This "Who is Who in Computer Industry" is a perfect coffee-table book for computer enthusiasts: large format, lavishly illustrated and right on the topic. Almost 200 people are presented, each with a full-page colour photograph and some 100-words abstract.

The wizards are divided into five categories: the Forerunners, the Inventors, the Enterpreneurs, the Communicators and the Venture Capitalists. As Dan Bricklin (featured on page 56 in the book) already observed, its wide scope is the strength of this book. Myself, however, I would gladly sacrifice the latter three categories - and perhaps also the first, since there seems to be no shortage of literature on the beginnings of computing - for a decent article on each of the inventors. Something along similar lines was attempted by Shasha and Lazere, but I am not entirely satisfied with their work either.

A plus side of the book is its list of sources on the presented personae, many of them from the World Wide Web. And, surprisingly, many of them still working...

Having one photographer take all of the pictures with the subjects free to pose any way they wanted, wearing whatever they wanted, lets this book bring you some of the personality behind the people: Gordon Bell (DEC) in a cowboy hat, Scott Cook (Intuit) in a button-down shirt and swimsuit, Alan Kay (Xerox PARC) in front of the pipe organ in his home, Thomas Kurtz (Basic) standing in front of a painting of himself and John Kemeny (co-creator of Basic), me in flannel shirt and jeans, etc.

This is a must for every computer history library since you'll find nothing like it that covers such a wide cross section of the history of computing in such a human way.

Since its publication in1990, I have recommended "Home Before Morning" as necessary reading for anyone who has more than just a casual interest in the Vietnam War. This personal insight from a woman's point of view reminds us that the thousands of soldliers who fought in the war were not its only victims/casualties; as an Army nurse serving in a MASH unit, she was no less affect by the aftermath of combat than those who experienced it first hand. And upon returning to the States after her tour of duty, she was treated with the same indiginity and disrespect given any other Vietnam vet returning home. For many Vietnam vets, myself included, Lynda Van Devanter, and others like her, will always be heroes, in our hearts. When dealing with the harsh realities of war - as witnessed by one who served on the receiving end of its by-product, "Home Before Morning" is a must read. Once you read this book, you, too, will want to share it with others.

October 4, 1999 I read this book in my senior year of high school and i've recently visited the women's memorial in D.C. and i'm telling you the emotions that i felt were none like i've felt reading Home Before morning. I feel as if I was right there with Lynda Van Devanter and visiting that memorial was such a great accomplishment for me. I really admire you gals. no one could do what you have done!!

I read this book close to 10 years ago in a college history class. It was on a list of choices and I picked it because it was the only book about the experience of a woman in wartime. I'm glad I did, because the book still ranks in my mind as one of the most interesting points of view of the Vietnam experience in print. There are hundreds--maybe thousands--of books about the memories and heroic deeds of the male soldiers in various wars, but what about the women who had to put them back together, nurse them back to health, and often send them back to the front to be wounded again? Since reading Home Before Morning I actively seek out the stories of the doctors, nurses and other "support" personnel involved in military actions.

I read so many books that I often don't remember the names of authors or even the titles of the books, but this one has stayed with me. That is a testament to the writing ability of Van Devanter and the emotional pull of her story. I'd recommend this book to anyone considering a career in the military, medical field, or anyone interested in women's history. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes.

Lynda Van Devanter's Home Before Morning is a thoroughly engaging narrative about her "coming of age" as an army nurse in the Vietnam War. Her moral, political, and emotional growth throughout the novel follows a classic pattern: she is initially naive about war and guided mainly by her untested ideals, she goes to Vietnam and "loses her innocence" about war and its nature, and she grows and develops as a result of this "loss." This pattern recurs again and again in Vietnam narratives (e.g., Platoon and Philip Caputo's A Rumor of War), and its familiarity lends much emotional weight to Van Devanter's story. In all fairness, however, the power of her experiences cannot be denied. As an army nurse she sees a great deal of the bloodshed, and she is in a particularly important position to "put a face" on the dead and wounded, which she and co-writer Christopher Morgan do very effectively. However, while this book is a powerful introduction to the realities of the war, it tends toward the melodramatic (particularly when Van Devanter becomes involved with a doctor), and it never really explores some of the deeper issues about the war that her experiences raise. For readers looking for books on the Vietnam War that exhibit both top-notch prose and an insightful exploration of the ambiguities of War, I would suggest Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried and Going After Cacciato, as well as Michael Herr's Dispatches.

I read the book in the context of one person's experience, not for a global understanding of the Vietnam war. It was a moving and informative look at the life of a person who paid a painful price for her service.

This was probably one of the first books I read on Vietnam. Part of my attempt to put my experiences there into some kind of perspective. I found the book deeply moving. It also opened my eyes to the experiences of those who consistently saw more of the horror of war then many of the rest of us did. I am in sharp disagreement with the review by Mr Versaci. This is an excellent look at the experiences of the physicians and nurses who took care of us.

The book shown above is the hardcover edition. It's also published, without illustrations, in five paperback volumes. I read only THE TUDORS AND STUARTS, which had no illustrations other than two or three maps and graphs. The first half of the book, about the Tudors, was written by one man, and the second half, about the Stuarts, by another. The volume was short, only 142 pages.

This is my favorite period of British history and the one with which I am most familiar, but still, I found the text confusing. I think there were several misplaced lines of type in the second half. Maybe a writer can't do much in 70 pages to elucidate a period, and probably the illustrations would have distracted from the sketchy text. The writing was not lively.

The very last section is called "Intellectual and Religious Life," but it was mostly about religious life. Literature is almost totally ignored throughout the volume. Pepys is never mentioned.

There is no index. Perhaps the complete, one-volume version has an index, and the publisher didn't want to go to the trouble of compiling indexes for the individual volumes. Still, a history book without an index is unthinkable.

On the whole, the book was disappointing.

I'm a half-educated American, with the vaguest notions of British history. I bought this book hoping to be able to understand the story of the British Isles, in a more or less clear outline. That didn't happen: after 200 pages, I tossed the book, wondering just who it was written for. Here's why I tossed it:

(1) It doesn't have an author. Instead, it has a bunch of authors, each apparently assigned a certain portion of British history to cover. The problem is that none of the authors seem to have consulted each other, nor did the editor seem to edit. On every other page, you see a fact or definition repeated (by a previous author), or a topic referenced (but uncovered by a previous author). History is a messy thing, but it has to be organized to be learned, and any hope of presenting material in terms of themes or movements is lost, because styles and approaches switch radically from author to author, from clear and sparse, to confusing and overly-detailed.

(2) It should have an author. This sounds like point (1), but hear me out: the editor, Mr. Morgan, claims that writing grand history, spanning the length of the British past, just can't be written anymore. It is better, rather, to have specialists write about their specialities. Sounds good in theory, but is just abominable when placed next to comprehensive histories written by single authors. Toynbee and Trevleyan wrote such history earlier. And J. Roberts writes such history now, particularly his History of Europe, and History of the World, two models of lucid historical writing that make this disjointed compilation look like an ill-considered mishmash.

(3) It should have an audience. Or at least a different audience: the average intelligent reader wants a clean, interesting exposition of the important events and currents of the past. While some chapters achieve that, the most seem to be written not to the Average Reader, but to the Rival Colleague. And so we see a few facts casually presented, and then a sudden digression into some piece of scholarly minutae that leaves the reader (me, that is) pexplexed.

(4) It should teach historical knowledge, not assume it. This is one of those histories that assumes from the onset that you know all the relevant history. That might be OK for a narrow scholarly article, but it's an awful presumption for a comprehensive history. I read dozens of pages discussing the 'Domesday Book,' its importance, and its effects. The authors never thought to enlighten the ignorant, and explain what this Domesday Book was (an very old tax survey). Things like this litter every page.

From previous reading, I've learned that good history can be written. From reading this, I've learned that very bad history can be written, too.

This is a good book for a reader who is little like me. I have no training in British history and little in Western. I read quite a bit of history and don't mind a challenging work, though, which lets me get through most histories without too much frustration. This book often lacked the context with which self-teaching historians can teach themselves, even with frequent map- and index-checking.

The chapters of this book are all written by different authors, each one clearly an expert on the subject of his individual chapter. The authors do not agree on their audience. For instance, Gillingham's chapter on the early middle ages was clearly written, had several maps and followed a timeline before ending with a thematic look at the economy and political structure of the period. The very next chapter, Griffiths' chapter on the late middle ages, skips around by dozens of years within a single paragraph, mentions towns in France without maps and assumes foreknowledge of the battles of the Hundred Year war. Unfortunately, this book contains more chapters like the latter than the former.

I suspect that a European or an American with a basic familiarity of British history would find this a very useful intermediate level book with which to learn or re-discover an overview of Britain. The handiness of one volume written by many experts providing an overview of such a long history is what is right with this book. To those with some background in the subject, this book will be extremely convenient and useful. For someone without European geographic knowledge or a recognition of the figures in British history, even a patient and attentive reading will lead to frustrating hunts for the background of many important figures mentioned once within the narrative and to pointless searches through inadequate maps.

git this one free at someone's garage sale, actually. thought it would be more psorty, not so spotty. on facts. i played lots of sports for years. there weren't near as manyerection action going on. if only. this sort of stuff is silly. but hot, for a read.