentioned in a local paper was
evidence that it was not well known you would have an argument. I did
not assert this, I asserted that its being so mentioned was not
evidence that it was well known.

The beginning of World War II was mentioned in many newspapers around
the world. The name of the 1972 homecoming queen in Fernandina Beach,
Florida not so much. Do you see the difference?

[Peter Flass]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:07:18 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), robin....@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The ABC computer was publicized in an issue of Des Moines Register
>>>>> (Iowa) on 15 January 1941.
>>>
>>> There was a significant legal case in the 70's between honeywell and
>>> sperry which was well covered in datamation, computerworld, et alia.
>>>
>>
>> At that point it seemed as much ancient history to me as the Norman
>> invasion.
>
> So how do the late 1980s seem to you now ?
>

You mean it’s still not the 80s?

--
Pete

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 7:18:33 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:07:18 -0700, Peter Flass

> <p.....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Scott Lurndal <s.....@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> >> J. Clarke <j......873638.@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com

> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The ABC computer was publicized in an issue of Des Moines Register
> >>>> (Iowa) on 15 January 1941.
> >>>
> >>> If it was publicized in the New York Times you might have an argument.
> >>> That something was mentioned in a local newspaper doesn't make it well
> >>> known.
> >>
> >> It was well known in the industry. Among those that make computers, if not those
> >> (like you) who simply use them.
> >>
> >> There was a significant legal case in the 70's between honeywell and sperry
> >> which was well covered in datamation, computerworld, et alia.

> Yep. The issue was whether Watson would, in 1943, have had any idea
> what the actual capabilities of an electronic computer might be. What
> was well known 30 years later is not really relevant to that question.

Watson had approved the construction of the Harvard Mark I in 1939, FOUR years
earlier, and it was WELL UNDER WAY in 1943. (It was running in 1944.)

You think that he knew nothing about computers?

[robin....@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 9:32:01 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:22:30 -0700 (PDT), Gerard Schildberger
> <g.....@rrt.net> wrote:
>
> >--- snipped ---
> >
> >> >> >)) That something was mentioned in a local newspaper doesn't make it well
> >> >> >)) known.
> >
> >> >Not my dog.
> >
> >> You woke it up. Now you get to deal with it.
> >
> >It was your statement that something that is mentioned in a local
> >newspaper doesn't make it well known.
> >
> >I said, that's not true. Small papers can have news that are also
> >printed in large circulation papers, and vice-versa.
> >________________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
>
> If I had asserted that something mentioned in a local paper was
> evidence that it was not well known you would have an argument. I did
> not assert this, I asserted that its being so mentioned was not
> evidence that it was well known.

Whether or not the ABC was well-known is irrelevant.
It was sufficient to be known among those building computers.
Which it was.

[Questor]

Mauchly met Atanasoff at a conference in 1940 when the former gave a talk on
weather forecasting, during which he touched on the topic of electronic
calculating machines. Atanasoff approached Mauchly and told him he was working
on electronic circuits for just such a device. They exchanged some letters in
the months before Mauchly visited in June 1941. Scott McCartney's "Eniac"
mentions this, and also contains a detailed account of the Sperry vs. Honeywell
court case decades later that eventually centered on the interactions between
Atanasoff and Mauchly.

[Scott Lurndal]

Mollenhoff devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 6 - A visitor from Pennsylvania,
Dr. John W. Mauchly, 1940-1941) to the visit.

Mollenhoff, Clark R. _Atanasoff - Forgotton Father of the Computer_.

"It was disk in the evening of 13 June 1941 when John William Macuhly
and his six-year-old son, Jimmy, arrived at the Atanasoff home at
3439 Woodland Avenue, Ames, Iowa."

Mauchly doesn't come off well, showing up late, expecting dinner,
dragging his son along.

[I lived a block away from there one summer, and came home one day to
find the secret service blocking the driveway. Gary Hart had stopped
by (my roommate's brother was local campaign manager) while campaigning.]

What is sad, is that a grad student had disassembled the ABC in the basement
of the physics building to make space for an office - many years later he
became the computer science department chairmen and really regretted not
preserving anything other than the memory drum.

[John Levine]

In article <4f2de624-2a68-4914...@googlegroups.com>,

<robin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yep. The issue was whether Watson would, in 1943, have had any idea
>> what the actual capabilities of an electronic computer might be. What
>> was well known 30 years later is not really relevant to that question.
>
>Watson had approved the construction of the Harvard Mark I in 1939, FOUR years
>earlier, and it was WELL UNDER WAY in 1943. (It was running in 1944.)
>
>You think that he knew nothing about computers?

The Mark I was a dead end, both because it wasn't electronic, and
because it didn't have the key modern feature of instructions and data
in the same memory. Its only successor was the SSEC which was more of
a PR success than a technical one, since it was installed in the lobby
of an IBM building in NYC.

The later electronic 701 and 650 were under Watson Jr. He definitely
understood computers, and later made the huge bet on S/360.