"Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
I wrote: >> While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending >> on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were >> designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale >> mainframe machines housed in the glass-walled rooms where only "special" people were allowed >> anywhere near them. ^^ ^^ To which, Rich A. replied: >This, like "Multics never got out of the lab", is a bogo-meme. (Thanks, Neil!) > People did not *need* to get near the mainframes in order to do their jobs, unlike the jobs for which the small systems > (and you forgot the PDP-11 in your list) were created. Most programming on mainframes was special purpose, batch oriented, data >processing connected to accounting systems (GL/AP/AR/PR), and a lot of the rest was high intensity engineering (where at this level >even physics is engineering) which needed lots of data handling for short runs. Yeah...I can agree with that. But, part of the talk was about getting "up close" with the computer, at a personal level - hands-on. The glass-walled room machines weren't that way, and thus weren't considered "personal computers", for just the reason you mentioned -- the work typically done on them was of a different class of work that didn't require any kind of hands-on activity with the machine (except for the operators, who loaded up the jobs, managed the tapes, and gathered the printouts). The discussion had gone from talk about the IBM 709/709X computers, which were more "glass room" type machines, to discussion about personal computers. I suffered some angst over the discussion of machines like Apple IIs or even Altair 8800's as the first personal computers, when in fact, the general term applied to computers that came long before these machines. Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very expensive, and required a lot of support -- that meant special power, air conditioning, raised floors, and highly-trained people. The "management" of these big machine installations had a lot at stake...and as such, they were very protective of their machines, which is most of the reason they were encased in glass (they needed to be glass to be able to show them off without letting people in...in the days, big computer installations were class icons). It wasn't really so much that the work that the consumers (I wouldn't use the word "users" to describe them, because they were never really "using" the machine) of the results of the machines didn't need to have access to the machines...it was more because the management only wanted those who had all the necessary training and knowledge operating the machines to assure the maximum amount of productivity for their multi-million dollar investments to gain the best return on that investment, as well as safety for these "delicate" machines. As for the PDP-11, it was indeed a significant omission. Honestly, I ran out of time. I missed the PB 250, which certainly should have been on the list, and the PDP-11...and I'm sure that there are quite a number of other machines that were missed. Compiling a full list of this class of machines, even during this somewhat limited time period, would be a daunting process.There were many companies that popped up in the 1960s, along with those from established computer makers, that marketed small computers that were generally intended to be used on a single-user basis, by individuals. Examples off the top of my head are Computer Automation (PDC-808), Smith Corona/Marchant SCM 7816, 3M (yes, the adhesive people) 2018, Control Data 160/160-A, Digital Equipment PDP-1, HP 2100-series, Data Acquisition Corp. DAC-512.it could go on and on. I was writing my message as I was getting ready to head off to work, and had to stop before I ended up being late. -Rick --- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 11/15/2017 02:39 PM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of > the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very > expensive, and required a lot of support -- that meant special > power, air conditioning, raised floors, and highly-trained people. > The "management" of these big machine installations had a lot at > stake...and as such, they were very protective of their machines, > which is most of the reason they were encased in glass (they needed > to be glass to be able to show them off without letting people > in...in the days, big computer installations were class icons). Remember also, that this was long before the indoor "no smoking" rules. Many folks smoked like chimneys and just about every installation that I experienced back then prohibited smoking around the machines. Food and drink around the machines was also a definite no-no. Not just to prevent contamination (e.g. dumping your Coke into the keyboard of the operator's console), but also because food attracts vermin, which can do a number on those cables underneath the raised floor. So the "fishbowl" approach made a lot of sense. --Chuck
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > On 11/15/2017 02:39 PM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > >> Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of >> the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very >> expensive, and required a lot of support -- that meant special >> power, air conditioning, raised floors, and highly-trained people. >> The "management" of these big machine installations had a lot at >> stake...and as such, they were very protective of their machines, >> which is most of the reason they were encased in glass (they needed >> to be glass to be able to show them off without letting people >> in...in the days, big computer installations were class icons). > > Remember also, that this was long before the indoor "no smoking" rules. > Many folks smoked like chimneys and just about every installation that > I experienced back then prohibited smoking around the machines. Then again, our college computer room (1973) was the place where the computer services director was often see, chain smoking away. No mainframe there, but a large PDP-11 and an IBM 1620. Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. paul
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: > > > Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the > same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. With all of the possibly apocryphal stories of computer users mistaking CD drive trays for coffee cup holders, I can't help but wonder if anybody has ever mistaken the metallic cartridge slot cavity of the Atari 400/800 for an ash tray with a flip-up lid. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays?? HA, they had auto-style CIGARETTE LIGHTERS BUILT INTO the "radar screen" consoles! Take a look at a photo! Jon
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 2017-11-15 10:07 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays?? HA, they had auto-style CIGARETTE LIGHTERS BUILT INTO the "radar screen" consoles! Take a look at a photo! Jon The IBM 803 proof machine developed in the late 40s had an ash tray built in, it was the only IBM machine I ever saw that had one. I stood right in front of the scopes at a SAGE site but I don't recall the ash trays or lighters. But I do remember the light guns, blue lighting and the aful flash of the high persistance scope when they whrere drawn. Paul.
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 11/15/2017 09:13 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: On 2017-11-15 10:07 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays?? HA, they had auto-style CIGARETTE LIGHTERS BUILT INTO the "radar screen" consoles! Take a look at a photo! Jon The IBM 803 proof machine developed in the late 40s had an ash tray built in, it was the only IBM machine I ever saw that had one.I stood right in front of the scopes at a SAGE site but I don't recall the ash trays or lighters. But I do remember the light guns, blue lighting and the aful flash of the high persistance scope when they whrere drawn. Paul. Check out this photo : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment#/media/File:SAGE_console.jpeg next to the ashtray, there's a little round hole with a chrome ring - that's where a standard car cigarette lighter plugged in. A 6 V lighter would work fine off the massive filament transformers these things had. Jon
