The Computer Chronicles - Business Application Software (1984)

[@DanCarrollkanata]

I was a fairly young IBM guy participating in this episode. Looking back, I would have climbed up on the desk to shout "this stuff will change the world"

[@DavePoo2]

Nice work. I think you did the right thing, if you'd have made those claims back then you might have seemed like a crazy person, however nowadays that kind of software is so common place we just take it all for granted. I was a little shocked that somebody from IBM actually came on the show, they generally were a little tight lipped about everything back then (from what I've seen watching these episodes).

[@death2all79zx]

Thank you for your work.

[@HabadzaKalfa]

"If the customer is poorly organized to begin with, and the systems just generally aren't working at all, the computer isn't going to help. So we ask our customers to sort of do some preparation and get their systems in order before they automate." I hear similar lines at my work today every now and then. Although instead of getting a computer the customers at my work consider getting an automated process developed for their computers. There has seemed to be several comments on this series episodes about how things were so different back then than today. While watching this show, I tend to marvel more about how little things have changed in the end despite the decades passed and all the advancement in the capability of technology.

[@lawrencemanning]

Its the same song, just the instruments have changed. Part of why the fundamental things appear to have changed so little is because the problems computers solve are largely the same as they've always been and the people who use them are basically the same. The fundamental principles behind esentually all of modern IT: hardware and software was worked out in the 1970s. Just look at the OS running on your phone. Its probably based on Unix. There's very little new in computing; cloud is a good example of a hyped idea which is 50 years old at least. There's a few exceptions. The proliferation of multiple processors is maybe surprising but also obvious since single core scaling reached a limit. These videos are amazing for learning how things have and haven't changed.

[@connclissmann6514]

I have been in the PC business since 1979 so seeing this series is a wonderful look back on time, thanks for posting. That Levi IBM system looked REALLY slow... Thank goodness IBM later introduced Notes. Ah, you must remember Lotus Notes? 😊

[@CMDRScotty]

Wow the mid 80's changed computers so much.

[@wallacelang1374]

I learned about various application software packages, but not at nor for the business that I was working at at the time that this episode was first broadcast on PBS affiliated network stations. 🤔

[@wohlhabendermanager]

Wait what? There was a time when Steve Jobs would wear suits, and not blue jeans and a black turtle neck sweater?!

[@bcgibson22]

Was thinking the jeans and sweaters must have all been in the wash that day......

[@PhoenixNL72-DEGA-]

"Paperless office" Never really happened. It became a "Less paper office" at most.

[@lucius1976]

Well, in a small business like mine it became at least a "Almost paperless" office.

[@oldtwinsna8347]

@24:30 Jobs is also alluding to future pricing where his idea is to have the Mac sold as a low ticket item, on par with the Apple // series at the time to fully replace it. John Sculley disagreed with that plan and kept the Mac priced high.

[@calvinsaxon5822]

More really strange communication taking place among computer executives in the 80s and the hosts of the show, bordering on incomprehensibility. Stewart asks: "Does this (online appointment scheduler) really save more time than just calling up and asking the person for a meeting?" Answer: "When you get into the office environment, you're not really talking automation n the traditional sense...Productivity means making your job easier to do business work, not office work." They all answer like they're trying to be Alvin Toffler or the next business guru instead of just answering the question. He never actually answered Stewart's question. Acceptable answers would have been: Yes; no; or it depends (followed by the one or at most two factors that it was dependent on).

[@bitwize]

I noticed that too. The bloke at the beginning, when asked about the success or failure of computers in the workplace, basically said that your success in using computers depends on your ability to use computers. A perfectly useless, vacuous statement. A more technical person might have said: A computer is a machine for performing programmed repetitive tasks, so a business will get the most use out of a computer when it comes to automating repetitive tasks around the office, thus getting more done and freeing the people up to tackle more interesting or complicated work. But I guess I shouldn't expect much. After all, if this were today he might say "The key to success is to synergistically operationalize your platform and leverage your cloud strategy" or something.

[@wohlhabendermanager]

Well, he does answer it in the way that he says "It's a tough question to answer, because..." and then goes off about what "automation" means to him. So, in a way he says: "It depends. Of course you could make a phone call, but you could just outsource this office work to the computer, so you can do more business work".

[@infinitecanadian]

I didn't know that the Macintosh was 32-bit! That's early for 32-bit.

[@kevinfisher5492]

Is this the first time the SPA (Microsoft) is mentioned on this show?

[@PhoenixNL72-DEGA-]

Hm, why was the Macintosh considered a 32 bit computer while the Amiga was considered a 16 bit machine? They used the exact same Motorola processor ? o.O

[@HabadzaKalfa]

I'd take both first Amigas and Macs as 16-bit computers, but to be honest the whole strict division of computers/processors to 8, 16, 32 or 64-bit systems is a simplification. Quite a few processors are not "purely" of some bit, but instead more like 8/16-bit or 16/32-bit (eg. MOS 6502 has 8-bit data width but 16-bit address width, Intel 8088 also has 8-bit data externally but 16-bit internally, and Motorola 68000 has 16-bit data width but 32-bit instruction set). Another question is also how many actual computer designs do utilize full capability (or even bit width) of a CPU. On the other hand, from a marketing point of view, of course you'll rather have a 16-bit than 8-bit system and a 64-bit than 32-bit system if you can claim so without a direct lie...

[@DavePoo2]

I've heard it called 16/32-bit CPU, it's a 16-bit data bus, with 32 capabilities. I always used to think that the computer "bits" were defined by the size of the data bus. C64 had 8-bit data bus, Amiga 500 had 16-bit data bus, Amiga 1200 had a 32-bit. But people say that's wrong. The Amiga 68000 had 32-bit registers, but I never though about it as a 32-bit computer when I was programming it back in the day. These days it's all become irrelevant, now it's just a computer, laptop, phone or tablet.

[@fake12396]

mondy

[@ArkaidDeims]

Man Dee

[@strangevision99]

Mundy

[@VladimirPutin-p3t]

Computers in business??? Yeah sure! Like anyone's going to run a business sitting around playing Pac Man all day!

[@GarbageMan144]

So weird to see stuart here lol

[@VladimirPutin-p3t]

So weird that he lets geusts finish their thoughts in these older episodes