From: danmcd@CS.Arizona.EDU (Daniel L. McDonald) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 1) Date: 10 Sep 1993 00:24:40 -0700 This is the first of two threads relating to the history of computing. I am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two separate questions. The nature of the computing industry now is that all of the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different form. It's these giants I want to hypothesize about. I'm cross-posting this to alt.folklore.computers, because they will have ample background for this discussion. CASE 1: Eckert & Mauchley had tons of chances with their technically superior UNIVAC machines to dominate the market. Bad luck, and IBM's sales force, made that nearly impossible. In _The Machine That Changed the World_, T. J. Watson Jr. mentions something to the effect of, "If Remington-Rand concentrated on computers, IBM wouldn't have dented the market." What if Remington Rand (or even some of E & M's earlier supporters) had given computers full and adequate funding and sales support. How would this have affected the industry, and even modern technology? -- Dan McDonald |Internet: danmcd@cs.arizona.edu, UUCP: ..!uunet!arizona!danmcd U. of Arizona |BITNET: danmcd%cs.arizona.edu@arizona.BITNET Computer Science| "I'm in a groove now, or is it a rut? 2nd year Grad. | I need some feedback, but all the lines are cut." - Rush From: danmcd@CS.Arizona.EDU (Daniel L. McDonald) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: 10 Sep 1993 00:29:35 -0700 This is the second of two threads relating to the history of computing. I am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two separate questions. The nature of the computing industry now is that all of the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different form. It's these giants I want to hypothesize about. I'm cross-posting this to alt.folklore.computers, because they will have ample background for this discussion. CASE 2 ====== The only reason IBM went into the computer business was because T. J. Watson Jr. was a hell of a lot more of a visionary than his father, who ran IBM until sometime in the 50's (when escapes me). The younger Watson turned the already potent IBM sales force into an army of computer advocates, as well as introducing the ideas of backward compatibility ("OUR machines can read old IBM punched cards!") What if T. J. Watson Jr. was not the visonary he was, but was just another yes-man waiting for Dad's spot? Would IBM be in even worse shape today than it is already? Would Eckert and Mauchley's bad luck have been lessened to the point where we'd joke about UNIVAC dinosaurs rather than IBM dinosaurs? -- Dan McDonald |Internet: danmcd@cs.arizona.edu, UUCP: ..!uunet!arizona!danmcd U. of Arizona |BITNET: danmcd%cs.arizona.edu@arizona.BITNET Computer Science| "I'm in a groove now, or is it a rut? 2nd year Grad. | I need some feedback, but all the lines are cut." - Rush From: ab401@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 12:27:12 GMT danmcd@CS.Arizona.EDU (Daniel L. McDonald) writes: >This is the second of two threads relating to the history of computing. I >am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two >separate questions. The nature of the computing industry now is that all of >the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different >form. It's these giants I want to hypothesize about. [second of two hypotheticals deleted] I think the answer to both of these that only IBM could have been IBM. The reason IBM went anywhere is that the hundreds or thousands of places already using IBM punch card machines had an easy upgrade path. The only way somebody else could have become "the IBM of computing" is if they had provided an upgrade path from IBM punch cards. All of them ignored the "dusty decks" and the huge value of existing data - except IBM. Because of that, only IBM's clearly inferior early computers were wanted at IBM punch card shops, and IBM became the dominant force in the computing world. I don't think Watson Jr. was a visionary - but he _did_ recognize that a company's data was more valuable than the computer/punch card machine it ran on. -- Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com "Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your mid-life crisis?" "Yeah. Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too" - Calvin's mom and dad From: lizard_n@news.delphi.com (LIZARD_NC@DELPHI.COM) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: 12 Sep 1993 22:39:16 -0400 It's quite possible that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there might not have been a computer industry at all. (Or a much more limited one) One factor often verlooked in discussing idustry is the need for mass production of components. Many of the parts used in early IBM's were (I believe) also used in many of the other products made by IBM...typewriters, etc. Thus, if you're ordering ten thousand widgets a month for your typewriters, it's trivial to order two dozen more for this new-fangled "computer" gizmo. If, on the other hand, you're just making a computer, costs for individual components increase dramatically. And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM had the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the tools"..and once this was done, the components could be bought much more cheaply by competitors, who would have been unable to fund the original investment. IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone just as large, faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates? From: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: 13 Sep 1993 03:11:05 GMT In a previous article, lizard_n@news.delphi.com (LIZARD_NC@DELPHI.COM) says: >It's quite possibi that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there >might not have been a computer industry at all. (Or a much more limited >one) One factor often verlooked in discussing idustry is the need for mass >production of components. Many of the parts used in early IBM's were (I >believe) also used in many of the other products made by >IBM...typewriters, etc. Thus, if you're ordering ten thousand widgets a >month for your typewriters, it's trivial to order two dozen more for this >new-fangled "computer" gizmo. If, on the other hand, you're just making a >computer, costs for individual components increase dramatically. > >And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM had >the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the tools"..and >once this was done, the components could be bought much more cheaply by >competitors, who would have been unable to fund the original investment. >IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone just as large, >faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates? > What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long distance sompany. Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ- ent direction then. Instead of being done for businesses that wanted to doing accounting, etc., computers would have been used as communications instruments. It would have been binary e-mail at first, a series of 1's and 0's forming letters much like the old Morse Code, but by the early 70s slightly more modern e-mail systems would have been formed. Heaven knows what effect the breakup of AT&T would have had on this, however. It probably would have finally opened the market for new companies like Apple, etc. -- Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu Heaven is a great big hug that lasts forever "And when that One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name; He writes, not whether you've won or lost, but how you played the game" --Grantland Rice From: ab401@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 13:18:20 GMT dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes: [about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it] > What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their >monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a >computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long >distance sompany. Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ- One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law from selling computers or software to anybody. That's why Unix was given away to universities. And the rest is history! -- Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com "Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your mid-life crisis?" "Yeah. Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too" - Calvin's mom and dad From: jones@pyrite (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 14:57:16 GMT From article <270mgk$4da@news.delphi.com>, by lizard_n@news.delphi.com (LIZARD_NC@DELPHI.COM): > It's quite possibi that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there > might not have been a computer industry at all. This theory fails to explain the birth of the minicomputer industry in the 1960's. DEC, for example, was founded just before 1960 as a manufacturer of digital components -- transistorized logic modules and the hardware needed to use them. Their initial growth was largely powered by the sale of these components to non-computer-related markets, but they quickly began to experiment with building computers using their components, and within 5 years, they had built and sold the foundation machines for three very successful families of computers. > One factor often verlooked in discussing idustry is the need for mass > production of components. Many of the parts used in early IBM's were (I > believe) also used in many of the other products made by > IBM...typewriters, etc. Indeed, most of IBM's early peripherals, such things as line printers, card readers, and card punches, were all modified parts of stand-alone electromechanical accounting machines. On the other hand, DEC was able to build up sufficient production capacity selling digital logic modules that they were able to use it as a foundation for their early computer ventures. It is clear that the early minicomputer pioneers, companies like CDC, DEC and CCC profited immensely from the knowledge gleaned from the first generation of computers, but that section of the industry relied very little on things IBMish. Finally, note that IBM's punched-card-based accounting machines faced a competing I/O technology. IBM used their card-readers, punches, and printers as peripherals, because they were available. Outside of IBM, many computer pioneers chose a different technology for I/O and off-line storage -- the equally mature technology developed out of the telegraph industry known as the teletype with paper-tape reader and punch. The minicomputer industry standardized on paper-tape and teletypes, offering punched-card support because IBM was there, but I suspect that they'd have > > And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM > had the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the tools" There weren't any expensive tools needed to make the tools! For example, DEC's first generation of computers, those based on their systems modules, used hand-soldered single-sided printed circuit boards with hand wired, soldered backplanes. These things required sources of printed circuit boards -- the radio industry was big enough to provide that, and they needed sources of transistors, again, amply provided by the radio industry. Card-edge connectors were new technology, but not a particularly high technology. It was only when DEC got into large scale mass production that they began to need complex "tools to make the tools". By that time, they had plenty of computers available. For example, they used PDP-4 computers to run the numerically controlled wire-wrap machines used to mass produce the PDP-8, PDP-9 and PDP-10 computers. Wire-wrap technology wasn't an IBM technology! It came from Gardner Denver, and DEC and Western Electric were pioneering users of the technology. > IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone just as large, > faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates? As I said, the explosive growth of the minicomputer industry doesn't seem to have needed IBM. But even if an IBM was needed, there were plenty of other big companies that could have driven the industry: The Bell System comes to mind -- AT&T and Western Electric had the muscle, and they provided a huge market demand for such things as vacuum tubes, transistors, card edge connectors, interconnect technology, and other prerequisites for the successful development of a computer industry. Other alternatives to IBM were provided by Burroughs and NCR, IBM's biggest competitors in the commercial business machine arena. All three compaines date back to the late 19th century, and all three had competing electromechanical solutions to the problems of business data processing. The consumer electronics industry -- led by RCA (General Electric), but also including Magnavox and others, was full of potential. Finally, you can't discount the screwball factor! Recall that the first commercial venture to manufacture and sell computers in the UK was Lyons, a bakery chain of all things! They had essentially no relevant technology base, just a nagging problem with accounting that they thought they could improve by using a computer. Out of this was born a very successful early venture in computer manufacturing! Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu From: jones@cs.uiowa.edu Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 17:01:41 GMT From article <270oc9$bgo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler): > In a previous article, lizard_n@news.delphi.com (LIZARD_NC@DELPHI.COM) says: >>It's quite possibi that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there >>might not have been a computer industry at all. ... > What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their > monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a > computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long > distance sompany. Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ- > ent direction then. Instead of being done for businesses that wanted to > doing accounting, etc., computers would have been used as communications > instruments. It would have been binary e-mail at first, a series of 1's > and 0's forming letters much like the old Morse Code, but by the early > 70s slightly more modern e-mail systems would have been formed. It would have been 7 level ASCII (or possibly 5 level BAUDOT) from the start, not at all something like morse code! Remember, teletypes were invented to support long distance telegraphy (a primitive kind of e-mail!) and remember that during the middle of this century, AT&T owned both Teletype corporation and Western Union! Teletypes are old technology, dating back to Samuel Grey's printing telegraph a century ago. By the 1930's, 5-level Baudot code was in common use in newsrooms around the world, and by the dawn of the computer era, teletypes were mature enough that teletypes and competing machines such as the Fridden Flexowriter were almost universally used as console terminals on all non-IBM machines. But yes, with that quibble, you're right -- if AT&T had taken the lead, the leading use of computers would have been in telephony and telegraphy, with other applications such as payroll or accounting falling out as secondary applications areas. Similarly, had Honeywell taken a greater interest in computers back in the 1950's, industrial control systems would have been a primary applications area. (For those not in the know, Honeywell is another company that dates back to the last century -- they started out making thermostats and boiler controls). Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu From: edward.rice@his.com (Edward Rice) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 14:38:33 DF> From: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) > And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM > had the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the > tools"..and once this was done, the components could be bought much more > cheaply by competitors, who would have been unable to fund the original > investment. IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone > just as large, faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates? > DF> What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their DF> monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to DF> develop a computer system with the enormous profits gained from being DF> the only long distance sompany. The Consent Drecree of 1956 prohibited AT&T from competing in information services or hardware. Why do you think they waited until /after/ divestiture, to get into the computer market? From: thayne@unislc.slc.unisys.com (Thayne Forbes) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 00:16:09 GMT Paul Tomblin (ab401@freenet.carleton.ca) wrote: : dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes: : [about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it] : > What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their : >monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a : >computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long : >distance sompany. Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ- : One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law : from selling computers or software to anybody. That's why Unix was given : away to universities. And the rest is history! Far be it for me to correct you two, but from my point of view AT&T did have a huge influence on the industry. Hence all the hokey and redundant line disiplines for running ttys (Teletypes) thru modems. The rumor that I heard is that until quite recently people at Bell Labs still used modems to connect local terminals. Nice idea in the 60's but just extra work today. (Why yes, I am debugging a serial line problem today, why do you ask?). From: edward.rice@his.com (Edward Rice) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 01:26:19 DW> From: jones@pyrite (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) DW> It was only when DEC got into large scale mass production that they DW> began to need complex "tools to make the tools". By that time, they DW> had plenty of computers available. For example, they used PDP-4 DW> computers to run the numerically controlled wire-wrap machines used to DW> mass produce the PDP-8, PDP-9 and PDP-10 computers. I took a tour of the IBM manufacturing facility in Poughkeepsie, NY, with a friend in about 1971. It was stupendous -- the building was the biggest I'd ever been in, and looked like it was about a mile long by a quarter mile wide. They were cranking out 360 systems by the truckload, and a few odd 9020's (perhaps 9020-A's) for the FAA. And the whole thing was run by a very modest handful of 1410's. They had some 7040 or 7010 boxes doing administrative work, and some of the 1410's might really have been 1460's -- I forget the distinction between the two models. DW> Wire-wrap technology wasn't an IBM technology! It came from Gardner DW> Denver, and DEC and Western Electric were pioneering users of the DW> technology. Yup. I used to spend /hours/ standing in the aisles of the Honeywell (formerly GE computer division, now Nippon Electric or Machines Bull) manufacturing facility in Phoenix, watching the Gardner Denver machinery wire-wrap. It was an absolute miracle (of the time, anyway) to see those robots working. (Would have been the early '70's -- wire-wrap was big in those days.) From: robert1@sabu.EBay.Sun.COM (Bob S.- Contractor) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: 16 Sep 1993 21:04:45 GMT >In article ab401@freenet.carleton.ca writes: >danmcd@CS.Arizona.EDU (Daniel L. McDonald) writes: >>This is the second of two threads relating to the history of computing. I >>am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two >>separate questions. The nature of the computing industry now is that all of >>the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different >>form. It's these giants I want to hypothesize about. >>[second of two hypotheticals deleted] > >I think the answer to both of these that only IBM could have been IBM. The >reason IBM went anywhere is that the hundreds or thousands of places already >using IBM punch card machines had an easy upgrade path. The only way >somebody else could have become "the IBM of computing" is if they had >provided an upgrade path from IBM punch cards. All of them ignored the >"dusty decks" and the huge value of existing data - except IBM. Because of >that, only IBM's clearly inferior early computers were wanted at IBM punch >card shops, and IBM became the dominant force in the computing world. > >I don't think Watson Jr. was a visionary - but he _did_ recognize that a >company's data was more valuable than the computer/punch card machine it ran >on. > >-- >Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com >"Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your >mid-life crisis?" "Yeah. Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too" > - Calvin's mom and dad > ============================================= UNIVAC also had punch card tabulating machine installations - thousands of them using 90-column equipment. UNIVAC finally made 80 and 90 column versions of their low end computers (SS80 and 90). ============================================ Sabu From: ab401@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 23:57:11 GMT (Don't blame me - it's Bob S. who screwed up the quoting and attributions here) robert1@sabu.EBay.Sun.COM (Bob S.- Contractor) writes: [I, Paul Tomblin wrote the following] >>I don't think Watson Jr. was a visionary - but he _did_ recognize that a >>company's data was more valuable than the computer/punch card machine it ran >>on. [Bob S. wrote the following] >============================================= >UNIVAC also had punch card tabulating machine installations - thousands >of them using 90-column equipment. UNIVAC finally made 80 and 90 column >versions of their low end computers (SS80 and 90). >============================================ Yes, but did their early computers use the same equipment? I don't think so - I think first they didn't realize that people wanted an upgrade path and an easy way to computerize by stages. From my reading of early computing history, it seems to me that "The Seven Dwarves" went the path of the modern consultant who comes in and says "right - throw out all your old stuff, and buy my new stuff", instead of saying "well, we'll migrate this application to PCs first, then this one, then this one, and eventually you won't need the dinosaur at all". (Substitute PCs for computer, and dinosaur for Punch Card Tabulator for the older perspective) -- Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com "Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your mid-life crisis?" "Yeah. Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too" - Calvin's mom and dad From: erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org (Ethan Dicks) Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Date: 18 Sep 93 05:45:27 EDT Paul Tomblin (ab401@freenet.carleton.ca) wrote: : dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes: : [about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it] : > What about AT&T... : One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law : from selling computers or software to anybody. That's why Unix was given : away to universities. Since I have never worked for a University (as an employee), I am not an authority, but I was always under the impression that AT&T provided UNIX source licenses to Universities for the outrageous sum of $1/year, protecting the copyright of their intellectual property. If they had not maintained a clear history of contractual obligation and financial renumeration, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to defend their copyright in court. In short, the software was cheap to widen acceptance, but it cost anything at all to guard the defensibility of a (potential) copyright infringement suit. -ethan From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 01:41:49 GMT In article , Ethan Dicks wrote: >Paul Tomblin (ab401@freenet.carleton.ca) wrote: >: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes: >: [about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it] >: > What about AT&T... > >: One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law >: from selling computers or software to anybody. That's why Unix was given >: away to universities. > >Since I have never worked for a University (as an employee), I am not an >authority, but I was always under the impression that AT&T provided UNIX >source licenses to Universities for the outrageous sum of $1/year, protecting >the copyright of their intellectual property. If they had not maintained a >clear history of contractual obligation and financial renumeration, they >wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to defend their copyright >in court. > >In short, the software was cheap to widen acceptance, but it cost anything >at all to guard the defensibility of a (potential) copyright infringement suit. > If you were commercial it wasn't so cheap, and they went to great lengths to be sure you didn't expect support -- lost in a move was a framed canceled check for $30,000 -- payable to the Bell Labs scrap materials reclamation center. there has been a small shift in attitude since then. From: daveb@jaws (David Breneman) Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2) Date: 15 Sep 93 19:26:31 GMT Douglas Fowler (dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote: : : What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their : monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a : computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long : distance sompany. Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ- : ent direction then. Instead of being done for businesses that wanted to : doing accounting, etc., computers would have been used as communications : instruments. (Deletions...) In a way they were. The 3B20, the first computer AT&T offered for sale (with the new System V Release 1 OS) was originally desinged to control telephone switching equipment. They *had* it, but couldn't *sell* it until after divestiture. -- David Breneman Email: daveb@jaws.engineering.dgtl.com System Administrator, Voice: 206 881-7544 Fax: 206 556-8033 Software Engineering Services Digital Systems International, Inc. Redmond, Washington, U. S. o' A.