Rating: 
Summary: Human drama behind technology
Review: The problem with most books on technology is that they tend to dwell on facts, figures, and data that lose average readers competely. ENIAC is not that type of book. Because he is an accomplished writer, well able to weave human emotion into the tale, Scott McCartney relates a story that anyone--whether technically proficient or not--can appreciate. The only other book that can come close is Tracy Kidder's Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Soul of a New Machine."Those who argue technical details are missing the point. McCartney does understand the complexities of computer design, but he is making the information accessible to those of us who don't have advanced degrees in computer science. ENIAC is a not a textbook; it's targeted for the masses. And McCartney does a great job of making the nearly incomprehensible facts seem, if fleetingly, logical to the vast sea of laymen out here. For the contentious person who said that journalists shouldn't write books like this, I counter with this: Would you rather read a human drama written by a scientist or by a professional writer? I ask this with complete respect given for the capabilities of scientists (my husband is a PhD in computer science). Scientists specialize in research and development; writers specialize in making words come alive. And that's what McCartney does; he makes the story robust and engaging. If this book accomplishes anything, it will set the record straight about the accomplishments of Mauchly and Eckert, two men who were pushed aside by big egos and big money. Even if acclaim comes too late, it is still honor given for honor due.
Rating: 
Summary: First class history of the dawn of the electronic computer
Review: The real fun begins after Mauchly and Eckert and their team build ENIAC. All of the characters in a great drama come together in this fascinating story of what happened after ENICA began to crunch numbers in quick time. If you want the real low down on conniving university administrators, unprincipled selfeserving academics, greedy corperations, and a legal system which applies linear thinking to 20th century problems, this is the place to learn a great deal about it. It is fascinating to follow what happened to Mauchly and Eckert and to recognize that events, such as those described in this interesting book, were characterized by the Greeks centuries ago
Rating:
Summary: History repeats itself
Review: The tale of a bold project, missed deadlines, stolen ideas, litigation and a disregarded patent. How little has the industry changed. If you are in the IT industry be sure to read this.
Rating: 
Summary: Reporters shouldn't write books like this!
Review: There are so many things wrong with this book I don't know where to start! Even if we grant that the ENIAC was an electronic computer (it was hard-wired to compute ballistic tables for artillery and was not "programmable" in the modern sense) the author doesn't give a fair version of the flag waving USA invented everything version. Indeed, if the ENIAC was the first American electronic computer, then what were the people down at Aberdeen Proving Grounds using to compute ballistic tables during WW II? The EDVAC was of course the first American computer using stored programming, and I believe the British have priority, but these early computers were experimental curiosities and very unreliable, and not very useful either. By the way, the two business "tychoons" whom the author so admires are the main reason we lost the race with the British. When they left the EDVAC program to set up their own company, using other people's ideas, they left the EDVAC project high and dry, letting down "King and Country" or perhaps I should say "Flag and Country". By the way, people are always asking me (I teach Cryptography at UC) how good the British code breaking machines were as computers. Well they were more truly programable than the ENIAC in the following sense: They were universal Turing Machines that could be programmed in binary from toggle switches. In fact they could be programmed very quickly and this was essential for the following reason: The axis powers used many different codes, and they had to be cracked quickly. This required constant and rapid reprogramming, and the data was read from punched tape by very fast optical readers--having been punched mechanically. What did the so-called computers like ENIAC and the IOWA machine have that Bletchley Park didn't? Very fast arithmetic. The code breaking machines were general purpose symbolic machines. Binary arithmetic could be programmed in and sometimes was, but their real strength was in what we would now call "Artificial Intelligence". For a superior modern equivalent, look for a machine such as the Connection Machine--the CM-1 made for a while by Thinking Machines Inc.
Rating:
Summary: Unfortunately based on incorrect information
Review: This book, as well as the many tales of the ENIAC, are factually incorrect. This was even proven by a federal judge in the state of Minnesota. On October 19, 1973, US Federal Judge Earl R. Larson signed his decision following a lengthy court trial which declared the ENIAC patent of Mauchly and Eckert invalid and named Atanasoff the inventor of the electronic digital computer -- the Atanasoff-Berry Computer or the ABC. Mr. McCartney does a great job of ignoring the facts that were proven in the case,and instead believes the hearsay, and tarnished depositions that were later recanted.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthy Effort, but Not the definitive work on subject
Review: This is a book that needed to be written, and Scott has made it clear that John Mauchly and Pres Eckert did invent and build the first electronic computer. He does describe in rational details the betrayal of John and Pres by Herman Goldstine and John von Neuamnn. Both deserve a place in the history of the development of computers, but their ambitions overreached their accomplishments. Herman saw the value of their idea for an electronic computer and did sell the idea to Aberdeen to back it and pay for it. Penn professors wanted nothing to do with what they felt to a man would be a failure. Johnny von Neumann never even heard of it until its design was frozen and the machine was nearly built. Although he was a consultant to Aberdeen, nobody told him about ENIAC because its backers also felt it would probably flop. Herman informed him of it on a railroad platform and invited him to come see it. Von Newmann was immediately captivated by it. When told meetings were already underway for a successor machine called the EDVAC (Electronic Digital Automatic Computer) he asked to join them. They met every couple of weeks. One time, von Neumann said he wouldn't be at the next meeting because he was also a consultant to Los Alamos and was needed there. One day, Goldstine came in with what appeared to be minutes of the EDVAC meetings sent back by von Neumann. EDVAC was a classified project and Herman was the security officer. Pres and John were not allowed to publish articles on either the ENIAC or EDVAC, but Herman managed to distribute von Neumann's notes widely in government and university circles. Von Neumann's note gave scant recognition to Pres or Joihn or anybody, thus the paper appeared ro be a product of von Newmann's fertile mind. Thus, the mistaken belief that von Neumann invented the stored program computer. EDVAC used a stored program. Imagine, when Pres and John applied for an EDVAC patent, they found that ambitious duo of Johnny and Herman had already applied. When confronted with this duplicity, von Neumann said he did it to ensure that the EDVAC patent would be in the public domain and not be used for commercial purposes. You bet. Scott struggles hard on the Atanasoff saga. Atanasoff never claimed he invented the computer and nobody ever heard of him until Honeywell dug him up to keep from paying royalties on the ENIAC patent. Much is made of John Mauchly's memory of his association with Atanasoff as recorded at different times. John suffered from a disease called Heriditary Hemoragic Talengetasin (HHT) which causes lesions to be formed in the brain and holes in the lungs. One of the interviews was taken shortly after he had had an episode and had been very ill in the hospital. It is no wonder he couldn't remember incidentrs then that he could remember when he was in better health. Now, to what is really wrong with the book. Scott did not grasp the environment in which events took place. Like a college term paper he relies on what has already been written and he has picked up errors from earlier books written by Nancy Stern. He is weak technically and can neither resist or recognize idiotic statements. Such as, BINAC had 512 bits of memory when in fact, it had 512 30-bit words of memory He didn't think it was impossible to program the trajectory of a Snark missle in 512 bits of menmory. He says the ENIAC was very personal and one could snuggle up to it. AsS one of the first ENIAC programmers, I state categorically, "That is idiotic." Also, he quotes me as though I had something to do with EDVAC. I had nothing to do with EDVAC. The quotes about Pres are accurate, but they were from the time when i worked with Pres on the design of a backup machine for the first UNIVAC. Pres was afraid the mercury delay line memory might not work so Art Gehring and I under Pres's direction did the logical design of a UNIVAC backup machine that used electrostatic memory. It was microcoded. It was never built. The mercury delay line memory worked. He also uses a description I gave of meetings a group of us had with von Neumann when we turned the ENIAC into a stored program computer. Scot claims the EDVAC meetings were held with the group sitting theater style listening to von Neumann lectured. When Hell freezes over could such meetings have taken place. Pres would never have allowed anyone to take over his meetings on his project. Scott calls Mauchly a journeyman physicist. What the Hell does that mean? Also, he says Mauchly couldn't keep up with von Neumann. I worked with both. Both were brilliant: von Neumann was studiedly gracious, Mauchly was laid back and thoughtful. I could talk about anything with Mauchly. I didn't know von Neumann as well, but I'm sure he also could discuss almost any subject. Scott takes the position that the judge in the ENIAC patent trial played god and punished Sperry Univac for signing an exclusive cross licensing agreement with IBM. The statute of limitations had run out for fining them for restraint of trade. What he could do was take away the patent so the company couldn't benefit by it. At that time, the computer industry consisted of IBM and the seven dwarves (CDC, Burroughs, Honeywell, NCR, UNIVAC, RCA, & Digital Equipment). The judge may have felt that the dwarves couldn't survive if they had to pay heavy patent royalties. By far, his worst treatment is that of the BINAC. The BINAC ran for 44 hours without a failure (2 machines ran in tandem and checked each other) in Philadelphia. During the demonstration, a sound system was hooked up to one of the outputs and played music as the numbers being calculated changed. As a joke, one of the engineers rolled out an egg to show it could calculate, play music and even lay eggs. Lighten up Scoot, it was a joke the BINAC didn't really lay an egg. This was the McCarthy ersa and the cold war era. Northrop, who financed BINAC, was run by the missle boys who were paranoid, Eckert-Mauchly's security status was being questioned (probably someone who had something to gain by the company's problem wrote a convenient letter to the right security agency), electronics was mistrusted, and no one knew what it took to keep a computer installation going. Northrop dismantled the BINAC, threw it into crates and shipped it to Californis. A young engineer, who had just graduated from college was hired and taken to a hangar where parts were scattered all over the floor. It was the BINAC and he was told to put it together. The BINAC didn't lay an egg. Those who managed it did. I say it was the first stored program computer. That 44-hour test was run in April, 1949. I'm glad this book was written.
Rating:
Summary: A cautionary tale
Review: This is a brief, enjoyable history of possibly the first programmable, electronic computer (Colossus has its fans, but is less well known). It tells how Mauchly and Eckert together created something truly new in the world - something that, today, we could hardly live without. The historical research is good, the writing is very readable, and the inventors' prescience is almost beyond credibility. That is the first half of the book, a worthy but ordinary piece of the history of computing. The book's second half is where its true value lies. The second half is filled with grasping incompetents, great men at their pettiest, conspiracy, and bizarre workings of so-called justice. It's about Mauchly and Eckert's trust in the people around them, and in trust violated. It's about the engineer and the scientist, a little naive, trying to hold their own in a world that wants to take it from them. It's about the ugly part of creativity's contact with greed for reputation and commercial success. It's scary. This book was suggested to me by a startup entrepeneur, someone who clearly identified with the two inventors. Not much has changed since Mauchly and Eckert's time, except that the legal attacks are more likley and more rapacious. I'm not sure how to read this suggestion. It warns against real dangers of personality politics, but doesn't show any way to defend against those dangers. It's a good book. I take parts of it very much to heart. Even if the story has no personal meaning for you, it's still a vivid bit of history, it talks about events within living memory, and it shows part of the twnety-first century's origin. I recommend it to any citizen of the modern world.
Rating:
Summary: S McC is full of it
Review: This makes a nice story, but the industry and U.S. Courts ruled the Atanasoff-Berry Computer of Iowa State University, the First Computer. It took Atanasoff, Berry, their heirs and ISU 50 years to gain that distinction. Perhaps McCartney should do a little more research and retitle his book.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing... could have been a magazine article
Review: This should have been a long magazine article, not a $23 book. That's not to say the topic, the creation/invention of the first computer, isn't deserving of a historical, scientific book-length examination. It certainly is. But this book isn't it. It lacks detail, historical context and a discussion of the implications of the invention and what it meant to the era in which it was created. There were many places where I wondered why the author didn't go just a few paragraphs further, explaining key details to us or telling us stories. Instead we get a recitation of events. For example, he mentions that it was hard for the ENIAC project to get parts. OK, tell us why and how they got them. Instead we get a sentence or two. I feel like there was a story to be told here and it was merely outlined.
Rating:
Summary: Inventors of the computer get credit at last.
Review: This superb story of the invention of the world's first computer gives appropriate credit to two brilliant but naive researchers. So consumed with the work they were doing, they did not apply for patents in a speedy fashion, and certainly did not have their patent applications scrutinized by a lawyer when they did complete them. They generously shared their information with others, such as Von Neumann, a true scoundrel who claimed their work as his own. Sadly, they became disenchanted by the academic environment and created the world's first private computer firm, something which they did not have the business acumen to achieve. Truely, a sad story of the two men who started the computer revolution and their "colleagues" who robbed them blind and, in the end, tried to take their well-earned credit away from them.
|
