The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the80s

From: Merle K. Peirce <at258_at_osfn.org>
Date: Fri Apr 23 15:21:16 1999

Just a couple of stray thoughts. While a person could possibly have
purchased a $300 computer in the 50's, why would they? What could they
have done with it? The answer is almost nothing. The only people who
might have been interested would have been ham radio or electronics
hobbysists, and they would very likely have built there own. I don't
even believe there was a viable used market for low cost computers in
the 50's, they would all have been enormous mainframes.

To make things a bit more difficult, I believe "personal computer" is a
term that invites trouble. It seems so simple, but when you look at it,
you see that it means ANY computer put to personal use. If you have an
old 360 in the garage you use to balqnce your chequebook, this qualifies
as a personal computer. The term is very open ended and any attempt to
limit it by a specialised definition will likely result in gibberish. A
new term will need to be chosen, especially for earlier, small
individually used pieces of equipment, which is what we are trying to
quantify.

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Mark Gregory wrote:

> At 10:19 PM 4/22/99 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> >
> >> The previous comment should have made it obvious it was NOT within the
> reach
> >> of the "average" American.
> >Don't you mean YOUR attitudes, Richard? Get this through your thick
> >skull: YOU do NOT represent the mass thought process of humans.
> >> $300 was not an expenditure an "average" American would consider lightly in
> >> 1952.
> >
> >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.
> >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.
> >
> >Whatever.
> >
> >Sellam Alternate e-mail:
> dastar_at_siconic.com
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Both Sellam and Richard have valid points, but neither of them are right,
> because they're arguing apples and oranges. Richard is arguing consumer
> acceptance as a criterion - what average Americans _did_ do - and the fact
> is that very few average Americans in the 50s spent $300 on personal
> computers.
> Sellam is arguing affordability and availability as a criterion - what an
> average American _could_ have done - and Doug's site shows that it was
> possible to buy a PC for an affordable price in the 50s.
> Reduce this argument to its extremes: in the extension of Richard's view,
> _no_ PC can be considered a personal computer until every average American
> buys one, which hasn't happened yet and probably never will; in the
> extension of Sellam's view, if I can show that Leonardo da Vinci scrawled
> down plans for a recognizable computer that cost less than 3 month's pay in
> commonly available materials in 1500, even if one was never built, that
> will be the first personal computer, because someone could have bought or
> built one.
>
> This argument can never be resolved, because to do so, you have to agree on
> whether actual purchasing (as opposed to the possibility of purchasing)
> is required, and if so, what degree of consumer acceptance is enough (do
> you have to sell 1 machine? 50? 5000? 250,000?). I don't think anyone can
> agree on this.
>
> And let's keep the personal gibes to a minimum, please (i.e. "Get it
> through your thick skull").
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> Mark.
>
>

M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852

"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
              
              - Ovid
Received on Fri Apr 23 1999 - 15:21:16 BST