[HN Gopher] Don Estridge: A misfit who built the IBM PC
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Don Estridge: A misfit who built the IBM PC
        
       Author : dshipper
       Score  : 140 points
       Date   : 2024-06-06 10:55 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (every.to)
 (TXT) w3m dump (every.to)
        
       | dreamcompiler wrote:
       | I was living in Texas at the time of Flight 191. I was no fan of
       | the IBM PC but it was still gut-wrenching to hear that the father
       | of the machine had been killed.
       | 
       | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
       | 
       | This was the crash that brought the term "microburst" into the
       | national consciousness.
        
         | Trailing5650 wrote:
         | A fascinating training video provided to American Airlines
         | pilots discussing windshear and microbursts. Flight 191 is an
         | example used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxXwqAm1a-Y
        
         | ordu wrote:
         | Kyra Dempsey wrote about it.
         | 
         | https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/water-wind-and-fire-the-...
        
       | tromp wrote:
       | It's rare that a tech story brings me to tears, but I couldn't
       | help feel one swelling up when reading the final paragraphs.
       | 
       | > Eventually, it was Wilkie who made the first move. Overwhelmed
       | with emotion, his eyes red and swollen with grief, he stepped
       | forward and detached the red rosette from the lapel of his suit
       | jacket. It was the same one Don had given him years before.
       | Leaning down, he gently placed the rosette on the casket.
       | 
       | It feels like there should be a movie made about this story...
        
         | tracker1 wrote:
         | I feel the same way. The end of the story is just sad. I wish
         | that more companies could break their own structures to offer
         | rewards, bonuses and more freedom to teams like this. The kinds
         | of people that thrive with these kinds of opportunities tend
         | not to do as well with general corporate culture.
         | 
         | So many times a relatively small upstart team with enough
         | freedom will accomplish greatness, only for corporate culture
         | to completely destroy what was.
        
       | mellosouls wrote:
       | For people who are interested in this era, _Halt and Catch Fire_
       | is a terrific portrayal of the sorts of characters and battles
       | that defined it, albeit from more of a startup perspective.
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWrioRji60A
        
         | st3ve445678 wrote:
         | Fantastic show, highly recommend.
        
           | assimpleaspossi wrote:
           | Absolutely horrible show and I advise people to not waste
           | their time.
        
             | LaundroMat wrote:
             | Why is that?
        
               | assimpleaspossi wrote:
               | The acting is horrible. The writing is terrible. The
               | story veers off into areas unrelated. There is a moment
               | of a thoroughly unrelated homosexual encounter. (What was
               | the point of that?!) Moments I know that are so really
               | stretched too far to be believable. And on and on.
               | 
               | So bad I couldn't finish the series.
        
               | radicaldreamer wrote:
               | Sorry you have bad taste and don't understand character
               | development outside of in your face plot points
               | -\\_(tsu)_/-
        
               | AlbertCory wrote:
               | "The writing is terrible"
               | 
               | and what fiction have _you_ ever written?
               | 
               | I lived through that era, too. As historical fiction,
               | HACF is pretty decent. "areas unrelated" -- hello, it's
               | FICTION about a specific era, and, without knowing what
               | specifically you're talking about: maybe those
               | "unrelated" areas are period-setting, or character-
               | developing.
               | 
               | HACF not for you. Let's leave it at that. You can't
               | please everyone.
        
               | folsom wrote:
               | I think the homosexual encounter is to show how joe and
               | folks like joe use sex as a tool to exert power over
               | other people.
        
               | mrguyorama wrote:
               | It's extremely contrived and deus-ex-machina all the way
               | through.
               | 
               | The "history" the show goes over is crammed into it's
               | Drama first story. The history is there for nostalgia
               | bait, not to celebrate the history or educate. That's why
               | pretty much everything interesting that happened in
               | computing was mangled into coming from the same like 5
               | people.
               | 
               | And the characters are all just narcissistic assholes who
               | are self destructive because it means the show gets to
               | carry on for another season. It also has the cliche
               | density to feel like a high schooler's homework project.
               | 
               | If you find yourself addicted to reality TV drama, you
               | will enjoy it.
               | 
               | Imagine if you tried to take "It's always sunny in
               | Philadelphia" seriously, and also were watching it
               | because you cared about Philadelphia history. I felt
               | actively patronized the whole time.
        
               | AlbertCory wrote:
               | Wrong. That's like saying the Patrick O'Brian
               | Aubrey/Maturin novels are "contrived." Hello, it's
               | _fiction_. It isn 't there to educate, except insofar as
               | the situations the characters find themselves in teach
               | you something about what it was like back then.
               | 
               | Season 2, though, I couldn't watch.
        
               | calmworm wrote:
               | Completely inaccurate analogy using IASIP and Philly.
               | lol.
        
             | ghaff wrote:
             | Such insightful commentary!
             | 
             | I didn't find it a perfect show--especially latterly--but
             | it captured a lot of the era, such as COMDEX, pretty well.
        
               | assimpleaspossi wrote:
               | As insightful as the comment I replied to.
        
               | indigodaddy wrote:
               | Precisely
        
             | trollerator23 wrote:
             | Right? I couldn't watch past the first 5 minutes. The fact
             | that one of the main characters is a "cool" girl at a time
             | where all the characters were a bunch of nerdy guys told me
             | it was a lot of woke revisionist BS.
             | 
             | To be clear, I do know quite of few girls like this main
             | character that are important in the tech industry NOW
             | (Lymor Fried, Jeri Ellsworth, etc etc among many) but just
             | not back then.
        
               | AlbertCory wrote:
               | No, you're wrong. I was there. It _was_ mostly guys, but
               | there were plenty of women as well. Radia Perlman, to
               | name just one famous one. I recall another from Lawrence
               | Livermore whom I met at an IETF. I went to grad school
               | with several of them.
               | 
               | There certainly is a lot of woke revisionist BS around.
               | No doubt about that.
               | 
               | Edit: in my current book "This New Internet Thing" one of
               | the characters, Cassie, wants to adopt a child as a
               | single woman. I got advice on that process by Heidi
               | Buelow (RIP), who was last at Oracle but worked on the
               | Xerox Star, and adopted two children of her own (Cassie
               | is not modeled on Heidi, except for that). Heidi
               | unfortunately died while I was writing it, and I can't
               | find any online obituary on her.
               | 
               | Since we're talking about "back in the day" naturally
               | some of those people have crossed the Great Divide. You
               | can find a few women in here as well:
               | 
               | https://decconnection.org/memorials.htm
               | 
               | Not a lot, of course. But not none.
        
               | neilv wrote:
               | > _The fact that one of the main characters is a "cool"
               | girl at a time where all the characters were a bunch of
               | nerdy guys_
               | 
               | From what I recall seeing as a kid, and when working in
               | my teens, that wasn't too unlikely.
               | 
               | There were a lot of women in computing, of various pre-
               | Yahoo-IPO eras.
               | 
               | I think the relative numbers diminished dramatically with
               | the dotcom gold rush, and the newer bro cultures, and
               | gatekeeping.
               | 
               | Only in recent years have we started seeing more women in
               | "tech" again.
        
               | pjmorris wrote:
               | I'll add Judy Estrin to the list of cool girls from the
               | time, in addition to the non-famous ones I worked with.
               | Her little company stomped our big company at making X
               | terminals back in the 80's. We were probably 70:30 M/F
               | among our ~two dozen new grads.
        
               | trollerator23 wrote:
               | You guys have in fact proven my point by bringing up all
               | two of them.
        
               | kragen wrote:
               | i know a significant number of women who were important
               | in the tech industry back then too
        
           | ErneX wrote:
           | I agree.
        
         | mistyvales wrote:
         | Came to say the same thing :D
         | 
         | The character of Cameron was highly inspired by Romero. In
         | fact, the book Masters of Doom is kind of a blueprint for the
         | show in some ways
        
         | endofreach wrote:
         | One of my favourite shows of all time. Wish there was more of
         | it...
         | 
         | Thanks for the reminder to rewatch it. I really need that show
         | now.
        
         | pan69 wrote:
         | I really enjoyed the first season (especially the first couple
         | of episodes) as the focus of the story is the release of the
         | product and the struggles associated with it.
         | 
         | The second season seems to become the typical personal drama /
         | relationship / betrayal / writers kung-fu story arch / etc.
         | that every series comprising more than one season seems to
         | spiral into these days.
         | 
         | So, highly recommend the first season!
        
       | nedrylandJP wrote:
       | There is a "high tech middle school" with his namesake in Boca
       | Raton, FL, next to the former 1960s IBM R&D complex.
       | 
       | https://www.palmbeachschools.org/DonEstridgeMiddle
        
         | yardie wrote:
         | Well, TIL. When I see a school named after someone who is not
         | widely famous I assume they were an educator or politician.
        
         | stevenwoo wrote:
         | Reading Boca Raton reminded me, they used the names of cities
         | close to the offices for the internal names for products. I co-
         | oped at IBM in Austin in the late 1980s and we tested the new
         | models of PC Jr/Portable/PS2/peripherals and the internal
         | codenames were stuff like Boca Raton and Cedar Key (which none
         | of us got until our boss told us) but I can no longer remember
         | which was which anymore.
        
       | yardie wrote:
       | I grew up in South Florida in the 80s and 90s. I was familiar
       | with the IBM office in Boca Raton, nicknamed T-Rex, and had a few
       | school friends who worked at IBM on the IBM PC. From what I can
       | remember, the Boca campus was like garden leave. IBM sent you
       | there when they didn't want you but couldn't fire you. So it was
       | full of IBM misfits who were thrown out of HQ. I never made the
       | connection to Flight 191, and assumed it was because of Hurricane
       | Andrew. But once the PC market took off IBM wanted that team
       | brought back into the veil. A lot of my friends moved to Cary,
       | NC, more famously known as Research Triangle.
       | 
       | Miami, and South Florida overall, is kind of a crazy place to be.
       | Every couple of decades people out west or from up north
       | rediscover we actually exist. There are good engineers here but
       | the West and Northeast have loads of money. So once CS/SWE really
       | took off as a career the companies down here couldn't/wouldn't
       | compete. Trust me, if you were an Asian/Indian kid in Florida in
       | the 90s and told your parents you wanted to work in software they
       | were going to beat some sense into you.
       | 
       | I've watched money flood into the area and then get carried back
       | out when the financial tides changed. I always imagined Miami
       | could have been kind of like a Silicon Valley but the politics,
       | money, geography will work against it.
        
         | selimthegrim wrote:
         | I always console myself one day that New Orleans will be Miami
         | with drinking water.
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | The IBM PC in particular was probably never especially
         | significant to IBM as a whole whatever its effect on the
         | computer industry generally.
         | 
         | As someone who had IBM as a client for a number of years, we
         | observed that there seemed to be a lot of IBM folks who
         | basically ended up in some Siberia in one form or another.
        
       | phkahler wrote:
       | >> His divisional heads always had the same answer.
       | Microcomputers--home computing--were a fad. They were low-cost
       | and low-profit. Let others scrabble around in the metaphorical
       | dirt of home computing. The real money was in the markets that
       | IBM's divisions already dominated--selling vast mainframes and
       | minicomputer systems to large businesses. Cary was even told to
       | buy Atari, which by then had established itself as America's home
       | video game system of choice. That's all home computers were good
       | for: gaming.
       | 
       | This attitude was so short sighted. A friend of mines dad was
       | using their Apple II for work-related spreadsheets and thought it
       | was the greatest this ever. Not sure how IBM folks could not see
       | this opportunity just because it was smaller scale than "what
       | they did". 20 years later Intel seemed to have missed the mobile
       | market due to a similar attitude.
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | In the case of Intel, based on what I saw, they were just
         | desperate/convinced to turn the x86 into a beachhead for mobile
         | (but Flash will be the same!) but that ended up not making
         | sense.
        
         | contingencies wrote:
         | A friend of mine's father was the head of _Digital_ [0] in
         | Australia and later sent to Boston after being promoted. I
         | distinctly recall speaking to him in around 1995 regarding
         | Linux. He, along with I believe a large number of commercial
         | Unix vendors, snubbed his nose at Linux suggesting it was a
         | passing fad and would never challenge their "serious" Unix.
         | This is interesting because Jon 'Maddog' Hall[1], then CTO of
         | Digital (before it was acquired by Compaq in 1998, acquired in
         | turn by HP in 2002) certainly did get it... I interviewed him
         | once in Sydney circa '99 and had a good long chat once in
         | Taiwan circa '01 after crossing paths by chance. He was
         | traveling the world proselytizing Linux in shorts and flip-
         | flops, had a firm belief in embedded Linux changing the world
         | (Android[2] wasn't released until nearly a decade later in
         | 2008), but was yet to announce he was gay (took another
         | decade). Fast forward 30 years: nobody younger than 40 has
         | practically even heard of the company, Linux is in every
         | household, and the very idea of a commercial Unix a joke.
         | 
         | Furthermore, in perfectly delicious irony, IBM's own
         | modifications to Linux[3] to support the allocation of
         | workloads to its giant server hardware have enabled the
         | popularization of containers, further reducing demands for
         | server equipment, increasing portability between desktop and
         | server environments, and substantially drawing down the cost of
         | provisioning for cloud services - the arch rival to traditional
         | mainframe mentality. Today, in a world awash with dirt cheap
         | and ever-present processing power and storage, as well as
         | recently unimaginable levels of connectivity, we stand almost
         | at the point where the term "server" itself has become an
         | anachronism and consumption-oriented devices draw consumers
         | toward "services" (often as paid for subscriptions).
         | 
         | IMHO some industries which will look nothing like today's
         | version in 30 years' time: food, oil, transport, construction,
         | clothing, health, and education. _Carpe diem_.
         | 
         | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Hall_(programmer) [2]
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) [3]
         | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
        
         | LaundroMat wrote:
         | It's close to what Clayton Christensen describes as disruptive
         | innovation (his examples were the steel industry and radio's):
         | incumbents are forced higher up the chain by low quality
         | competitors ("home computers are only good for gaming") that
         | answer an unanswered need well enough. Once these competitors
         | gain a foothold, quality improves and incumbents have less and
         | less of a market.
        
         | phone8675309 wrote:
         | > Not sure how IBM folks could not see this opportunity just
         | because it was smaller scale than "what they did"
         | 
         | They thought it was a fad - that centralized systems
         | (coincidentally, the machines they made) would be the computing
         | platform that people would pay-per-minute/pay-per-hour/pay-per-
         | month to access remotely. They wanted to be an information
         | utility - a supplier to all - instead of selling a small, low
         | margin box for one-time revenue.
         | 
         | "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
         | salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
        
           | jhoechtl wrote:
           | Are you talking about Microsoft Azure?
        
           | folsom wrote:
           | So you are saying that they were too far ahead of their time.
        
           | kragen wrote:
           | google, fecebutt, amazon, and azure seem to be doing okay
           | with centralized systems providing continuing revenue
        
         | dkarl wrote:
         | None of those division heads were trying to honestly assess the
         | microcomputer market. They were trying to stay in harmony with
         | opinion at their level and higher in IBM.
         | 
         | That's what you get at that level in a company that big. Anyone
         | who is two or more levels from the top of the org chart and
         | also two or more levels from the bottom lives in a reality that
         | consists entirely of the attitudes and opinions of other
         | people, weighted by each person's ability to impact their
         | career. If they saw that the building they were in was on fire,
         | their thought process would go something like: "Bob isn't here
         | today because he's at that sales meeting. When he hears about
         | the fire he'll downplay it as something minor, so I shouldn't
         | evacuate or he'll think less of me. But Bob's boss Don is here.
         | If Don evacuates and I don't, that might Don feel embarrassed
         | and emasculated, and he'll take it out on Bob. So I need to
         | evacuate if and only if Don evacuates. Bob won't mind me
         | evacuating if Don does it. But Don's office is on the other
         | side of that wall of approaching flames. Shit. My only chance
         | is if he's in a meeting on this side of the building, so I can
         | track him down and see what he's doing. Let me check his
         | calendar real quick...."
        
           | bee_rider wrote:
           | A ridiculous and totally unrealistic example, and also the
           | funniest description of office social politics I think I've
           | ever seen.
        
         | insane_dreamer wrote:
         | > This attitude was so short sighted.
         | 
         | Reminds me of Kodak.
        
         | tracker1 wrote:
         | They hamstrung and killed OS/2 similarly.
        
           | garius wrote:
           | Yup. I'll be covering OS/2 when I look at operating systems
           | in this period.
           | 
           | The level of foot-shooting by IBM on that one was ridiculous.
        
             | macintux wrote:
             | Could IBM have succeeded given Microsoft's betrayal? Or did
             | Microsoft just give up on IBM ever delivering something?
        
         | ordu wrote:
         | _> Not sure how IBM folks could not see this opportunity just
         | because it was smaller scale than  "what they did"._
         | 
         | Bureaucracy can be like that. Big bosses who might be really
         | interested in increased profits rely on their subordinates to
         | see the market, but subordinates are risk averse and don't want
         | to change anything. Add corporate politics, people fighting not
         | for innovations or for a market share but for promotions, and
         | you'll get the picture.
         | 
         | It seems to be that they besides all that they were
         | _ideological_ , believed that size does matter and scorned on
         | those who made computers smaller than theirs. Ideology means
         | that people would have troubles to see anything that
         | contradicts their ideology. Peer pressure, social desirability
         | and all these things set up individual biases.
        
       | jes5199 wrote:
       | there's a sense in which IBM was right to fear the PC - it, in
       | fact, killed their main industry, and they were not able to
       | compete well in the new space, despite defining the standard.
       | maybe they could have pursued it more enthusiastically and done
       | better in the 1990s, but, it still would have been fighting
       | against the tide
        
         | fortran77 wrote:
         | It also killed their very successful Selectric business!
        
       | figers wrote:
       | For people who are interested in this era, read Fire in the
       | valley, I have never read a book so fast in college, a great
       | read!
       | 
       | https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Valley-Making-Personal-Computer/...
        
       | kennethrc wrote:
       | > "The system would do two things. It would draw an absolutely
       | beautiful picture of a nude lady, ..."
       | 
       | Lena? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna)
        
         | garius wrote:
         | I did try and find out if it was. Sadly couldn't find anything
         | to confirm it!
        
       | zabzonk wrote:
       | i believe that estridge was being head-hunted at apple as ceo
       | before they eventually hired scully. sad thing is that if they
       | had hired him, he might even be alive today, but he preferred to
       | stay at big blue.
        
       | nabla9 wrote:
       | Classic example of Worse is Better.
       | 
       | All competing architectures were better than IBM PC architecture,
       | PC BIOS was bad, chosen processor instruction set was the worst,
       | MS-DOS operating system was bad. Only the keyboard was good.
       | 
       | What made it winner was open architecture, 80-column screen and
       | IBM name.
        
         | garius wrote:
         | keyboard wasn't great either, to begin with!
        
           | nabla9 wrote:
           | Model M keyboards are ridiculously good. They are consistent
           | for every key, have great tactile feedback and are extremely
           | durable.
        
         | forinti wrote:
         | I did some historical research to understand why the PC caught
         | on (it made no sense to my 1980s teenage mind).
         | 
         | A PC with 80 columns card, 64KB of RAM and a floppy drive cost
         | about the same as an Apple II Plus with the same specs
         | (US$2,700).
         | 
         | A BBC Micro would set you back about US$1,500 (PS900). It
         | didn't offer slots, but did have 80 columns standard. It also
         | had a lot of ports.
         | 
         | You couldn't even argue that the 8088 was much faster than the
         | 6502. BASIC ran a lot faster on the 2MHz Beeb than on the PC.
         | 
         | The only thing that makes sense to me is that the people who
         | bought it on launch were planning to use more than 64KB of RAM
         | (which was rather expensive then).
        
           | surfingdino wrote:
           | It was an open platform. In those days, you were getting a
           | set of printed manuals including schematics of the machine
           | when you bought one. It created an ecosystem of clones and
           | expansion hardware. PC-DOS/MS-DOS provided an easy path to
           | port CP-M software.
        
       | deater wrote:
       | I'm a bit curious about this part of the article:
       | 
       | > Unlike all of its major rivals--including the Apple II--the IBM
       | PC was built > with an open architecture.
       | 
       | The Apple II, designed by Woz, is famously open, to the point the
       | original model came with full schematics and ROM listings which
       | made it trivially cloneable. I'm curious why this isn't
       | considered an open architecture.
        
         | nabla9 wrote:
         | Apple II hand proprietary design. You could not clone it
         | legally.
         | 
         | Just like posting source code does not make the code open,
         | publishing schematics does not make the design open.
        
           | deater wrote:
           | no, you could very easily clone the Apple II easily and it
           | was done many, many times
           | 
           | it's true that eventually Apple started suing people, but
           | until Apple vs Franklin it was unclear if you could even
           | copyright a BIOS. And once that was determined, people had to
           | clean-room reverse engineer the BIOS but it was possible to
           | make clones (see the Laser 128 and many many others)
           | 
           | this is just as open as the IBM PC was. You couldn't just
           | drop a copy of the PC bios into your clone, you had to go to
           | a 3rd-party reverse-engineered BIOS
        
             | tombert wrote:
             | Even more, Apple tried to block the Laser 128 and failed,
             | since VTech didn't actually do anything illegal; they
             | reverse engineered the Apple APIs and licensed BASIC
             | directly from Microsoft.
             | 
             | They were actually pretty cool computers; half the price of
             | the name brand Apple while being mostly fully compatible
             | with all the software. I've only played with one once, but
             | I thought it was pretty cool. Sad that VTech only makes
             | crappy kids toys now.
        
             | joezydeco wrote:
             | The key was that by publishing the BIOS source in the open,
             | it was hard to prove that you _weren 't_ exposed to the
             | source code when you wrote your own BIOS.
             | 
             | The clean-room approach was a neat hack that solved the
             | problem, but it was hard to find people that had never seen
             | the IBM source _and_ could prove it.
             | 
             | https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-
             | comp...
        
       | AlbertCory wrote:
       | One consistent theme you get from business history is:
       | 
       | There is very little penalty for being wrong. There is often a
       | _huge_ penalty for being right, if the powers-that-be opposed
       | you.
        
         | elzbardico wrote:
         | One of the biggest advantages of being young is still not
         | knowing how real this can be.
        
       | ghaff wrote:
       | It might make an interesting business book--maybe I'll write it--
       | what realistic business strategies companies that are widely
       | viewed as failures could have followed though industry changes
       | that boards/shareholders wouldn't have revolted about.
       | 
       | I'm not even sure IBM is a great example. It had a really rough
       | stretch but is still there as a very profitable dividend-paying
       | large corporation even if it's not considered cool.
        
       | forgotmypw17 wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/4MbcF
        
       | KerrAvon wrote:
       | This part is factually incorrect:
       | 
       | > The easiest way to set that standard wasn't just to sell
       | machines; it was to let other companies sell parts, software, and
       | even whole computers that would be compatible with your machine.
       | Unlike all of its major rivals--including the Apple II--the IBM
       | PC was built with an open architecture.
       | 
       | The Apple II was effectively as open as the PC. And IBM didn't
       | want clones any more than Apple did. Both the Apple II and the PC
       | were eventually legally cloned, and neither company could do
       | anything about it.
        
       | labrador wrote:
       | The end of this article is so beautifully written it made me tear
       | up
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-06 23:00 UTC)