4 ms·

And computers have become 1 million times better in the last 2-3 decades. Higher frequency, more RAM, more bandwidth, more network peers. And yet we make even m

And computers have become 1 million times better in the last 2-3 decades. Higher frequency, more RAM, more bandwidth, more network peers. And yet we make even more of them. > "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

ForHackernews 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attrib...
dghlsakjg 2y ago
Which, mythological provenance aside, was a very accurate statement at the time. In 1943 there were probably only a few governments capable of paying the extreme cost, and having a valid use case, for a "computer" in 1943. If you asked him what he thought the market was for a device that cost a month's wages, and could connect to anywhere on earth, do infinite math, remember anything perfectly, and entertain the whole household was, he probably would have had a different answer.
- Cheer2171 2y ago
  Same with the infamous Gates quote. In 1981, 640K really was enough for anyone in the market for a personal computer at the price point of the IBM 5150.
  - tromp 2y ago
    https://www.wired.com/1997/01/did-gates-really-say-640k-is-enough-for-anyone/ https://www.wired.com/1997/01/did-gates-really-say-640k-is-e...
  - hyperman1 2y ago
    The 8086 was based on a 64K design, with segment registers thrown in to expand it to 1M (and 640K of that 1M was reserved for RAM). It was already clear then that 64K on its own was not enough, and the segment register twiddling to touch other 64K windows was seriously limiting. The model was patchy from day 1, and would need serious effort to be future proof. Even if computers with 640K installed were rare, the design limitation of 640K possible RAM was clearly not enough.
Zenzero 2y ago
It only sounds like a silly statement because we kept the name "computer". In terms of what a computer was in 1943? He was probably right.
- bluGill 2y ago
  In 1943 computers were common companies hired rooms full of them. Visicalc on an apple ii can do in minutes what they did in a day. yes companies used to hire people to just add columns of numbers.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    Some days, I wish my job was that straightforward...
seoulmetro 2y ago
That quote means nothing about the future.
kamaal 2y ago
> "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943 Given all computers in that era are literal super computers of their times, that quote seems to be mostly right even till date.
hrkucuk 2y ago
I think that quote is correct. We have billions of physically separated computers that are all connected. And for the most part, if they are not connected, they are rather useless. So we do indeed have just a few "computers" in the world, whose components are distributed across every individual who uses these few computers.

ForHackernews 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attrib...

dghlsakjg 2y ago

Which, mythological provenance aside, was a very accurate statement at the time. In 1943 there were probably only a few governments capable of paying the extreme cost, and having a valid use case, for a "computer" in 1943. If you asked him what he thought the market was for a device that cost a month's wages, and could connect to anywhere on earth, do infinite math, remember anything perfectly, and entertain the whole household was, he probably would have had a different answer.

Cheer2171 2y ago
Same with the infamous Gates quote. In 1981, 640K really was enough for anyone in the market for a personal computer at the price point of the IBM 5150.
- tromp 2y ago
  https://www.wired.com/1997/01/did-gates-really-say-640k-is-enough-for-anyone/ https://www.wired.com/1997/01/did-gates-really-say-640k-is-e...
- hyperman1 2y ago
  The 8086 was based on a 64K design, with segment registers thrown in to expand it to 1M (and 640K of that 1M was reserved for RAM). It was already clear then that 64K on its own was not enough, and the segment register twiddling to touch other 64K windows was seriously limiting. The model was patchy from day 1, and would need serious effort to be future proof. Even if computers with 640K installed were rare, the design limitation of 640K possible RAM was clearly not enough.

Zenzero 2y ago

It only sounds like a silly statement because we kept the name "computer". In terms of what a computer was in 1943? He was probably right.

bluGill 2y ago
In 1943 computers were common companies hired rooms full of them. Visicalc on an apple ii can do in minutes what they did in a day. yes companies used to hire people to just add columns of numbers.
- klyrs 2y ago
  Some days, I wish my job was that straightforward...

seoulmetro 2y ago

That quote means nothing about the future.

kamaal 2y ago

> "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943 Given all computers in that era are literal super computers of their times, that quote seems to be mostly right even till date.

hrkucuk 2y ago

I think that quote is correct. We have billions of physically separated computers that are all connected. And for the most part, if they are not connected, they are rather useless. So we do indeed have just a few "computers" in the world, whose components are distributed across every individual who uses these few computers.