21–30 of 39 posts
It was preceded by the more advanced Burroughs B5000, which had a stack-based architecture, was directly programmable in Algol60, and had virtual memory.
EDIT: $500mil-$1bil on development part per another comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and then abruptly stop These were first computers I was exposed to. As students and later young engineers working with them, we were taught an important principle: "nothing you can do in software can break the hardware". Imagine then my bewilderment when, working with a tape and having some strange-looking "Attention required", I went down to the ceiling only to see the tape still on reels but cut in two pieces.
Its funny. In the early days of consumer PC's the feeling was very much the opposite. There were persistent rumors of "killer poke" commands (some of which were at least partially true) where an incorrect software command could destroy the hardware.
I'd love to see the original authoritative source that the IBM 360 project cost 5 billion in 1960 dollars. Something about that seems way overstated. I am wondering if it's just one of those facts that has been repeated so long that it's just taken for granted as being correct. 5 Billion appears to well exceed the cost to develop the Boeing 747 which was a massive bet the company undertaking.
Author of the post here, thanks for reading! Here's a source citing the $5B figure: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/system3...
http://www.smecc.org/The%20Architecture%20%20of%20the%20Burr...
Burroughs changed their name to Unisys. They still sell those machines although not with the custom CPU's with hardware-enforced safety/security. (sighs)
It was preceded by the more advanced Burroughs B5000, which had a stack-based architecture, was directly programmable in Algol60, and had virtual memory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author of the post here, thanks for reading! Here's a source citing the $5B figure: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/system3...
That $5B appears to be the cost of the entire project, including production. In your essay, you wrote "development cost". Is that meant to include production? Because it appears the development cost as its own line item was no more than $1B. Have you read Wise's Fortune article to confirm that it says what you think it does? I haven't been able to find it online. Also, I think it's interesting that nearly all of the…
I agree. Not that any of this really matters but I hate when inaccurate figures are just repeated and taken as fact which is why I raised the point in my original question. Actually just because the number seemed to high to be true.
We've had two other cases of this that I can remember recently. One was the ADA and flossing. [1]
The other was the "8 glasses a day of water" which is something that has been repeated as gospel. [2]
As a general rule people will always throw in the kitchen sink when stating numbers and make them seem as large as possible. [3] Additionally anyone who was ever interviewed for a news story will know that whatever you repeat to a reporter is rarely questioned. It's taken as a fact and if it ends up in a major newspaper (say NYT or WSJ) it is taken as vetted and authentic. (I have been quoted so that is why I say this..)
[1] And now I am seeing this: http://www.ada.org/en/press-room/news-releases/2016-archive/...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/upshot/no-you-do-not-have-...
[3] Unless of course it serves them to make them as small as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That $5B appears to be the cost of the entire project, including production. In your essay, you wrote "development cost". Is that meant to include production? Because it appears the development cost as its own line item was no more than $1B. Have you read Wise's Fortune article to confirm that it says what you think it does? I haven't been able to find it online. Also, I think it's interesting that nearly all of the…
> That $5B appears to be the cost of the entire project, including production. I agree. Not that any of this really matters but I hate when inaccurate figures are just repeated and taken as fact which is why I raised the point in my original question. Actually just because the number seemed to high to be true. We've had two other cases of this that I can remember recently. One was the ADA and flossing. [1] The other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That $5B appears to be the cost of the entire project, including production. I agree. Not that any of this really matters but I hate when inaccurate figures are just repeated and taken as fact which is why I raised the point in my original question. Actually just because the number seemed to high to be true. We've had two other cases of this that I can remember recently. One was the ADA and flossing. [1] The other…
In fairness, the figure is mostly accurate. Development cost $1 billion, the entire project including production cost $5 billion. It was a bet-the-company move.
I think what "modular" is alluding to in the title is that the 360 introduced a whole line of compatible computers, rather than making each computer a separate architecture as had been previous practice.
In other words, the 1959 IBM 1401 was modular in the sense of being made from modules, but it wasn't modular in the sense of being part of a product line. (The improved 1410 was only sort of compatible.)
SMS link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Standard_Modular_System
I'd love to see the original authoritative source that the IBM 360 project cost 5 billion in 1960 dollars. Something about that seems way overstated. I am wondering if it's just one of those facts that has been repeated so long that it's just taken for granted as being correct. 5 Billion appears to well exceed the cost to develop the Boeing 747 which was a massive bet the company undertaking.
I'd love to see the original authoritative source that the IBM 360 project cost 5 billion in 1960 dollars. Something about that seems way overstated. I am wondering if it's just one of those facts that has been repeated so long that it's just taken for granted as being correct. 5 Billion appears to well exceed the cost to develop the Boeing 747 which was a massive bet the company undertaking.
I'd like to know what a hardware program costing ~US$38 billion in 2016 dollars would look like.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-08-05/news/os-nasa-...