Xref: utzoo comp.sys.misc:1523 comp.arch:5319 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!nyser!njin!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.arch Subject: Re: Clippinger-modified ENIAC and June 48 Manchester Mark I (was: Info...) Message-ID:Date: 30 Jun 88 08:56:25 GMT References: <198@marque.mu.edu> <3255@thorin.cs.unc.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 47 In article <3255@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, omondi@unc.cs.unc.edu (Amos Omondi) writes: > In article , webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: < < ... < < On the second point, I have so far seen no references to an exact day < < in 1948 when the ``first ENIAC'' program was run. Note that the ENIAC < ^^^ < This is probably understandable since someone appears to have remembered < these modifications only years after ... Hmmm. I am not sure quite what you mean to be implying there. The modifications were quite ``real.'' For example, there was a report authored by ``Anonymous'' entitled ``Description and Use of the ENIAC Converter Code'' reviewed in 1950 (vol 4, pp. 150-151 of Mathematical Tables and Aids to Computation) -- the report itself, consisting of 23 mimeographed pages, was dated Nov 1949 according to the review. Also of interest was the second meeting of the ACM, which was held in Dec 11 & 12 of 1947. At this meeting, two papers were presented whose titles suggest a relevance to this discussion (alas, I have not seen these papers anywhere): ``General Principles of Coding, with application to the ENIAC'' by J. von Neumann and ``Adaptation of the ENIAC to von Neumann's coding technique'' by R. F. Clippinger. The meeting was held at BRL. [I wonder if they drifted north to the Moore School Library.] < < was already a working computer when it was converted and it is claimed < < that its design specifically invited this conversion (i.e., it was an < < ``easy'' upgrade). So it may be that the ENIAC ran a stored program < < before or after tha Manchester Mark I did in 1948. However, in the < < How is it that neither Burks, Eckert, nor Mauchly, who surely ought to < know a thing or two about the ENIAC do not appear to have said anything < about these modifications or this 1948 date ? Well, for one thing, they seem to not have been directly involved in the modification which was made after the ENIAC had moved to BRL. However, they do figure in the question of who gets credit for what. Basically, I think the easiest way to understand the ENIAC is to view it not as a computer but rather as a computational laboratory. There are many interesting ways it could be ``put together'' to solve a given problem. The system was quite flexible was clearly intended to be modified. However, the designers of this marvelous machine seem to have abandoned this approach to computing before the ENIAC was even finished -- focussing instead on what is now commonly referred to as the ``von Neumann'' architecture. --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)