Piffle. The filthy savages will have to take my word for it.
I will be their god.
Humph. You’d probably set computer science back a few decades. The reason that software of the time didn’t do that stuff is because the hardware didn’t support putting all sorts of bells and whistles on. An IBM 1620, or even a futuristic 360 model 30 would just stop trying to do any sort of windowing. You had to be a bit efficient back then. If someone implemented a windowing system, it would be so slow that no one would even want to look at another for decades.
For structured programming, Algol 60 had already invented everything worth inventing. I’m not sure that object oriented programming would work with all the procedure call overhead you’d have - not to mention the small programs. Java is cool because it is interpreted - but so is Basic. Computers today are fast enough so this isn’t a problem, people didn’t write in assembler back then from being lazy. However, the concepts of structured programming would be useful. When I was a TA we taught structured PDP-11 assembly programming, just for our own sanity.
However a mouse could be introduced earlier - that would be good.
Oh yeah? What do we have today that’s better than Betty Page? Humph.
I’m not talking about trying to run all that stuff on one of their systems, I’m talking about letting them run that stuff on your system so that they can build all kinds of crap faster. If you cut the development time of anything by six months, you have just enabled them to advance that much quicker. Imagine what the engineers who designed the Apollo hardware could do if they had more time to work.
When the word spreads that you are coming with a computer, there will be the usual jockeying for a chance to work in the air-conditioned room that houses it. Others will gripe about giving up their office space so that some walls can be knocked down to make room.
In 1960, I’m 17 and don’t see the point. I have a perfectly good slide rule and a brain. But I did see something on Art Linkletter the other night that had a computer that matched people up by using dumb pieces of cardboard with holes in them. For example, if they both like bleu cheese dressing, they are a match. Erp, slop. Bring the mop.
Anyway, wear something futuristic so we can see what it’s going to be like. Maybe something with big fins or rocket-shaped?
“Wow, if he’s got a computer like that, imagine what the Soviets are using to make their five-year plans.”
The most important thing to put on the hard drive - thousands and thousands of technical manuals explaining how to build computers. Throw some in from 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000, and give them an intermediate path.
Oh, and while you’re at it help them pay for it by giving them a map of where all the oil fields are.
I thought I had covered that already. I thought you were saying that you could use the concepts from your system (like windows) on theirs - that would be a disaster. I didn’t think about porting the software. First, you don’t usually have source, and even if you did you wouldn’t have the APIs or the libraries you’d need.
Forget the oil fields - a stock table per month from the NY Times would do pretty well, (or a sports almanac 
)
I’d throw in a bunch of textbooks also. And a note not to let a certain Mr. Gates into Harvard. That would really improve the future.
Unix and C wouldn’t be developed for a good decade yet. Unix’s distant ancestor (CTSS) was still in the pre-planning stage (if that) in 1960, and the first language to even look like C (Algol) was relatively young and not widely used.
Voyager: Very interesting points about the hardware side of things. gcc’s FORTRAN frontend can cope with dusty decks, but depending on how archaic and idiomatic the code is it might not be able to cope. (And FORTRAN from 1960 would be pretty damned archaic to a FORTRAN-77 compiler.) Translating FORTRAN to C isn’t pretty, either, but the f2c program can still be found without much hassle. (Again, how well it copes with a particular site’s code will be up in the air.)
I think Linux will be the smallest conceptual leap for them. Having a Unix clone in 1960 would jumpstart the work on timesharing OSes and give them certain key ideas (write full programming language into the shell, put a file interface over hardware devices, make the filesystem directory-structured and abandon the notion of OS-supported record types in favor of flat text, etc.). Windows XP is too graphical and too closed to teach them very much, whereas you can bring the full sources of a Linux system with you.
This brings me to another point: The idea of selling software as your main business plan. In 1960, I think I can safely say this idea simply didn’t exist. The hardware makers (IBM, DEC, Honeywell, etc.) made and sold their own software to go along with their machines, and the OSes made in research labs (CTSS) simply weren’t turned into commercial products for sale seperately from the computers. Introducing this idea into 1960 would be interesting, to say the least.
just curious… what would be the point of all this? i mean computers work now so why do all that… unless you think with the extra time they could come up with a better computer?
Are you kidding? There’s all kinds of better stuff that they could have come up with, not just better computers. A top of the line PC or Mac today, probably has more computer power than all the computers in 1960 combined. The hardware of the Mercury and Apollo programs was designed with slide rules and massive computers, which had about the same level of computing power as a cheap, disposable calculator you can buy at the dollar store today. So, the guys at Los Alamos could borrow the PC for a day and do more calculations with it than they could in a year. Give it to the guys at NASA, and they could whip out the Apollo designs in at least half the time, or less. Give it to the CIA, and they’d be able to crack the Soviets codes in an afternoon.
Plus, you’d be eliminating a lot of the blind alleys computer development has travelled down the years, so the development rate would be accelerated as well.
Oh, yeah, Derleth, a stand alone software vendor wouldn’t be all that unique a concept in the 1960s since ex-IBM employee Ross Perot started EDS about then.
It would be interesting to work out a business plan for this. The problems would be the small and extremely splintered market. Though you could write some generic packages in Fortran, most stuff was at least somewhat machine dependent. The IBM 360 series 4 years later was the first with a standard instruction set across several machines. The second problem is that standard packages sell today because companies have modeled their processes around the computer, not the other way around. If you’ve read magazines and books from the period, one of the biggest jobs is that of the systems analyst who figured out what the company actually did, and figured out how it could be standardized enough to automate. So I’m not at all sure that such a business would fly.
Just to follow up on the problems of interfacing 1960 era peripherals with your PC - the Russians had this problem. Much of their computer industry was built around a 360 series machine they smuggled into Russia. I’ve spoken to someone who worked in a secret Soviet lab which tried to interface these machines with more modern PC printers, disks, etc. (It turned out he used some papers I wrote in grad school for this.) It was a big job, and I’m not sure 1960 technology would be up to it.
Voyager said:
Nope. You’ve just made some very radical changes in the past. Now you have no way of knowing how anything will turn out. And even if you didn’t, changing the pattern of buying stocks would in itself change the market. So you need to find something valuable that exists independent of any changes you make. Oil fields, gold veins, etc.
Or, you can just let the thing be self financing. The knowledge you’re sending back is worth hundreds of billions of dollars all by itself.
Do the computers of today have the mips capability , to do nuclear sims.
Declan
What did you have in mind? ( 
, I know, I know—you could do those calculations with a piece of cardboard.)
Cool thread, all. I only wish I had the brains to contribute anything useful. 
Maybe this or this, for odd things you can do with 20 year old computer hardware. (A GUI and a web browser on an Apple II…now I’ve seen everything.)
Wait, the OP is talking about sending a human and a machine back in time to change the future? Does the name “Sarah Connor” ring a bell?
Tripler
And we all know the role of the Terminator would be played by Bill Gates . . .
If I had to guess, I’d say it’d take longer than we’d consider acceptable today, but that’s still a lot faster than what would’ve been available in 1960.
Now, if we were to bring back IBM’s Blue Gene, things might get really interesting.
The other important thing to take back would be a survey of the literature in theoretical computer science from the 60s on. That could lead to huge advances–hell, the compression theory alone would probably be revolutionary.
“Can I finish? Can I finish? CANIFINISHCANIFINISHCANIFINISH?”
Fascinating. No matter how much I think I know about computers and their history, there’s always something left to learn.