11 ms·

Identifying the “Early IBM Computer” in a Twitter Photo

88 points by stablemap 9y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
These would have been the kind of machines that IBM sold to Nazi Germany and configured for use by the concentration camps, right? I didn't realise the technology was so sophisticated.
- krapp 9y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted - IBM did, in fact, custom make and sell tabulators to the Nazis[0]. The Holocaust might not have been possible at the scale or efficiency with which it was undertaken without the force multiplier of IBM computational and processing power. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
  - userbinator 9y ago
    Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. A stark contrast to the actions taken by Cloudflare's CEO[1], incidentally also involving Nazis. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Pecunia non olet.
    - GuiA 9y ago
      Neutrality is an illusion when it comes to man made constructs. An earthquake is neutral; executives in a company deliberately choosing to make a profit by selling things which will be used to commit crimes against humanity is certainly not. Read the link: ”Willy Heidinger, who remained in control of Dehomag, the 90%-owned German subsidiary of IBM, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler regime.” Would you argue that this is what neutrality looks like?
      - jpttsn 9y ago
        What does profit have to do with it? Would it be better, ethically, if they sold it at a loss?
    - mratzloff 9y ago
      Neutrality at the expense of others isn't neutral.
      - owlmirror 9y ago
        You must be confused about what neutrality actually means.
        moomin 9y ago
        If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. Desmond Tutu I’ll happily describe myself as as confused as Desmond Tutu.
        mratzloff 9y ago
        Exactly. Thank you.
        mixmastamyk 9y ago
        It wasn’t widely known what was happening behind the scenes until the Soviets started to take back the east.
    - jamiek88 9y ago
      There is no 'neutral' in genocide. No middle ground.
      - traverseda 9y ago
        >1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. >2) absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling. One wonders how you define neutrality.
        untog 9y ago
        I suspect the OP is saying that there is no room for neutrality in genocide. That an "absence of decided views" over the extermination of a race is not actually a viable position for any human being to take.
        jpttsn 9y ago
        Either that, or it’s just an emotional outburst. Meanwhile, in the course of history, humans regularly engage in mass slaughter of humans. We could say indifference to genocide is not viable, because it ought not be viable. But that has its problems: if we convince each other that we are incapable of evil, perhaps we won’t be vigilant enough to see the signs in time.
        jamiek88 9y ago
        That is precisely what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying.
        traverseda 9y ago
        That's a much more reasonable interpretation than the one I made.
        PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        > 1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. ...But they did support the Nazis.
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      > Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. You sound like you think that's a good thing.
    - moomin 9y ago
      This is an utterly peculiar statement. It’s phrased in a way that suggests you think enabling concentration camps is a superior moral choice to refusing to do business with Nazis. If that’s not what you meant, I’d strongly consider choosing your words more carefully.
- kens 9y ago
  I haven't really looked into the punched card machines that IBM (or at least IBM's German subsidiary) rented to Nazi Germany. But yes, these were the same IBM 405 punched card accounting machines as the photo I examined (along with keypunches, sorters, and other punched card machinery). Refs: https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Though Nazi German had IBM equipment I don't think they were installed in concentration camps More in their strategic command or some other central agency
codezero 9y ago
It was a bit hard for me to extract if he identified the machine, but it's there: Thus, although the machine in the photos is very similar to the IBM 403, it's not an exact match. After more research into IBM's various accounting machines, I conclude that machine in the photos is the IBM 405, an IBM accounting machine introduced in 1934 (earlier than that 1948 IBM 403 despite the larger model number).4 The IBM 405 (below) had curved legs that match the Abbott photos. In addition, the 405 has a narrower main cabinet than the 403, with bulky additional components attached to the left and right, outside the legs. This matches the narrower cabinet in the Abbott photos. (The 403 was an improved and modernized 405, explaining the overall similarity between the two machines.)
- userbinator 9y ago
  It's in the title of the page too: Identifying the "Early IBM Computer" in a Twitter photo: a 405 Accounting Machine ...which confused me a bit, because at first he said he thought it was a 403.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - kens 9y ago
    I was originally going for drama and suspense about what the machine was, but maybe writing that way didn't work as well as I hoped.
    - codezero 9y ago
      It was a good write up, don't be too hard on yourself :)
    - oxide 9y ago
      It really didn't.
ngcc_hk 9y ago
The article has not elaborated or hinted the impact of punch card to computing. Those horrible cobol, fortran, 360/70 assembler and jcl ... those field, zone, continuation ...
- GnarfGnarf 9y ago
  I have fond memories of programming with punched cards in the 60's and 70's. Assembler was a magic communion with the hardware. FORTRAN captured mathematical beauty. COBOL was powerful. It's all relative.
js2 9y ago
One could imagine that IBM could have failed to make the transition from analog machines like this to digital computers, yet they didn't. Meanwhile, other companies such as Kodak failed to capitialize on the analog to digital transiton. Was it just a difference in executive leadership?
- yeukhon 9y ago
  Kodak made the transition too late, that’s the reason.
- mrob 9y ago
  Aren't these machines also digital? I see discrete notches in the counter wheels, and I can't imagine accountants accepting analog noise in their results. Digital doesn't have to mean binary.
- makomk 9y ago
  One common explanation is that there simply wasn't enough money in digital photography to sustain a company like Kodak, because people didn't need supplies like film anymore. Meanwhile the computing revolution expanded the market for IBM's products and the amount they could charge for them, at least in the short term.
- kens 9y ago
  One reason IBM could make the transition from electromechanical (not analog) systems to programmable computers is that it wasn't really a disruptive change to their business model or to their customers. They were still renting out punched-card business machines. On the other hand, the switch to digital cameras totally messed up Kodak's film-based business model. Another factor is that both Thomas Watson Sr. and Jr. were very strong, effective leaders for IBM (based on what I've read and heard).
GrumpyNl 9y ago
IBM gave me an original plugboard as seen in the foto.
mathgenius 9y ago
Somehow I really want to hear what these machines sound like. It would be great to have an audio engineer make some good quality sound recordings of one of these machines. The pictures just aren't enough for me.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  The mainframe server room I used to frequent was pretty loud, loud enough that you had to get close to someone and raise your voice to be heard. The worst racket was made by the line printers, and even if the ambient noise really was quite bad those were still encaged in their own sound-proof enclosure. Not an environment you want to spend a whole lot of time in.
  - mathgenius 9y ago
    Well I wouldn't want one of these 405's in my bedroom, but I realize that I do even miss hearing the sound of my harddrive clicking away. It makes me feel like something real is happening. Do you remember the scene in "the day after" when all the shit is going down, and the clatter and buzzing of the teletype machines...? Just so terrifying with all those sounds.

88 points by stablemap 9y ago

These would have been the kind of machines that IBM sold to Nazi Germany and configured for use by the concentration camps, right? I didn't realise the technology was so sophisticated.

krapp 9y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted - IBM did, in fact, custom make and sell tabulators to the Nazis[0]. The Holocaust might not have been possible at the scale or efficiency with which it was undertaken without the force multiplier of IBM computational and processing power. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
- userbinator 9y ago
  Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. A stark contrast to the actions taken by Cloudflare's CEO[1], incidentally also involving Nazis. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Pecunia non olet.
  - GuiA 9y ago
    Neutrality is an illusion when it comes to man made constructs. An earthquake is neutral; executives in a company deliberately choosing to make a profit by selling things which will be used to commit crimes against humanity is certainly not. Read the link: ”Willy Heidinger, who remained in control of Dehomag, the 90%-owned German subsidiary of IBM, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler regime.” Would you argue that this is what neutrality looks like?
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      What does profit have to do with it? Would it be better, ethically, if they sold it at a loss?
  - mratzloff 9y ago
    Neutrality at the expense of others isn't neutral.
    - owlmirror 9y ago
      You must be confused about what neutrality actually means.
      - moomin 9y ago
        If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. Desmond Tutu I’ll happily describe myself as as confused as Desmond Tutu.
        mratzloff 9y ago
        Exactly. Thank you.
        mixmastamyk 9y ago
        It wasn’t widely known what was happening behind the scenes until the Soviets started to take back the east.
  - jamiek88 9y ago
    There is no 'neutral' in genocide. No middle ground.
    - traverseda 9y ago
      >1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. >2) absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling. One wonders how you define neutrality.
      - untog 9y ago
        I suspect the OP is saying that there is no room for neutrality in genocide. That an "absence of decided views" over the extermination of a race is not actually a viable position for any human being to take.
        jpttsn 9y ago
        Either that, or it’s just an emotional outburst. Meanwhile, in the course of history, humans regularly engage in mass slaughter of humans. We could say indifference to genocide is not viable, because it ought not be viable. But that has its problems: if we convince each other that we are incapable of evil, perhaps we won’t be vigilant enough to see the signs in time.
        jamiek88 9y ago
        That is precisely what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying.
        traverseda 9y ago
        That's a much more reasonable interpretation than the one I made.
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        > 1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. ...But they did support the Nazis.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    > Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. You sound like you think that's a good thing.
  - moomin 9y ago
    This is an utterly peculiar statement. It’s phrased in a way that suggests you think enabling concentration camps is a superior moral choice to refusing to do business with Nazis. If that’s not what you meant, I’d strongly consider choosing your words more carefully.
kens 9y ago
I haven't really looked into the punched card machines that IBM (or at least IBM's German subsidiary) rented to Nazi Germany. But yes, these were the same IBM 405 punched card accounting machines as the photo I examined (along with keypunches, sorters, and other punched card machinery). Refs: https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II
raverbashing 9y ago
Though Nazi German had IBM equipment I don't think they were installed in concentration camps More in their strategic command or some other central agency

codezero 9y ago

It was a bit hard for me to extract if he identified the machine, but it's there: Thus, although the machine in the photos is very similar to the IBM 403, it's not an exact match. After more research into IBM's various accounting machines, I conclude that machine in the photos is the IBM 405, an IBM accounting machine introduced in 1934 (earlier than that 1948 IBM 403 despite the larger model number).4 The IBM 405 (below) had curved legs that match the Abbott photos. In addition, the 405 has a narrower main cabinet than the 403, with bulky additional components attached to the left and right, outside the legs. This matches the narrower cabinet in the Abbott photos. (The 403 was an improved and modernized 405, explaining the overall similarity between the two machines.)

userbinator 9y ago
It's in the title of the page too: Identifying the "Early IBM Computer" in a Twitter photo: a 405 Accounting Machine ...which confused me a bit, because at first he said he thought it was a 403.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kens 9y ago
  I was originally going for drama and suspense about what the machine was, but maybe writing that way didn't work as well as I hoped.
  - codezero 9y ago
    It was a good write up, don't be too hard on yourself :)
  - oxide 9y ago
    It really didn't.

ngcc_hk 9y ago

The article has not elaborated or hinted the impact of punch card to computing. Those horrible cobol, fortran, 360/70 assembler and jcl ... those field, zone, continuation ...

GnarfGnarf 9y ago
I have fond memories of programming with punched cards in the 60's and 70's. Assembler was a magic communion with the hardware. FORTRAN captured mathematical beauty. COBOL was powerful. It's all relative.

js2 9y ago

One could imagine that IBM could have failed to make the transition from analog machines like this to digital computers, yet they didn't. Meanwhile, other companies such as Kodak failed to capitialize on the analog to digital transiton. Was it just a difference in executive leadership?

yeukhon 9y ago
Kodak made the transition too late, that’s the reason.
mrob 9y ago
Aren't these machines also digital? I see discrete notches in the counter wheels, and I can't imagine accountants accepting analog noise in their results. Digital doesn't have to mean binary.
makomk 9y ago
One common explanation is that there simply wasn't enough money in digital photography to sustain a company like Kodak, because people didn't need supplies like film anymore. Meanwhile the computing revolution expanded the market for IBM's products and the amount they could charge for them, at least in the short term.
kens 9y ago
One reason IBM could make the transition from electromechanical (not analog) systems to programmable computers is that it wasn't really a disruptive change to their business model or to their customers. They were still renting out punched-card business machines. On the other hand, the switch to digital cameras totally messed up Kodak's film-based business model. Another factor is that both Thomas Watson Sr. and Jr. were very strong, effective leaders for IBM (based on what I've read and heard).

GrumpyNl 9y ago

IBM gave me an original plugboard as seen in the foto.

mathgenius 9y ago

Somehow I really want to hear what these machines sound like. It would be great to have an audio engineer make some good quality sound recordings of one of these machines. The pictures just aren't enough for me.

jacquesm 9y ago
The mainframe server room I used to frequent was pretty loud, loud enough that you had to get close to someone and raise your voice to be heard. The worst racket was made by the line printers, and even if the ambient noise really was quite bad those were still encaged in their own sound-proof enclosure. Not an environment you want to spend a whole lot of time in.
- mathgenius 9y ago
  Well I wouldn't want one of these 405's in my bedroom, but I realize that I do even miss hearing the sound of my harddrive clicking away. It makes me feel like something real is happening. Do you remember the scene in "the day after" when all the shit is going down, and the clatter and buzzing of the teletype machines...? Just so terrifying with all those sounds.