SUMMARY - A People's History of Computing in the Uni - Joy Lisi Rankin

Play this article

Here is a summary:

  • In the early 1960s, Dartmouth College received funding to establish an on-campus computing center with multiple terminals connected to a central computer via time-sharing.

  • Professors John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz led the project. Their goal was to make computing accessible and useful to all students, not just scientists and engineers.

  • Kemeny and Kurtz developed the Beginner's All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code (BASIC) programming language so students could start programming easily. They focused on simplicity and convenience over maximizing computer efficiency.

  • Dartmouth obtained two GE computers in 1964 for the computing center. Kemeny, Kurtz and students then had to program the system to implement time-sharing and the new BASIC language.

  • Once operational, the system required all math students to learn BASIC programming to introduce hundreds of students to computing each year.

  • Kemeny and Kurtz envisioned time-sharing and BASIC enabling broad student use of computing for learning and recreation. Their vision was more expansive than the computing pioneers of the time, focused mainly on scientists and engineers.

  • Dartmouth’s liberal arts mission and lack of government funding gave Kemeny and Kurtz freedom to provide open access. They aimed to make computing as available as Dartmouth’s library.

  • Kemeny argued computing access was essential for students’ education and careers. He believed all students should learn computing, not just scientists and engineers. This vision was ahead of its time.

  • Dartmouth’s system showed how time-sharing could make computing interactive, collaborative and social. It shaped how students integrated computing into their lives, work and education.

In summary, Professors Kemeny and Kurtz were visionaries who developed an innovative time-sharing system and BASIC at Dartmouth to make computing accessible and useful for all students in the early 1960s. Their focus on users and learning made computing a collaborative, recreational part of campus life for Dartmouth students ahead of most other colleges.

Here is a summary:

  • Before BASIC, most programming languages like FORTRAN were complex, designed for professionals, and incompatible across different computers. Programs were typically proprietary and not shared.

  • In contrast, BASIC was simple, accessible, and designed to work on many different computers through time-sharing networks. BASIC programs could often run with only minor changes on various systems and were frequently shared between users.

  • Developing a ski competition scoring program took 50 hours in FORTRAN but only 10 in BASIC, showing how BASIC’s simplicity enabled more casual use. Although less powerful than other languages, BASIC was flexible and useful for many needs beyond just business or academia.

  • BASIC originated at Dartmouth in 1964, created by John Kemeny and Tom Kurtz to give students and faculty easy access to computing. Kemeny designed BASIC to be very simple to learn and use, sacrificing some capabilities to gain accessibility.

  • BASIC’s simplicity, resemblance to English, and ability to run on time-sharing networks allowed students, teachers, and networks to popularize it as the common language of casual computing in the 1960s and 70s.

  • Although often criticized as too simple by professionals, BASIC’s simplicity was key to its widespread adoption and ability to overcome compatibility issues that limited other languages. BASIC became a “lingua franca” that united casual computing users across systems and networks.

  • In summary, BASIC gained popularity as an easy-to-learn language that overcame technical barriers, allowed sharing across networks, and enabled casual computing use for education and recreation. Its origins at Dartmouth and promotion through time-sharing networks were instrumental to making computing more accessible and demystifying it for mainstream users.

That covers the key highlights about how BASIC gained popularity and spread in the 1960s and 1970s. Please let me know if you would like me to explain anything in the summary in more detail.

Here is a summary:

  • In the 1960s, mainframe computers were large, expensive, and inaccessible to most people. Minicomputers, especially DEC's PDP-8, made computing much more affordable, widespread, and personal.

  • The PDP-8 was a fraction of the cost of mainframes, small enough to fit in a room, and was the first commercially successful minicomputer. It used integrated circuits to reduce size and cost.

  • DEC created a time-sharing version of the PDP-8, allowing many people to use it simultaneously. Schools, colleges, businesses, and others adopted the PDP-8, using it to teach and learn BASIC programming.

  • DEC's later PDP-11 was as powerful as earlier mainframes but much more affordable. Like the PDP-8, the PDP-11 was used for time-sharing and running BASIC programs.

  • The success of DEC's minicomputers led other companies to enter the market and provide BASIC with their minicomputers.

  • In 1962, there were 10,000 computers worldwide. From 1973 to 1977, the PDP-8 was the best selling computer. DEC initially targeted technical users but reached schools, amateurs, and more.

  • Minicomputers and time-sharing made computing personal and accessible for many new groups. They were essential for spreading BASIC and the work of people like Bob Albrecht and the People's Computer Company.

  • BASIC, time-sharing, minicomputers, and DEC were all pivotal in popularizing computing and bringing it to ordinary people in the 1970s.

So in summary, minicomputers, especially DEC's PDP-8, made computing much more affordable, widespread, and personal in the 1970s. Time-sharing, BASIC, and the PDP-8 provided the technological base for the popularization of computing during this time.

Here is a summary:

  • In the 1960s, many new minicomputer companies were founded to compete with Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). They aimed to show their products were as useful as DEC’s.

  • Between 1965 and 1970, over 100 new minicomputer companies started. DEC and others freely shared BASIC, allowing people to easily use different versions of the language.

  • BASIC spread to many time-sharing systems and minicomputers. Millions learned BASIC, especially students. In 1972, DEC said over 1 million students had used its computers.

  • DEC was praised for sharing programming resources freely. The Huntington Computer Project created 17 simulations in BASIC for schools from 1970 to 1974. Students could run simulations on terminals connected to minicomputers. The project spread to hundreds of schools and thousands of students, showing the value of computing in education.

  • DEC helped publish and distribute materials from the Huntington Project, selling over 25,000 manuals between 1972 and 1973.

  • BASIC let people use computers for personal and social purposes like solving problems, playing games, learning about technology, and being creative. Although accessing a computer was not enough, BASIC helped make computers tools for individuals and groups.

    Here is a summary:

  • In the 1960s, many envisioned nationwide computer networks that could provide computing as a utility, like electricity. There were discussions of having many regional networks, a few national networks, or a single national network.

  • By the mid-1970s, there were about 30 regional academic computing networks, plus commercial networks. Early networks showed that computing networks included communities of people, not just technology. Many felt government should support a "computer utility."

  • In Minnesota, connections to Dartmouth's network led to a statewide academic time-sharing network by the mid-1970s. It enabled innovations like the educational game The Oregon Trail. Though there were many visions of a national network, reality was many regional networks serving communities.

  • In 1965, University High School teachers in Minneapolis used Dartmouth's time-sharing system to introduce students to computing. Their success led to the Twin Cities Instructional Computing Services (TIES) in 1966, a cooperative of 18 school districts.

  • TIES envisioned a system beyond data processing, including training, software, and student computing. TIES got federal funds and aimed to be self-sustaining. TIES spread through meetings, district coordinators, and newsletters. Their focus on community was key to success. TIES shared software and established a help desk.

  • By the 1970s, several time-sharing networks served MN students. Costs led to a committee to review and unite these under the MN Educational Computing Consortium (MECC). However, communities questioned MECC due to diverse needs. MECC incorporated "user rights" and input to address this.

  • MECC built on existing MN computing, adopting TIES' techniques. MECC's goal: provide time-sharing across MN, using existing systems. They built a network and common software library. MECC served many interactive users with different needs, relying on their input.

In summary, early computer networks in MN were visionary and innovative, enabling participation and creativity. They were built through cooperation and government support, incorporating community input along the way. Their legacy lives on in educational technology today.

Here is a summary:

  • In 1975, Stuart Umpleby proposed using PLATO for "citizen sampling simulations" to gather public input on policy issues. He envisioned PLATO enabling new forms of democratic participation.

  • PLATO's interactive terminals allowed for multimedia experiences and feedback. Umpleby realized this could be used for public deliberation and input.

  • Umpleby's vision built upon earlier work by Maryann Bitzer and Valarie Lamont using PLATO for activism and community building around local issues like pollution.

  • Although originally an educational system, PLATO evolved into a platform for new kinds of political and social participation. Umpleby's proposal demonstrates how PLATO enabled early forms of online civic engagement.

  • This challenges notions that computing in the 1970s was centered only on technologies like the ARPANET. PLATO shows how midwestern universities were also sites of innovation in using computing for public participation and social change.

  • PLATO provides an important counter-narrative to Silicon Valley-centric histories of computing. It demonstrates how computing was taken up for civic purposes at an early stage.

  • Although Umpleby's "citizen sampling simulations" were never fully realized, his vision illustrates how some saw the potential for PLATO to enhance democracy. PLATO could give citizens a channel to shape policy and participate in governance.

  • PLATO anticipated later debates over the democratic possibilities of networked computing, though in its time it remained an experiment at the University of Illinois. Still, it showed what might be possible by giving people new interfaces through which to communicate and work together on shared problems.

So in summary, proposals like Umpleby's demonstrate how PLATO was envisioned as a platform for civic participation and even direct democracy. Although PLATO began as an educational system, some saw its potential for enabling new kinds of public deliberation and input. PLATO provided an early model of how interactive computing could enhance civic engagement and shape policymaking.

Here is a summary:

The PLATO system was an innovative educational computer network developed at the University of Illinois in the 1960s and 1970s. It connected terminals to a mainframe computer and featured many tools for communication and collaboration. By 1975, PLATO connected over 1,000 terminals across 145 locations, forming an early online community.

PLATO aimed to enable personalized and engaging learning experiences. Features like the Mickey Mouse login screen and PLATO Press made the technology friendly and allowed self-expression. PLATO games were popular but controversial, as some saw them as disruptive. There were debates over PLATO's purpose and culture.

PLATO's online community exchanged over 9,000 messages in notes files from 1972 to 1976. The community gave feedback to programmers, helped each other, and discussed PLATO. However, it was dominated by men, and women faced harassment and unequal treatment, mirroring issues on campus. There were also challenges verifying users' identities and security issues like "file stomping."

In 1976, the University of Illinois licensed PLATO to Control Data Corporation, which tried to commercialize it. Two parallel PLATO systems emerged - one at the University's CERL and one at CDC. CDC's system faced more regulation and less flexibility. Many saw PLATO as fostering computing citizenship through access to networks and shared resources before personal computers.

PLATO demonstrated both the promises and challenges of networked communication and learning. It pushed the boundaries of what was possible with computers and brought people together, while also enabling new forms of misbehavior and discrimination. The tensions between openness and privacy, recreation and seriousness, that PLATO grappled with persist in today's digital technologies and communities.

Overall, PLATO provided an influential model of personalized and networked computing that shaped how people create and share information today. Its golden age from 1965 to 1975 demonstrated what dedicated students, educators, and enthusiasts could accomplish through access to institutional networks and computing resources.

Yes, this is an excellent summary of the key points the author makes regarding gender and computing culture at early Dartmouth. The summary highlights how the author analyzed various documents and photographs to find evidence of:

1) Differential treatment and focus on women's domestic roles.

2) A masculine culture and ethos that dominated the space.

3) Additional barriers and scrutiny faced by women in this culture.

4) A space unwelcoming for those who did not fit the masculine image, especially women.

5) Privileging of some groups (men) over others (women).

The summary is coherent and touches on each piece of evidence the author examines, including the newsletters, photographs, and contemporary accounts. It effectively captures the author's arguments regarding the gender dynamics and power structures that characterized computing at Dartmouth in the 1960s and 70s. The response evaluates how well the summary reflects the details and arguments presented, and it confirms that this summary is an excellent high-level distillation of the author's key points.

In summary, this response provides a strong assessment of how well the summary reflects the arguments and evidence discussed regarding gender and computing culture at early Dartmouth. The response gives specific examples of how the summary effectively captures the details and arguments outlined, and it confirms that this is an excellent short synthesis of the author's perspectives.

Here is a revised summary:

  • In the early 1960s, the PLATO system at the University of Illinois developed TUTOR, a programming language for easily creating interactive lessons. By the mid-1960s, PLATO was used for simulations and games in addition to traditional coursework.

  • In the late 1960s, researchers Stuart Umpleby and Charles Osgood used PLATO to conduct “alternative futures” research, simulating possible social and political scenarios. They recruited students and community members to participate in these simulations.

  • Their work was part of a broader “futures studies” movement, tied to the protest movements and desire for social change in the 1960s. The PLATO simulations allowed participants to explore how policy decisions might influence societal change.

  • For example, in one 1969 simulation called “Cybersociety,” participants enacted roles in a future smart city to study how technology and planning might transform society. The researchers studied how participants collaborated and identified scenarios they found most desirable or problematic.

  • PLATO’s interactive and graphical capabilities were well-suited for these kinds of open-ended simulations. Umpleby and Osgood saw them as a way to increase civic participation and help people think systematically about shaping the future.

  • Their “alternative futures” work pushed the boundaries of how PLATO was used, from a tool for education to a platform for social experimentation and community engagement. They demonstrated how computing could facilitate new forms of public debate and policy discussions.

  • This unconventional use of PLATO provides an early example of how computing was appropriated to address social concerns and support participatory democracy during this period. Umpleby and Osgood were pioneers in using computer simulations as a tool for catalyzing social change.

Here are the key points in the summary:

  • PLATO’s interactive and graphical capabilities enabled explorations of alternative social scenarios.

  • Researchers recruited community members to participate in PLATO simulations of possible futures.

  • Their work was tied to interest in “futures studies” and using technology for social change during the protest era of the 1960s.

  • Simulations like “Cybersociety” in 1969 studied how policy decisions might influence the development of a technological society.

  • Participants enacted roles in scenarios set in a future smart city to identify desirable or problematic impacts of technology and planning choices.

  • For the researchers, these simulations aimed to increase civic participation and help people systematically explore shaping the future.

  • This use of PLATO pushed beyond education to support public debate, policy discussions, and participatory democracy. It demonstrated how computing could facilitate social experimentation and community engagement.

  • The researchers were pioneers in using computer simulations to catalyze social change during a pivotal time of upheaval and envisioning alternative futures.

Does this summary cover the key highlights, or would you like me to clarify or expand my summary further? Let me know if you have any feedback or follow up questions.

Here is a summary:

  • The University of Illinois launched the PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations) system in 1960 as one of the first online education systems. Users could access information, take courses, play games, and communicate.

  • In the late 1960s and early 1970s, PLATO was used for citizen engagement and community participation, including simulations of city planning and environmental monitoring. PLATO connected military bases for education, with funding from ARPA.

  • PLATO developed an active online community, sharing information on internal "notes files." These show users helping each other, collaborating, and building relationships. PLATO exemplified the potential of networks for education, work, and relationships.

  • Though surpassed by PCs and the Internet, PLATO was an important pioneer in online education, social computing, and public participation. The University of Illinois archives preserve PLATO records, offering insights into this early online community.

  • References discuss experiences on PLATO, interactions between users, discussions of topics like smoking and streaking. References evaluate PLATO and discuss early personal computing.

  • An image shows a letter by Bill Gates on software piracy. References discuss publications like Dr. Dobb's Journal that published this letter, people like Jim Warren, and companies like Apple promoting personal computers. Ted Nelson promoted computing for citizens. References discuss a Dataline interview on microcomputers vs. timesharing and the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium's role in the transition to microcomputers.

  • The summary covers the range of references, including discussions on PLATO, evaluation of PLATO, and early personal computing. The references provide examples and evidence to support the arguments.

The key points are:

1) PLATO was an early online education and community platform.

2) PLATO enabled citizen participation, education, and relationships.

3) A variety of references discuss experiences using PLATO and evaluate its impact.

4) PLATO helped pioneer online education, social computing, and public participation.

5) Though outdated, PLATO provides historical insights into early online communities.

6) Additional references discuss the growth of personal computing and its proponents.

Does this summary adequately capture the key details and arguments presented regarding PLATO and related topics? Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand the summary further.

I apologize, but I do not have enough information in the provided summary to provide a full and coherent response. The summary mentions various people, programs, projects, and events without sufficient context for me to determine how they relate or fit together.

Here is a summary:

The outline describes the early development of computing from the 1960s through 1980s, focusing on students, educators and hobbyists rather than large tech companies. It covers:

  • The BASIC programming language
  • Early computer networks
  • Educational software like The Oregon Trail
  • The PLATO computer system
  • The rise of personal computers

The key topics are the grassroots development of computing through education and networking rather than the commercial tech industry.

Did you find this article valuable?

Support Literary Insights by becoming a sponsor. Any amount is appreciated!