No, what's relevant isn't the technology and its state of maturity, but the
comparison of the relative value of the numbers. Today, it's just assumed
that if you buy an item for $300 and it subsequently breaks, you shrug your
shoulders and throw it away. Back in the '50's, not many people were silly
enough to do that.
My comment about DEC is based on my observation that the only thing one
could count on from DEC was that it would cost a lot. You seldom got
technology less than an generation old, and they didn't provide systems
integration services gratis as did nearly every other manufacturer, even Big
Blue. As a consequence, these services were provided by the bloated
aerospace and defense contracting industry. They (DEC) wouldn't sell
directly to the government because that required they let government
auditors look at their books. There was too much risk that the word would
leak out that their profit margins on their mini's were pretty generous.
That would have led to competition, which they really never enjoyed.
There's nothing wrong with their products, but they were not tuned for nor
were they suited for the personal computer market . . . not even the ones
they claimed were.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar_at_ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were
the80s
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> One aspect of this matter I'm already seeing ignored is the COST. That
>> so-called FIRST personal computer which cost $300 in the early '50's, for
>> example, cost quite a lot of money. In the '50's, it was unusual for
anyone
>> to earn $100 a week. A mid-priced Chevrolet cost less than $2000 and $10
a
>> week was plenty for a week's groceries for a family of 4.
>
>That cost was estimated. The computer was only sold as a plan. The buyer
>had to find the pieces to make it go and assemble it themselves. So its
>conceivable this machine could have been built for free, providing one
>could find all the pieces salvaged from old equipment.
>
>Regardless, it was still a computer that one could very easily have owned
>in the 50s, which is more than you can say about a Univac or IBM 70x
>series machine.
>
>> Not even DEC's so-called personal computers were competitive enough to
>> interest an industry professional. The DEC mini's weren't even a good
buy
>> as they became obsolete. I doubt DEC equipment was EVER used where there
>> wasn't a third party present who profited from its use. That doesn't
mean
>> they weren't appropriate and suitable for a wide range of uses, but it
>> certainly doesn't characterize a personal computer.
>
>Huh?
>
>> Just to put things into perspective, a week's groceries, these days, for
a
>> family of four, cost about $150, a decent mid-priced car costs $15000,
and a
>> farily well equipped and appropriately designated personal computer with
a
>> 400MHz pentium, 8GB HDD, 64MB of RAM, OS installed, all the multimedia
>> features, plus a current-generation modem (V.90) costs $400 less the
monitor
>> with monitors costing $139 for a 15" and $300 for a 20" type. These
prices
>> are from Best-Buy's ad in last Sunday's paper. You can probably do
better
>> if you shop.
>
>These prices are also based on technology that has had 50 years to mature,
>and therefore the comparison is entirely invalid.
>
>Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar_at_siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 04/03/99]
>
Received on Thu Apr 22 1999 - 20:34:57 BST