From

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/computer.html
and
So I agree, it does depend on your definition. However, I feel that selectively picking features that would enable you to say ENIAC was the first computer rather than COLOSSUS is disingenious. By most peoples standards they were both primitave computers. (Not that I've done a survey )

Is it just me, or did this thread go off topic insanely fast?

Interesting, but off topic.

*chuckles*

Sounds like some kinda class project to me.

.

This is pointless,
germans had also computers but after WWII every scientific plan was destroyed or stolen (like the kalasnikov plan), so we will never know.

Lets compromise this and accept what Tanenbaum states in "Modernn Operating Systems" : In mid 40's Howark Aiken in Harvard, John von Neumann in Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, J.Presper Eckert and William Mauchley in the Univercity of Pennsylvania and Konrad Zuse in Germany,among others , managed to construct computing machines using Vacuum Tubes.

It's true that COLLOSUS was constructed before ENIAC, but i also found this:
...and yes this thread did go off topic insanely fast.

We can put it back on topic with BSD..

Hmm, probably is a bit off topic.

It seems that by 1940 the time of the electrical computer had arrived and several people were working on it, the same as happened with cars, tv, radio, telephone etc.

As was pointed out, a lot of books refer to ENIAC as the first computer, but this is because no-one knew about COLOSSUS until the mid 1970's due to the official secrets act. (Who would have thought they could keep that a secret so long?) By then history had been written and it's difficult to change.

So I'm just trying to keep the record straight and give credit where it's due, then maybe people like Tanenbaum would give it the prominence it deserves instead of ignoring it, although it appears his book is more about operating systems than computers. Do you think he'll read this?

I really doubt... he does not like linux (although he says it's better than windows i think) because linux is monolithic and he believes that future OS's should have microkernels that communicate with messages (software interrupts etc) like his minix does. There is a famous discussion (1992) between Andy Tanenbaum and Linus ( looks more like an argument) to me. But Tanenbaum standed by and defended Linus when some guy this year who does not like the idea of open source claimed that linus stole code from minix, read here

You can send him a letter and let him know

Maybe it's the american propagada to blame for not metioning COLOSSUS or maybe it's the fact that history cannot be rewritted easily, but this hole thing with the first computer is driving me crazy
I know I'm keeping this off topic, and this may be also out of the purposes of LQ forums, but it's really interesting, and knowledge is power.

Who controlsthe past now, controls the future,
who controls the present now, controls the past.
George Orwell

I'll see if I can get this in before a moderator reminds us to stay on topic...

Regarding
I think this adds to the argument that it is a very subjective subject.

Personally, although I confess to never having met the judge, I don't expect he has the technical knowledge to decide what constitutes the first digital programmable computer.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff_Berry_Computer :
In my opinion it wouldn't qualify, but maybe I'm biased