Slashdot Mirror
IBM's First Computer
wiredog writes "From Dr. Dobbs History of Computing comes the story of the IBM 604. IBMs first programmable "computer". With 16 instructions in the instruction set, 40 program steps storable in memory, a blazingly fast 1000 instructions/sec at 50 kHz and power consumption of 7.59kW (230VAC @ 33A)."
Computers have been working in pretty much the same way since then and it kind of reminds me the way cars continue to use the same archaic technology used back in 1900, only greatly refined.This is simply because it's easier (and cheaper) for manufacturers to maintain a single common base for their products for as long as possible before throwing it away and starting all over again. The choice, I believe, is ours: Mass production or revolution?
:).
Well, the way that machine code works is vaguely similar, except that the hardware implementation has changed on a *fundamental* level since then, and we have several layers of increasingly abstracted software on top that couldn't exist back then, and have developed several new branches of engineering involved in the design of hardware and software for computing devices...
No, no innovation or revolution there.
Sorry if I'm sounding a bit harsh. It's just that I've seen the "we've been using [foo] forever, we're shackled to it and should switch to something new and revolutionary" argument a few times now, and it almost always a) ignores a lot of fundamental change that's gone on over the years both in [foo] and in the design and use of [foo], and b) fails to propose an alternative.
What would be the "revolution" that you hope for?
Optical computers? The computer hardware layer would change utterly, but the design concepts used wouldn't, and the software would show almost no change at all. You'd also be stuck with a feature resolution no smaller than one wavelength of light (about half a micron to a micron).
Nanomechanical computers? Same deal (though without the feature size limit). You'd still be implementing digital logic, so all of the upper layers of the design and use of computers would stay the same.
The only thing that's fundamentally different both in design and use is quantum computing, and I'll bet that even that would have strong similarities on several levels.
Technological progress rarely happens by revolution - it's by evolution of existing ideas and devices, sometimes put together in new ways. Over time, the result of these changes can be profound, but the idea that you *must* turn the world on its head to move forward is a misconception.
Sorry if I'm being impolite; this is just something that's bothered me for a while
Enhancements included an increased clock speed (from 35kHz to a screaming 50 kHz, wahey!!), use of miniature tubes, capacity of 20 plugboard steps per card instruction, 32 digit capacity, new flip-flops, and use of standardised control circuitry to make maintenance easier.
It wasn't the first IBM capable of division, that was the 602, and it wasn't a stored-program computer, as it executed straight off the card.
It's sort of questionable if the 604 was a 'computer' in any modern sense, but it was a lot more versatile and reliable than previous electronic calculators, and IBM managed to ship 5600 or so. Also, the demand for 604 parts basically kicked off the 'computer grade vacuum tube' market.
TomV
Ah, everyone always forgets about the IBM Mech1. This mechanical computer was programmable, certainly not in the modern sense. It was availble 15 years earlier.
... an incredible accomplishment for it's day.
It had 19 ten-digit decimal registers, and was fully programmable by inserting replacable camshafts. Although not programmable on the fly, it did have memory (the state of the machine), and it was in fact programmable, with screwdrivers and wrenches.
It required a bit of oil and greese, but was known for calculating Pi to 190 places in under 3 minutes