Roger Holmes wrote:
>From: Liam
Proven <lproven at gmail.com>
Or better still, write a complementary piece -
hell, perhaps we could
do it collectively on the list as a group effort? - and submit it to
Tom's HW as a follow-on, filling in the gaps...?
Yes it would have to be a joint effort. None of us can ever know it
all, but can we cover enough? An approximate count up of 'big
computer list' up to 1980 is about 7 to 8 hundred machines. I think
this is too many. Should we perhaps limit it to production machines
made in quantities of at least, say ten, or a hundred. But then would
we want to omit machines like Atlas? Probably not. Any ideas on a
more useful measure of what should be included?
Just a suggestion. Up to about 1960, most (all?) computers were vacuum
tubes. You might want to use that for the initial separation and specify
a different set of parameters for vacuum tubes vs transistors.
In addition, very early computers were often one of a kind. Prior to
1945, most would have been classified due to the war effort. I am
not sure that those systems could even properly be called computers.
For example, the IBM punched card equipment was certainly not
a computer, but could have be used (and probably was) to build
a data base.
Up to 1950, perhaps even 1955, a university may have built the
computer, so access would have been much different than for a
commercial system. The quantity would also have been very
different than for a computer built by a commercial company.
As for a useful measure, an initial list might be helpful with the
organization which built the computer, an estimate of the number
produced and the basic hardware type (vacuum tubes vs transistors).
That list might yield valuable insight as to which computers are
valuable to be included. Certainly, the value for the numbers produced
will likely show that the production totals increased decade by decade
and that during the early years, small numbers (less than ten - often
only one) would not preclude a computer from be included in a list
of important systems.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
