Customer Reviews

Eniac: The Triumphs and Tragedies of the World's First Computer

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

Scott McCartney has written an excellent counterbalance to the current literature on the invention of the computer. It is a fine contrast to Herman Goldstine's book on the subject. Here, we see a johnny-come-lately view of the great mathematician John von Neumann, a man whose profound insight into the future value of an all-electronic calculating machine gives him the shared title of inventor of computer science (along with A. Turing), not the computer. This book leaves us no doubt, it was Eckert and Mauchly's creation, a plum that many others wanted credit for once it matured. The general purpose electronic computer is fittingly the invention of an electrical engineer (Eckert) and a visionary physicist (Mauchly). This is also a good resource on the entry by women into the world of computers. I was only disappointed that McCartney did not include a bit more of the technical, engineering details about ENIAC, and its comparison to the COLOSSUS, perhaps in an appendix.

In the late 1980s I edited a feature magazine on the history of computing for Computerworld newspaper, and we concluded as the author of ENIAC does--that Eckert and Mauchly deserve credit as developing the first computer--with the same qualifications that the author states. Other earlier efforts, such as by Atanasoff, were important for advancing the understanding of the field, but they didn't lead to a standalone programmable electronic calculator that can be seen as the forerunner of today's machines. After Eckert and Mauchly, the field blossomed, and this book tells their story well.

Anybody who has taken an introductory computer science course has heard about how Mauchly and Eckert built ENIAC, the first electronic computer, which was originally intended to compute artillery shell trajectories during World War II. Here is the amazing story of the building of ENIAC, and how Mauchly and Eckert deserve far more credit for this triumph than the customary footnote they are usually given in computer science textbooks. After all, it was they who actually turned theory into real electrical wiring and vacuum tubes. This book questions whether John von Neumann deserves as much credit as he is sometimes given for being the "Father of the Modern Computer."

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.

My husband (the computer jock) just loved this book for its technical information. And I loved it for its not-so-technical information. It provided a window into a world rarely seen by outsiders. I would highly recommend it!

ENIAC is a wonderfully written book on the origin of the modern computer. As computers become a bigger part of our lives, the history of the computer becomes more important. It will become like studing ancient Greek and Roman philosophies to understand the origin of modern western democracies. But studing history too close to the events colors the "history" with too many personal biasis. The story of the computer is no different.

It has been fifty years since the development of the computer, and it is about time that someone with no personal motivation in the story relate the origins of the computer. It would seem that the authors of most of the previous books on the subject had a personal interest in the subject which makes their accounts suspect. Although there may be some technical "errors" in the book, I have seen far more errors in many books that claim to be written by an "expert," and I believe that Scott McCartney can be forgiven for any technical errors since this is not a technical book. The issue is: Are the facts substancially correct?

When I look inside my computer, I do not see a rolling drum with capacitors mounted on it. The only thing that I see moving is the fan to keep it cool (a problem to ENIAC also). Nowhere on my computer do I need to "jot" down intermediate results to feed back into the computer. And finally, if I programmed the proper codes into memory that said: IF 2<3 THEN self-destruct, I know what would happen. Perhaps people in Iowa have computers that work differently than mine.

I have read several books on John von Neuman. He was a brilliant man whom I admire greatly. He had many great insights, but the development of the computer was not one of them. Clearly he was not free of serious short commings.

Finally, anyone who has dealt with our legal system must realize that our justice system is neither blind nor always just. It is about punishment! If Sperry Rand had acted fairly and honestly, the out come might have been different. There might not have been a law suit. Once lawyers are involved, all is fair game: win at any cost! Perception becomes more important than truth. Sperry Rand was punished. Eckert and Mauchly were deprived of their patent on a technicallity. It happens every day in our legal system.

After reading the book, I think that Mr. McCartney's facts seem to be well documented, and the facts support his contention. I think that I know who invented, perhaps developed would be a better description, the modern computer. This is a must read book. See what you think!

Strong feelings and misinformation are common on this topic, as you can see by reading some of these "reviews." That is why this book is important, for it gives a popular account of the true side of a story that has been clouded by an earlier popular account by Mollenhoff in which Atanasoff is elevated to "Forgotten Father of the Computer." I don't want to berate the previous reviewer from Iowa too much, but I have a feeling that haven't read McCartney's book. The Iowa cheerleaders have been spouting this stuff for years, while the great majority of computer historians have already accepted the fact that, in spite of one judge's legal ruling on a patent, Eckert and Mauchly did invent the first electronic computer. Never-the-less, you'll continue to hear people parroting some outright lies due to an effective PR campaign by the proponents of Iowa State. (For example, the terms "general-purpose" and "programmable" can never apply to Atanasoff's machine, which was designed solely for the purpose of solving simultaneous equations.)

So anyway, the book is about this controversy. So rather than me supporting it's arguments, I recommend you read it! It's a compelling story, with complex characters, not just good guys and bad guys. I believe that the perspective is accurate and true, for it agrees with the serious academic historians. Despite a few unruly naysayers from Iowa.

From the other reviews of this book you get the impression the author got the basic facts wrong. I think the author did an outstanding job writing the story of the ENIAC, and covered much of the controversy up until the death of Pres Eckert in 1995.

Holding aside the issue of whether the ENIAC was the first 'computer', or whether Maulchy 'stole' Atanstoffs ideas, and the apparent (and successful) attempt of John von Neumann to take much of the credit for ENIAC and EDVAC, the book does an excellent job of telling a fair and well-researched account of events.

I give this book 5 stars because it is well written, well researched, and holds your interest. There is much controversy over who invented what when, and I think this book admirably takes the side of Maulchy & Eckert, two visionaries far ahead of their own time.

In the final analysis does it _matter_ if Anastoffs single-purpose partially electronic computer (which was never completed and was denied a patent) was the first computer? I think what matters is that the ENIAC was the first viable electronic digital computer built and used for a number of years, and in that light this is an excellent book to read all about it.

I read this book back before Christmas, and thought it was excellent. I teach computer courses with historical computer content. Some that have reviewed this book have pouted that Colossus or the ABC computer should get the title of first computer, but this is a flawed argument. The above two computers were electro-mechnical creation, while ENIAC was full electronic. The FIRST full electronic computer in fact. It was a milestone, and those that try to steal this honor from Eckert and Mauchley are wrong in doing so. This book shows how these two inventors were innovative, and how later they had their innovation stolen. This book clearly and concisely sets the record straight. Excellent treatment of the story.