Thread

Watson Jr. memo about CDC 6600 (1963)

37 points · 21 comments · mooreds

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

AirPath · 1791031285 · focus · HN ↗
6600
rbanffy · 1791031740 · focus · HN ↗
Interesting to note the question had the answer all along. How would a modest effort outrun a vast organisation?
I never imagined he’d be caught by that mistake.
1. gshubert17 · 1791068966 · focus · HN ↗
  Cray's reply was sardonic: "It seems like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."
  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600
  1. rbanffy · 1791111002 · focus · HN ↗
    Cray must have been a very funny person.
    bayouborne · 1791127273 · focus · HN ↗
    "So, let me tell you a little bit, a few of the problems, that ah, and the solutions that I see in building large computers. First of all... I think that building large computers should be done with the fewest possible people. One is perfect, but you can't quite work with one. So.. the next best thing is about 12."
    "The reason you need 12 is you kind of need one person from each of the disciplines that are necessary. You need a mechanical engineer to build the box that it'll go in. You need an electrical engineer to put the circuit together. You need a little bit of logic... and programmer here and there And you need a secretary of course. But not very many."
    <a href="https://managingdesignanddevelopment.blogspot.com/2022/09" rel="nofollow">https://managingdesignanddevelopment.blogspot.com/2022/09
    jhbadger · 1791180565 · focus · HN ↗
    Cray had a funny quote on the virtues of fast CPUs over parallelism "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?". Of course history has shown tjat the "chickens" was the strategy the field went with.
2. KerrAvon · 1791069284 · focus · HN ↗
  He wasn't. The CDC 6600 cost IBM some prestige, but it didn't put a dent in IBM's sales, which were about to skyrocket due to the 360 series.
  1. rbanffy · 1791111298 · focus · HN ↗
    The 6600, and no doubt Watson was lectured on it, was an extremely specialised machine - it had 60 bit words and that was it. No bytes, shorts, or anything similar. It was designed for floating point math. IBM had machines for science and business that were entirely different and incompatible prior to the 360.
  2. adrian_b · 1791112719 · focus · HN ↗
    Due to CDC 6600, IBM lost almost completely the market for what today would be called high-performance computing, which was then dominated for 3 decades by CDC and then by Cray, after Seymour Cray left CDC.
    However, during that time the market for lower-cost and acceptable performance computers was expanding very quickly, so IBM had growing revenues and profits, without being affected by the loss of a smaller market.
bediger4000 · 1791041359 · focus · HN ↗
I used CDC computers 1986-92. They sucked, and CDC employees could not comprehend that they sucked. They had convinced themselves that their alternate universe was real.
1. projectileboy · 1791071339 · focus · HN ↗
  That was many, many years after Cray had left. By the 80s, CDC was a shell of its former self.
  1. pinewurst · 1791073616 · focus · HN ↗
    One can argue that CDC was obliviously dead by the early 70s.
    Incompatible, increasingly archaic platforms, the best of those optimal for batch Fortran number crunching, counter to industry growth/interest. Organizational metastasis with a next gen platform (Cyber 180 as Star was stillborn - CISC from hell as 2nd system(s) syndrome) only at the end of the decade. Standards, coupled with profound organizational incompetence, ground it to dust. They made really good OEM disk drives for a while but sold the business off to fund their continuing failures.
    There really needs to be a history that’s not an encomium to William Norris, Philosopher King of CDC.
2. kjs3 · 1791073861 · focus · HN ↗
  What...you didn't like NOS/VE?
  The 180/990 and the 205 were a pretty good FORTRAN vector machines if that was the problem you wanted to solve; the compiler was quite good. The other 170/180s were...for everything else...not so much. That boat had sailed.
  1. bediger4000 · 1791120890 · focus · HN ↗
    Very few NOS/VE haters, because very few ever used it. A dog with fleas.
kristianp · 1791075227 · focus · HN ↗
So the CDC 6600 wasn't considered a risc machine, but a precursor?
1. adrian_b · 1791113425 · focus · HN ↗
  The term RISC was coined more than 15 years later, and the first RISC CPU, i.e. IBM 801, was designed several years before the introducing of the term "RISC".
  IBM 801 deserves to be called the first RISC machine, because its design methodology had the explicit goal of achieving a greater performance than IBM 370, by simplifying its instruction set.
  CDC 6600 was not created by the simplification of an earlier architecture. It was more complex than the previous very simple CDC computers.
  Nonetheless, it was designed to achieve the maximum performance permitted by the available technology and both James E. Thornton and Seymour Cray were extremely competent computer designers, so many of their design decisions coincide with those that were also preferred many years later for the RISC CPUs.
adonovan · 1791076354 · focus · HN ↗
The most striking thing to me about IBM memos from this era is just how literate executives were. These days most VPs struggle to write a single sentence worth reading.
1. imglorp · 1791080622 · focus · HN ↗
  Many people from that era were well read and well spoken. He in particular sounded like he had some interesting life experiences: air force pilot, ambassador to the Soviet Union, president of the Boy Scouts, etc.
2. chiph · 1791139084 · focus · HN ↗
  They also had secretaries (even more-so at the executive level) who would proof-read the letter and return it to the boss for their revision and/or signature. Contrast that with today where it's easy for someone to click send and off it goes, incomplete thoughts and grammar errors and all.
  If you want to improve your communications - when you finish writing your email, leave it as a draft for 30-40 minutes. Then go back an re-read it with a fresh viewpoint.
  If I can suggest - the USAF has a manual for this, which guides you in being clear, concise, and specific:
  <a href="https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aa/publication/afh33-337/afh33-337.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aa/publi...
3. Spooky23 · 1791182149 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
christkv · 1791182726 · focus · HN ↗
Classic example of a small very motivated team with free reigns vs committee development at IBM. The irony is that less than 20 years later IBM would do the same thing and it lead to the IBM PC.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.