PC software pioneer Gary Kildall's life and mysterious death at a California bar
Posted by KSBW8@reddit | vintagecomputing | View on Reddit | 56 comments
jmadisson@reddit
this story omits the fact that although gary was absent, flying his plane back, at the start of the meeting with IBM - he did arrive, and the meeting took place!
they met for several hours and gary believed that they had reached a deal, but unfortunately he turned out to be mistaken. unfortunately gary's business model and licensing/royalties model was incompatible with IBM's way of doing business.
at the time, the IBM personal computer was to be one of many comporable machines. it wouldn't have made sense for gary to upend his business practices. he couldn't have foreseen what was to happen.
microsoft was unburdened with these concerns, as they were not in the OS business and hadn't had any intention to be.
sometimes, things just work out in certain ways.
i010011010@reddit
I always imagined that's closer to the reality. DRI already had revenue in millions of dollars by this time. I believe Kildall would have entered that meeting believing 1) he didn't need IBM, 2) he had a strong bargaining position and IBM needs him.
Meanwhile you have Microsoft on the other end willing to do whatever and bend over to make IBM happy. Sure, they'll whip up an OS and deliver it to IBM.
I don't expect the disparity in prices between CPM and DOS just-happened out of nowhere. It was probably born out of that meeting the expectations that DRI wanted out of it. The surprising part for them was probably that DOS would show up and undercut them by something like $200.
azathoth@reddit
They were already in the OS business in the microcomputer market; the BASIC they provided to Apple and Commodore may not qualify as a "true" OS but neither would Microsoft DOS or CP/M. Microsoft bought a Version 7 Unix license in 1978 and providing Unix, in addtion to BASIC, was part of the IBM deal. IBM also wanted CP/M and Microsoft didn't think they could get away with cloning it, as they did with DEC BASIC-PLUS for their flagship product, so they provided the connection to Digital Research. When that fell through, they bought the CP/M clone QDOS from SCP as a quick-fix and would get around to finishing the Unix part of the equation with Xenix in '81.
jmadisson@reddit
correct - the BASIC MS provided would not qualify as a "true" OS.
at the time, MS were focused on their languages and applications. this is why bill gates initially directed IBM to DRI to obtain an OS upon which microsoft's languages and applications would run.
CP/M did indeed qualify as an OS at the time - for personal computers. It provided floppy disk drive drivers and a filesystem, which was one of the key "missing links" before kildall developed CP/M.
CP/M and MS-DOS also provided i/o drivers for keyboard and display, along with minimal but effective memory allocation routines, etc.
just enough for the quite limited hardware available for 'personal' computers, vis-a-vis the larger mini and mainframe computers of the day.
azathoth@reddit
Microsoft's BASIC platform provided an abstraction over a core set of routines provided by the computer manufacturer just as CP/M and Microsoft DOS did with a BIOS, a concept that was established by Digital Research. The lack of a filesystem in Microsoft BASIC was a popular argument at the time for disqualifying it as a "real" OS but the lack of process or user management in CP/M or Microsoft DOS was cited at the same time as their not qualifying as a "real" OS.
Microsoft's purchase of a Unix license in '78 is evidence that languages and applications were not their only focus and their primary revenue in '81 came from the SoftCard which was a Z80 card for the Apple II that allowed it to run CP/M - it was also the most popular CP/M platform at the time.
jmadisson@reddit
all fair points.
perhaps i should rephrase to saying MS had no intention to enter the OS space that CP/M occupied, as evidenced by the fact that bill initially recommended that IBM contact DRI and it was only when those negotiations fell through (from IBM's perspective at least) that MS decided to take their shot.
azathoth@reddit
I agree with that.
24megabits@reddit
If Gates had expected the PC to take off the way it did, and that IBM had a chance to lock it down the way they wanted to, he would have used any leverage he could to get royalties out of them.
jmadisson@reddit
exactly. gates dropped a pick in his backyard and struck oil.
a lot of people want to evaluate things based on what we know now. but at the time it was all literally unforeseeable.
the123king-reddit@reddit
I've always said that Microsoft were in the right place at the right time. No-one back then could have forseen the success the IBM PC would become. It wasn't even particularly notable at the time, specs and performance wise.
sputwiler@reddit
Yeah even now looking back the IBM PC is such an incredibly lackluster boring PC. So many other personal computers at the time are far more interesting. It seems they took over the industry because they were IBM, not because their product was good.
jmadisson@reddit
and it was cloneable.
the123king-reddit@reddit
Yes, the wild success of of the IBM PC, was it's ease of cloning, being made from off-the-shelf parts. Other contemporary systems used a lot of proprietary and custom silicon and were difficult to copy, and the ones that didn't were often simple 8-bit designs. The IBM PC was a simple, reasonably modern, 16-bit system
-jp-@reddit
Not to mention modular. The only contemporary that was as expandable was the Apple II line, unless you count gonzo stuff like the TI-99's sidecars.
mburke6@reddit
The Apple II and the TI-99 were expandable but only with proprietary components from Apple and Texas Instruments. Since the PC was built with off-the-shelf parts, it was expandable with components that anybody could manufacture and sell. It lead to an explosion of stuff. By the mid 80s, one could wander through a computer store and see a section filled with hardware and software for Apple, another section for all the other platforms that survived up to that time, and 80% of the rest of the store was IBM compatible.
Desmaad@reddit
There were third-party modules for the Apple II, like the Mockingboard and the Microsoft Softcard for example.
GIVES_THANKS@reddit
More than that, Apple even published a technical manual that explicitly describes how to make hardware expansions for the Apple II. It was very open.
Desmaad@reddit
Thank you Woz.
the123king-reddit@reddit
There was plenty of modular systems in existence then, but mostly aimed at professional and business use, like the IBM PC was. Home computers generally had limited expansion, but most had some means adding on extra hardware.
paralyse78@reddit
IBM was not targeting the home-user market unlike Commodore, Apple, Atari, Tandy, Sinclair and TI, e.g.
The PC may have been "lackluster" and "boring" but it was built like a tank, nearly bulletproof, and the technical support was first-class. It was designed to be first and foremost an industrial product intended for use by businesses and companies. Compared to a C64 or a CoCo it was an order of magnitude more expensive. Literally almost everything was optional apart from the 16K/64K mainboard - your "entry level" PC came with ROM BASIC that supported a cassette drive, a keyboard, and the Monochrome Graphics Adapter. IBM was safe, reliable, and well-known. You didn't have to worry about them going out of business. "Interesting" computers were all well and good, but a shockingly large number of users apparently didn't give a hoot about "interesting."
Of course, in the 1980s, if you wanted a home computer for gaming or light applications, you likely had a Commodore, a Tandy, a ZX Spectrum, or an Atari. Home computers initially supported a much larger range of hardware, software and games than IBM's PC and XT. With a C64, you had a vast library of titles to choose from, and color graphics too, and unlike a PC, you could use your home television set without needing to purchase a separate monitor.
Eventually, however, at least two things happened: PC clones and the Nintendo Entertainment System. PC clones brought prices down to earth. The NES brought affordable console gaming to the masses, filling the void that Atari had abandoned.
Meanwhile, Commodore was still working on the Amiga (and horribly mismanaging every aspect of its marketing and development), Tandy and TI were out of the home computer business entirely, Apple was focusing on its expensive and technically-advanced Macintosh computers, Atari was moribund after the Crash of '83...so hardware and software developers, naturally, started favoring PC-compatible computers, because it didn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind of the industry was blowing.
In 1989 I was 11 years old. We had an Atari 2600 and a TI-99, and I had just saved up enough to buy my first Nintendo. My dad wanted to buy a new computer for our family.
We ended up with a 286 clone. Why? Because they used IBM PC's at his work, and at my mom's work, and my parents wanted to be able to run the same software at home that they used at work: Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, etc. They didn't care if it could play games or not - that's what my Nintendo was for. This same decision played out in many homes - people wanted to be able to run the software at home that they were familiar with from work. "Interesting" was no longer part of the conversation.
Around that era, you could still find games with cross-platform support, such as the early Sierra AGI adventure games (think King's Quest I, etc.) Your local Babbage's would have a version for Commodore, Atari, Apple, IBM PC, and others.
Within a couple of years, many games were only available in two or three versions: PC compatible, Mac, and some for Amiga. That's how fast the shift in the market happened.
Ironically, IBM never got to reap the benefits of the eventual dominance of its PC, XT, and AT architectures - because IBM decided to do IBM things and somehow thought that the way to beat down the booming clone market was to make machines like the PS/2 line with its oddball architecture (MCA, MCGA, etc.), nonstandard form factors, restrictive licensing practices, expensive pricing, poor expandability, and a distinct tendency to favor "reliability" over "performance." IBM also made some truly head-scratching decisions like failing to secure a license from Intel to produce the 80386 in-house, resulting in their continuing to design for the 80286 which they still had a license to produce. By the time IBM finally had a moderately successful home computer line again (Aptiva) several years later it was far, far too late for them to make even a small dent in the home PC market.
welcomeOhm@reddit
"No one ever got fired for choosing IBM."
marhaus1@reddit
The DEC Rainbow was a much better machine. Sad but true.
welcomeOhm@reddit
Yeah, to get in on the ground floor of MSFT stock, you had to invest in 1978.
stormwaltz@reddit
Remember him fondly from Computer Chronicles. Wasn't until a few years later I really learned who he was.
Kiwi_eng@reddit
Same here. Loved CC on PBS.
-jp-@reddit
They're all on YouTube for anyone who wants to revisit them. I like to put one on now and then just for nostalgia's sake.
DaySad1968@reddit
I literally put that show on and go to sleep to it. I also love it first thing in the morning, it reminds me of waking up as a kid on putting on television. Gary had a soothing voice.
SeparateWinner1026@reddit
It's funny how nostalgia works - I can go to sleep with the old Doom on. :D
gfreeman1998@reddit
Interesting article, but the pedant in me must point that the article mentions "CPM" throughout.
It should be: "CP/M".
waydownindeep13_@reddit
We should replace the "Gary's gone flying" myth with an equally inane myth! It will be grand times!
Gary was a really smart guy, but his business sense was terrible and his company was garbage. You kids do not remember and neither do I because I was not alive at the time, but CP/M was everything in the computing world in the late 1970s. If you had a little computer, it was S-100 bus and it ran CP/M. Everything else was for children's games.
The version of CP/M for Intel's superpower 8086 chip was supposed to come toward the end of 1979. But it did not. It it was delayed over and over. People who spent their life savings on the fastest and best computer possible had no OS to take advantage of it.
Then Bill "The Most Evil Man in History" Gates gets a call from IBM. IBM says, "Hey Bill, we got your BASIC and other language packages, but we need an OS. You got one?" Gates tells IBM to talk to Kildall. Gary wants royalties. And his trash company still cannot finish the danged OS. IBM looks for other options.
SCP in Washington is like, "enough of this waiting around; we need an OS for our 8086 kits" and releases of a clone of CP/M under the name "QDOS" ("quick and dirty operating system"). Microsoft gives them $0.08 for the software and licenses it to IBM for a lump sum. No royalties? Nah, Microsoft keeps rights to sell their OS, now just "DOS", to other companies. DRI gets angry and IBM allows CP/M to be an option. But, again, DRI wants a cut of every sale.
DOS costs the end user $40 in 1981 dollars while CP/M-86 is $240, which is like $8000 million after 50 years of inflation. DOS becomes the new standard: "PC-compatible" means "DOS-compatible." The market share of CP/M drops like a cold rock on a hot day. Microsoft becomes one of world's richest companies. DRI has middling success and eventually becomes forgotten. As it should. It could not do its only job.
mnlx@reddit
I don't agree with the story you're telling here.
Calling DRI garbage/trash that should be forgotten... OK
Intel's superpower 8086... uh-huh
You know that Microsoft wasn't an operating system's company, except for licensing Unix which they proceeded to sell under the name of Xenix before DOS existed, it was popular because it was cheaper, but it wasn't DOS-like cheap. Microsoft sold programming languages and as they've been doing forever they can afford to invest their earnings in the development of whatever technology they move into while undercutting the competition.
You shouldn't downplay the contributions of actuall important figures simply because they weren't cutthroat SOBs.
welcomeOhm@reddit
Even Michael Crichton, in the fantastic Electronic Life, recommended CP/M as the OS with the best chance at longetivity.
chuckop@reddit
I was alive at this time and your post has a number of factual errors.
waydownindeep13_@reddit
It is correct enough in the ways that matter.
The world was waiting for CP/M-86. DRI just had to deliver it. It did not come in 1979. It did not come in 1980. They tossed away their advantage in OS market and let a tiny competitor take over the market.
chuckop@reddit
Yes, in that matter, that is correct.
jmadisson@reddit
please see my response to the main article, but, it was basically bad luck as much as anything.
it wouldn't have made sense for gary and DRI to completely upend their business practices for a single vendor. IBM's machine was only to be one of many similar machines, and there was a decent likelihood that it would fail in the marketplace.
just look what happened to IBM, the PS2/, OS/2, etc eventually.
microsoft wasn't in the OS business at the time and had no intention to be. hence they were unencumbered by any existing business and just took their shot in finding a replacement.
just the way it goes sometimes.
Individual_Agency703@reddit
You must be fun at funerals.
waydownindeep13_@reddit
Kildall had a sad end, but the fate of DRI was solely down his failings in business. His bitterness towards the industry ignored his own responsibility in the death of CP/M and rise of MS-DOS.
Mythologizing Kildall helps no one. He has been dead for 30 years (tomorrow, I think). More than enough time has passed to allow for a fair and accurate telling of his story. Besides, he found success after DRI. Focusing on how the industry supposedly conspired against him (it did not) is silly.
chuckop@reddit
This I agree with.
Bolt_EV@reddit
Let’s not forget that Kindall was on the payroll of the US Navy when he developed C/PM and they let him walk out the door for free!
WingedGeek@reddit
The federal government can't own copyrights though, so ...
WingedGeek@reddit
The federal government can't own copyrights [edit] created by their employees during their employment [/edit] though, so ...
[edit] Also if memory serves, this was in the era before it had even been established that computer code could be copyright protected ... CSCA was signed at the end of 1980, so assuming Kildall wrote CP/M while serving in the Navy, it would have been mid-1970s ... Not shocking the USN didn't lay claim.
omega552003@reddit
They absolutely can.
bigbigdummie@reddit
They cannot copyright a work they create but can own a copyright transferred to it.
That statement exhausts my knowledge on the to[ic.
24megabits@reddit
The 70s really were a different time. Didn't Chuck Peddle manage to do something similar? Although I think MOS had to change the 6501 to not be a drop-in replacement for the Motorola 6800.
azathoth@reddit
Chuck Peddle did it with Motorola and Federico Faggin did it with Intel.
The 6501 was pin-compatible with the 6800 but not binary compatible and a lawsuit made them change the pins resulting in the 6502. The Z80 was not pin-compatible with the 8080 but it was mostly binary compatible.
anothercatherder@reddit
Motorola got some small concessions from them in the end but by then the damage was done.
Bolt_EV@reddit
Well I was studying Computer Science pre-Law, so I chose not to be a wire-head and focused on end-users instead. Hence my first C/PM computer!
NaoPb@reddit
Sorry, this content is not available in your region.
What is with news sites blocking access from outside of North America?
maethor@reddit
The EU's GDPR requires anyone outside of the EU to comply with the GDPR if they serve users in the EU. Geoblocking Europeans is easier than complying with GDPR.
NaoPb@reddit
Thanks for explaining. I had a hunch it would be someone like that. Too bad they cannot just comply.
F54280@reddit
Sorry, this content is not available in your region
BobT21@reddit
I remember. PCs were starting to come into the large industrial facility where I was an engineer. I recommended CP/M. As it faded, so did my career.
JohnnyDread@reddit
Had the opportunity to work with Gary for a while. He was a great guy.
Individual_Agency703@reddit
Thanks u/KSBW8 for putting this together, very informative and touching. Did this air during the nightly news? You might have your editor re-watch it, there's a bit in the middle which repeats.
KSBW8@reddit (OP)
Thank you! We aired it in two parts, which is why there is some repetition.