![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The picture here is somewhat lacking. I tried to increase the size a bit so it might be readable but it was just causing rendering problems (try it, you'll see.. works at 300px and 600px but not 450px or near there). The image at it's image page is also having some difficulty. How it is now is pretty good, but if there is anywhere we can find a better picture of this it would be better to have one where you could read the components. - SocratesJedi 10:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
User:gunter, please provide a cite for "the zuse z1 in 38' was the first to have seperate memory & control sections, not the abc."
Even the Encarta says otherwise. Thanks, â Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
-- Gunter 02:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) http://www.epemag.com/zuse/part3a.htm The Z1 was programmed via a punch tape and a punch tape reader. There was a clear separation between the punch tape reader, the control unit (which supervised the whole machine and the execution of the instructions), the arithmetic unit (with registers R1 and R2), the memory, and the input/output devices.
btw. Encarta is not an authority on anything.
Did the article (or device) recently get attention somewhere? It's been vandalized more in the last day than ever before. â Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Probably these simpletons come to wikipedia, see search string, type in the first thing that comes to their mind...abc...and then see computer. :) -- Gunter 12:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A few paragraphs from an article called ABC_Computer seemed non-redundant so I merged them here, and got rid of the duplicate article. -- Wtshymanski 22:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether the reference to "Research Corporation of America" really means RCA ( Radio Corporation of America) of David Sarnoff fame. Ancheta Wis 08:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph about the ABC being a specific purpose machine was in there because that point is important. The ABC could solve linear simultaneous equations. That is incredibly useful, but does not a general-purpose computer make. There's a big difference. -- Robert Merkel 07:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
(Hey - no fair! You don't need to have a DVD drive to be called 'a computer' - but you DO need programmability - that's the difference here. If this article didn't keep claiming that the ABC was a computer - but admitted that it was merely a revolutionary, digitial calculator - then we wouldn't need to keep qualifying the claims with "but not programmable". If the ENIAC article claimed it to be a multimedia entertainment center or something, then we might feel compelled to explain that it did not in fact play DVD's! SteveBaker 06:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
SteveBaker, I agree with all of your points, but I nevertheless think your recent edits were too aggressive. First of all, the "some claim" dodge is very weak. I also think that substituting "calculator" is simply trolling. The ABC was a "computer", just not in the modern sense of the word, as "digital general-purpose reprogrammable stored-program computer" has taken over the term. Clearly there are still partisans on this topic (our dear anon is obviously one of them), so why stick a finger in their eye? A reliable, NPOV source (Computer by Cambell-Kelly and Aspray, ISBNÂ 0-465-02989-2) calls the machine a "computer", though it points out that "the evidence" of the degree to which Mauchly was influenced (or stole ideas) is "massive and conflicting".
I think a much more NPOV position is that the ABC "may have been the first digital computer", that it certainly was "the first machine that used binary arithmetic", but that it was not a general-purpose computer in the modern sense and "never came into fully reliable operation", and only in the 1960s did the full extent of Atanasoff's contribution become widely known. The Book Engines of the Mind also supports this story, and the author interviewed Atanasoff in person before his death! -- Gnetwerker 08:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, you two are confusing a definition and a term with that of a name. A calculator is a calculator by name. Even a programmable calculator is not called a computer (which you agree that it is) because it's name is "calculator" and happens to be programmable (an adjective) â ergo programmable calculator. If I had a fancy-enough-for-you alarm clock, you still would call it an alarm clock because that is what it is by name and function. Or an extremely modern copying machine that is programmable...is still a copying machine by name. Or the next gen TVs (post-HDCP) that may run a java virtual machine for such functions as playing games or decrypting encrypted channels â it's still a television by name. Just because none of them are called computers does not make them any less of a computer. Cburnett 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Cburnett's edits. The reason has more to do with writing and English than with content. The first sentence says "Atanasoff-Berry Computer", so there is no reason to repeat computer three or four words later in the sentence. A computer is a computing device, all computing devices may or may not be computers -- the dichotomy sets up the (enlarged) section on the controversy. Regarding naming the court, the top section is an Overview -- the court details are included in the controversy section. It is not important for someone reading the the opening section to know exactly which court, though you could say "federal patent court" or whatever if you really wanted to. -- Gnetwerker 20:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the ABC diagram, which is claimed to be PD as a work of the US government, actually seems to belong to Iowa State University. If that's the case the copyright status should be changed and the image may need to be removed/replaced. Does anybody have more information on the image's copyright status? -- uberpenguin 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be missing words in the following sentence, which doesn't seem to be grammatically complete.
"Much of Atanasoff's work was not widely known until rediscovered in the 1960s, and conflicting claims about the first instance of an electronic computer." Adrian Robson 09:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Fixed by Blainster April 8. Many thanks! Adrian Robson 10:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the following quotation is a tautology:
Simply put, Atanasoff either is or is not the inventor of the first electronic special-purpose computer.
As such, I'm not sure what it adds to an encyclopedic article. The fact that it's quoted from a book doesn't give it any greater usefulness. Can anyone provide any thoughts as to why this quotation is useful to readers seeking guidance on Atanasoff's role in the development of computers? Adrian Robson 10:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-07-05Â 23:49Z
1. electronic digital computer is the Accounting apparatus of Arthur Dickinson US Pat. No. 2,580,740, (1940), 2. electronic digital computer is the Calculating machine of Joseph Desch and Robert Mumma (1940). US Pat. No. 2,595,045 3-4. are Atanasoff ABC and the Electronic Computer of Samuel B Williams (1942),US Pat. No. 2,502,360 5. is the electronic computing device of Morton-Florry US Pat= No. 2,409,689 6. is the electronic calculating machine of Phelps US Pat.No. 2,624,507 7. ENIAC US Pat. No. 3,120,606
ENIAC is not a copy of the ABC. ABC is a binary, serial computer. It consists of 30 serial ASM (Adding-Substraction Machines), the ENIAC is a decimal parallel computer. The small ENIAC with 2 accumulators looks more like the Stibitz computer US Pat. No.2,668,661. The Stibitz Computer is binary, electro-mechanical, parallel, digital. This is the first computer with remote access and very much looks like SIMD machine. ABC is also SIMD, but serial. The important difference of ABC with whatever else is the regenerative memory. It contains 30 word by 50 bits accessed sequentially bit-by-bit. The regenerative memory is the copied bit. However it is untouchable because there is no patent for ABCq the construction is different and they do not claim "first" or the sort.
Why is the trial Honeywell v. Sperry Rand. In the ENIAC patent in the background section Col 2., rows 11-19 is written âA machine has been constructed at the University of Pennsylvania which embodies our invention. This machine, hereinafter referred to as ENIAC (from the initials of its name, âElectronic Numerical Integrator and Computerâ) is the first general purpose automatic electronic digital computing machine known to us. Its speed considerably exceeds that of any non-electronic machine and its accuracy is in general superior to that of any non-digital machine (such as differential analyzer)." The key words are "known to us". Behind these word is Atanasoff. Do not forget the trial Sperry Rand v. Bell Labs very, very important trial. Based on this words Honeywell creates a complaint for invalidity, patent fraud, anti-trust violation of the Sherman law 1890, anti-trust violation of the Clayton ammendment 1914 and preferential licensing.
Here is the website of the decision http://www.ushistory.org/more/eniac/intro.htm. Go and read. The judge does not rule that Atanasoff is the inventor of the first electronic computer, but read for yourself. It is a shocking story. One lie is substituted with another lie, but to my opinion bigger. 101.167.13.58 ( talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The article says: " The machine, initiated in 1937, was capable of solving up to 29 simultaneous linear equations and was successfully tested before the project was abandoned in 1942..."
A reader could interpret this as meaning that it was first tested as a fully working machine in 1942. Does anyone have any sources that indicate whether this is correct, or was it in working condition earlier than 1942? Adrian Robson 11:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"and all of its pieces except for one memory drum were discarded"
I believe more of the ABC was preserved than just a memory drum. The Burks books will provide definitive reference. Robert K S 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-07-27Â 21:50Z
The main problem with this article on the " AtanasoffâBerry Computer" is that it was not really a computer in the modern sense. It was just a calculator. One could not program it. On the other hand, those who claim it was a computer must also include the old calculators of the 1600s, 1700s etc. This would affect many Wikipedia articles. Science History 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this sentence:
-- 75.19.73.101 ( talk) 06:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"The system weighed more than seven hundred pounds (320 kg).and was 800 square feet (74 m2) in all. It contained approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) of wire, 280 dual-triode vacuum tubes, 31 thyratrons, and was about the size of a desk." Can someone explain to me how something the size of a desk is 800 square feet? I'm assuming this is a typo, but I don't want to make the call. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.89.222 ( talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone please fix this. 205.175.225.23 ( talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Digitalization is the main breakthrough in computing, and is what makes computers to-day what they are. Programmable non- and semi-digital devices existed even before and during his invention, but achieved little. Please, stop debasing Atanasoff's major contribution to human development. --Eurotrash-flash 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.videosurf.com/video/from-one-john-v-atanasoff-part-3-57182909 --Eurotrash-flash 22:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Eurotrash-flash ( talk ⢠contribs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6j-CWTDeqQ&feature=related --Eurotrash-flash 23:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWw2ZvRqrGk&feature=related --Eurotrash-flash 22:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Eurotrash-flash ( talk ⢠contribs)
Admittedly, they have omitted certain developments (Wikipedia makes no difference in fallibility too)but only after the time of the real fully electronic-digital step was made by John V Atanasoff toward digital computation.(The comparison betwixt digital and analog design is often understated.) Even then, the videos neither change nor challenge his first position at all. As to the rest you have said, I agree.--Eurotrash-flash 14:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The bot that gives inflation-adjusted value of ABC reads $0.52 million. Can't this be converted to $520,ooo --- a much more readable form? Kdammers ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The article used to but no longer mentions that it was designed to solve 29 Simultaneous Equations as is mentioned in the August, 1988 issue of Scientific American feature article on the A.B.C. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.89.185.219 ( talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I really don't think this is sufficiently relevant to the topic of this article, see WP:IRRELEVANT. -- TedColes ( talk) 07:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The article claims "The machine was, however, the first to implement three critical ideas that are still part of every modern computer:
However, it seems 1 and 3 were already done by the Z1, and the second was done by the Z2, which can be dated to 1938, and 1940, respectively.
I will replace it with: "The machine was, however, the first
" â Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaZeroX7 ( talk ⢠contribs) 00:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The picture here is somewhat lacking. I tried to increase the size a bit so it might be readable but it was just causing rendering problems (try it, you'll see.. works at 300px and 600px but not 450px or near there). The image at it's image page is also having some difficulty. How it is now is pretty good, but if there is anywhere we can find a better picture of this it would be better to have one where you could read the components. - SocratesJedi 10:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
User:gunter, please provide a cite for "the zuse z1 in 38' was the first to have seperate memory & control sections, not the abc."
Even the Encarta says otherwise. Thanks, â Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
-- Gunter 02:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) http://www.epemag.com/zuse/part3a.htm The Z1 was programmed via a punch tape and a punch tape reader. There was a clear separation between the punch tape reader, the control unit (which supervised the whole machine and the execution of the instructions), the arithmetic unit (with registers R1 and R2), the memory, and the input/output devices.
btw. Encarta is not an authority on anything.
Did the article (or device) recently get attention somewhere? It's been vandalized more in the last day than ever before. â Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Probably these simpletons come to wikipedia, see search string, type in the first thing that comes to their mind...abc...and then see computer. :) -- Gunter 12:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A few paragraphs from an article called ABC_Computer seemed non-redundant so I merged them here, and got rid of the duplicate article. -- Wtshymanski 22:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether the reference to "Research Corporation of America" really means RCA ( Radio Corporation of America) of David Sarnoff fame. Ancheta Wis 08:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph about the ABC being a specific purpose machine was in there because that point is important. The ABC could solve linear simultaneous equations. That is incredibly useful, but does not a general-purpose computer make. There's a big difference. -- Robert Merkel 07:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
(Hey - no fair! You don't need to have a DVD drive to be called 'a computer' - but you DO need programmability - that's the difference here. If this article didn't keep claiming that the ABC was a computer - but admitted that it was merely a revolutionary, digitial calculator - then we wouldn't need to keep qualifying the claims with "but not programmable". If the ENIAC article claimed it to be a multimedia entertainment center or something, then we might feel compelled to explain that it did not in fact play DVD's! SteveBaker 06:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
SteveBaker, I agree with all of your points, but I nevertheless think your recent edits were too aggressive. First of all, the "some claim" dodge is very weak. I also think that substituting "calculator" is simply trolling. The ABC was a "computer", just not in the modern sense of the word, as "digital general-purpose reprogrammable stored-program computer" has taken over the term. Clearly there are still partisans on this topic (our dear anon is obviously one of them), so why stick a finger in their eye? A reliable, NPOV source (Computer by Cambell-Kelly and Aspray, ISBNÂ 0-465-02989-2) calls the machine a "computer", though it points out that "the evidence" of the degree to which Mauchly was influenced (or stole ideas) is "massive and conflicting".
I think a much more NPOV position is that the ABC "may have been the first digital computer", that it certainly was "the first machine that used binary arithmetic", but that it was not a general-purpose computer in the modern sense and "never came into fully reliable operation", and only in the 1960s did the full extent of Atanasoff's contribution become widely known. The Book Engines of the Mind also supports this story, and the author interviewed Atanasoff in person before his death! -- Gnetwerker 08:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, you two are confusing a definition and a term with that of a name. A calculator is a calculator by name. Even a programmable calculator is not called a computer (which you agree that it is) because it's name is "calculator" and happens to be programmable (an adjective) â ergo programmable calculator. If I had a fancy-enough-for-you alarm clock, you still would call it an alarm clock because that is what it is by name and function. Or an extremely modern copying machine that is programmable...is still a copying machine by name. Or the next gen TVs (post-HDCP) that may run a java virtual machine for such functions as playing games or decrypting encrypted channels â it's still a television by name. Just because none of them are called computers does not make them any less of a computer. Cburnett 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Cburnett's edits. The reason has more to do with writing and English than with content. The first sentence says "Atanasoff-Berry Computer", so there is no reason to repeat computer three or four words later in the sentence. A computer is a computing device, all computing devices may or may not be computers -- the dichotomy sets up the (enlarged) section on the controversy. Regarding naming the court, the top section is an Overview -- the court details are included in the controversy section. It is not important for someone reading the the opening section to know exactly which court, though you could say "federal patent court" or whatever if you really wanted to. -- Gnetwerker 20:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the ABC diagram, which is claimed to be PD as a work of the US government, actually seems to belong to Iowa State University. If that's the case the copyright status should be changed and the image may need to be removed/replaced. Does anybody have more information on the image's copyright status? -- uberpenguin 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be missing words in the following sentence, which doesn't seem to be grammatically complete.
"Much of Atanasoff's work was not widely known until rediscovered in the 1960s, and conflicting claims about the first instance of an electronic computer." Adrian Robson 09:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Fixed by Blainster April 8. Many thanks! Adrian Robson 10:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the following quotation is a tautology:
Simply put, Atanasoff either is or is not the inventor of the first electronic special-purpose computer.
As such, I'm not sure what it adds to an encyclopedic article. The fact that it's quoted from a book doesn't give it any greater usefulness. Can anyone provide any thoughts as to why this quotation is useful to readers seeking guidance on Atanasoff's role in the development of computers? Adrian Robson 10:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-07-05Â 23:49Z
1. electronic digital computer is the Accounting apparatus of Arthur Dickinson US Pat. No. 2,580,740, (1940), 2. electronic digital computer is the Calculating machine of Joseph Desch and Robert Mumma (1940). US Pat. No. 2,595,045 3-4. are Atanasoff ABC and the Electronic Computer of Samuel B Williams (1942),US Pat. No. 2,502,360 5. is the electronic computing device of Morton-Florry US Pat= No. 2,409,689 6. is the electronic calculating machine of Phelps US Pat.No. 2,624,507 7. ENIAC US Pat. No. 3,120,606
ENIAC is not a copy of the ABC. ABC is a binary, serial computer. It consists of 30 serial ASM (Adding-Substraction Machines), the ENIAC is a decimal parallel computer. The small ENIAC with 2 accumulators looks more like the Stibitz computer US Pat. No.2,668,661. The Stibitz Computer is binary, electro-mechanical, parallel, digital. This is the first computer with remote access and very much looks like SIMD machine. ABC is also SIMD, but serial. The important difference of ABC with whatever else is the regenerative memory. It contains 30 word by 50 bits accessed sequentially bit-by-bit. The regenerative memory is the copied bit. However it is untouchable because there is no patent for ABCq the construction is different and they do not claim "first" or the sort.
Why is the trial Honeywell v. Sperry Rand. In the ENIAC patent in the background section Col 2., rows 11-19 is written âA machine has been constructed at the University of Pennsylvania which embodies our invention. This machine, hereinafter referred to as ENIAC (from the initials of its name, âElectronic Numerical Integrator and Computerâ) is the first general purpose automatic electronic digital computing machine known to us. Its speed considerably exceeds that of any non-electronic machine and its accuracy is in general superior to that of any non-digital machine (such as differential analyzer)." The key words are "known to us". Behind these word is Atanasoff. Do not forget the trial Sperry Rand v. Bell Labs very, very important trial. Based on this words Honeywell creates a complaint for invalidity, patent fraud, anti-trust violation of the Sherman law 1890, anti-trust violation of the Clayton ammendment 1914 and preferential licensing.
Here is the website of the decision http://www.ushistory.org/more/eniac/intro.htm. Go and read. The judge does not rule that Atanasoff is the inventor of the first electronic computer, but read for yourself. It is a shocking story. One lie is substituted with another lie, but to my opinion bigger. 101.167.13.58 ( talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The article says: " The machine, initiated in 1937, was capable of solving up to 29 simultaneous linear equations and was successfully tested before the project was abandoned in 1942..."
A reader could interpret this as meaning that it was first tested as a fully working machine in 1942. Does anyone have any sources that indicate whether this is correct, or was it in working condition earlier than 1942? Adrian Robson 11:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"and all of its pieces except for one memory drum were discarded"
I believe more of the ABC was preserved than just a memory drum. The Burks books will provide definitive reference. Robert K S 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-07-27Â 21:50Z
The main problem with this article on the " AtanasoffâBerry Computer" is that it was not really a computer in the modern sense. It was just a calculator. One could not program it. On the other hand, those who claim it was a computer must also include the old calculators of the 1600s, 1700s etc. This would affect many Wikipedia articles. Science History 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this sentence:
-- 75.19.73.101 ( talk) 06:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"The system weighed more than seven hundred pounds (320 kg).and was 800 square feet (74 m2) in all. It contained approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) of wire, 280 dual-triode vacuum tubes, 31 thyratrons, and was about the size of a desk." Can someone explain to me how something the size of a desk is 800 square feet? I'm assuming this is a typo, but I don't want to make the call. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.89.222 ( talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone please fix this. 205.175.225.23 ( talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Digitalization is the main breakthrough in computing, and is what makes computers to-day what they are. Programmable non- and semi-digital devices existed even before and during his invention, but achieved little. Please, stop debasing Atanasoff's major contribution to human development. --Eurotrash-flash 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.videosurf.com/video/from-one-john-v-atanasoff-part-3-57182909 --Eurotrash-flash 22:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Eurotrash-flash ( talk ⢠contribs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6j-CWTDeqQ&feature=related --Eurotrash-flash 23:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWw2ZvRqrGk&feature=related --Eurotrash-flash 22:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Eurotrash-flash ( talk ⢠contribs)
Admittedly, they have omitted certain developments (Wikipedia makes no difference in fallibility too)but only after the time of the real fully electronic-digital step was made by John V Atanasoff toward digital computation.(The comparison betwixt digital and analog design is often understated.) Even then, the videos neither change nor challenge his first position at all. As to the rest you have said, I agree.--Eurotrash-flash 14:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The bot that gives inflation-adjusted value of ABC reads $0.52 million. Can't this be converted to $520,ooo --- a much more readable form? Kdammers ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The article used to but no longer mentions that it was designed to solve 29 Simultaneous Equations as is mentioned in the August, 1988 issue of Scientific American feature article on the A.B.C. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.89.185.219 ( talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I really don't think this is sufficiently relevant to the topic of this article, see WP:IRRELEVANT. -- TedColes ( talk) 07:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The article claims "The machine was, however, the first to implement three critical ideas that are still part of every modern computer:
However, it seems 1 and 3 were already done by the Z1, and the second was done by the Z2, which can be dated to 1938, and 1940, respectively.
I will replace it with: "The machine was, however, the first
" â Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaZeroX7 ( talk ⢠contribs) 00:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)