Well, Sellam, it's a question of statistics. The population was about 225
Million back then +/- some number, and the people in the US or even the
world who had any notion of what a digital computer was was probably around
a hundred, well, maybe a thousand. Now, you started out with an "average"
American. Of the thousand or so to whom owning a computer didn't amount to
slavery, how many do you think could afford to spend the equivalent of a
half-year's groceries, during the period when the word "recession" was
invented, on something the maximal function of which was strictly limited in
purpose to some form of mental masturbation? They couldn't use the excuse
that "we could use it to manage our checking account . . ." or some such,
because it wouldn't do that. Do you think the average American could afford
to spend that kind of dough on something he didn't need? Do you think he'd
have spent the dough on something it probably would have benefitted him NOT
to have? . . . like a digital computer toy?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar_at_ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 24, 1999 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were
the80s
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>What does having "no idea what a digital computer was in 1952" have to do
>with being able to afford one? Can you make an argument and stick to it
>please?
>
><...>
>> 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.
>
>Ok, thanks for that history but it does nothing to further your argument,
>nor does it have any relevance to your assertion.
>
>> 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).
>
>Oh?? I thought $300 was hardly an amount one could afford to be spending
>in the 50s! Seems like it wasn't that big of a deal after all.
>
>> 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.
>
>No, I'm not so arrogant (or myopic).
>
>> 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
>
>I made no such claim. However, you pretty much DID make such a claim.
>
>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 Sat Apr 24 1999 - 10:09:18 BST