No, Sam, those were not necessarily MY attitudes. I, after all, was only 6
years old during most of 1952. However, I'd submit that my statement is
more or less correct, inasmuch as most Americans had no idea what a digital
computer was in 1952. My grandfather worked for one of New York's large
banks back then, and HE was a computer. He spent his time at work with
those VERY tall multiple-entry ledgers you see in the old-time movies,
adding up the columns in his head and recording the sum in india ink just as
people had done it a century before. That was about 50x as quick and
generally as accurate as the at that time not so common mechanical
calculators which some time later filled accounting departments throughout
the world. Guys like my grandpa didn't cost as much as ENIAC, or BISMAC, or
whatever was the model of the day, and they got the work done. That's what
the average American thought of when you asked him about a computer, though
most didn't really even recognize the word.
In 1954-55 a friend of my parents bought an airplane for $300. He also
liked those British sports cars, which traded, 2nd-hand for about $300 in
the late '50's, though they were not that "reasonable" by the time I wanted
one (goodness only knows why I wanted it).
Back to the attitudes . . . I certainly hope that you don't purport YOUR
attitudes to be typical. I know mine aren't. What brings balance to a
discussion is the presentation of perceptions.
Two people can sit in the same room observing the same event and, afterward,
discuss their recollection as though they were in different places. In this
case, you're presuming to know what was the case in an era you could only
have experienced semantically, while I experienced it "really" though
through the perceptions of a child. I had the exposure to some of the same
semantic influences as you, however, and I was able to integrate that with
my recollections of those days to put things together in my mind, just as
you do when thinking back to the '70's. That doesn't make ME right and YOU
wrong, but it doesn't make YOU right and ME wrong either. You see, the
larger discussion isn't about YOU or ME.
One other point . . . I don't know how you can claim to know about what's on
the mind of an "average" American. People who, ten years ago, were rabidly
interested in computers, whether in work or in play, were not considered
"average" in any sense. I'd say that the only way to get a reasonable
"feel" for what an "average" person thinks must come from somewhere outside
your circle of associates and mine.
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 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were
the80s
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> The previous comment should have made it obvious it was NOT within the
reach
<snip>
>> enough to spend your money on have changed considerably.
>
>Don't you mean YOUR attitudes, Richard? Get this through your thick
>skull: YOU do NOT represent the mass thought process of humans. Time and
>again you insist on applying your OWN personal values and opinions upon
>the rest of the world when you make an assertion, and fail to realize
>there are 6 billion people out there with ideas differing from your own.
>
>> $300 was not an expenditure an "average" American would consider lightly
in
>> 1952. That was the year I came to this country. There was an election
>> between Adlai E. Stevenson (Democrat) and Dwight D. Eisenhower
(Republican).
>> It was BEFORE the first test of a hydrogen bomb.
>
>Sure, but the point is that it could CONCEIVABLY have been afforded by
>anyone who wished to save their money for 6 months so they could collect
>the parts together to build one. Just because YOU would not have chosen
>to build one does not mean everyone else in the world would have made that
>same choice. Everyone on the planet does not share your values, contrary
>to your belief and opinion.
>
>I know if I were alive back then, and I had the same excitement for
>computers that I do today, and an opportunity to build my own computer
>came up for 1/10th of my yearly salary, I sure as hell would have saved
>the money to build one.
>
>1/10th of the average American's yearly salary is about $3,000 these days
>(thereabouts) and I know plenty of people who would save up that amount to
>buy a righteous computer with all the trimmings in our time. So $300 out
>of a $3,600 yearly salary (or whatever) back then is not only possible but
>very do-able.
>
>> People weren't crazy then as they are now . . . and all the loose nuts
>> hadn't yet learned to run to California.
>
>Whatever.
>
>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 Fri Apr 23 1999 - 11:38:17 BST