24 Jan
2011
24 Jan
'11
12:48 p.m.
On 2011 Jan 23, at 6:37 AM, Evan Koblentz wrote:
Because it depends on the definition one is working with. As usual, we
are in the realm of varying definitions. If we go with the modern
understanding of the word, neither the ABC or ENIAC was a computer.
Ditto Colossus (I believe).
I have no problem with that. They are significant machines, they are
certainy staps in the devlopment of the modern computer, but that doesn't
make thmm computers themselves. So?
And of course defitions change over time. 15 years ago (say), if you said
that yuour PC had 1GByte of memory, you would most likely have been
regarded as clueless because you were confuising hard disk size and RAM
size. But go back 35 years and companies like HP refered to 'disk memory'
and 'cassette memory' in their manuals. It's hard to claim that HP were
clueless.
And the defintiion of 'computer' has certain;y changed. I think the
original definiton was 'somebody who does calculations'. Then it bacame
'a person who operates a calculating machine'. And then the
(programamble) machine itself. I think one of the papers on what we would
now call a 'computer' (probably EDSAC) uses the word 'computer' to mean
what we would now call an ALU (or maybe the data path -- ALU + registers).
This site promote the hoary old argument that the
ABC wasn't really a
computer
How can any machine be a "computer" if it doesn't have any ability to
run a program? Perhaps people should stick to facts: "this did
that"; rather than
declarations: "this was that".
Sure. And I don't think anybody doubts that ENIAC made a contribution to
computing.
However, the term 'eelctronic digital computer' in its modern meaning
would seem to imply a stroed program. Byt that definition, ENIAC in its
origianl form was not a 'computer'. Whether ENIAC was the first machine
(after modifications) to run a stored program is something I do not know.
-tony