please see embedded comments below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Article about collecting in Antique Trader.
>> In the article I claim collecting computers is like collecting money -
>> you don't have to be a banker to collect money and so you don't
>> need to be a techie to collect computers. Then I warn would be
>
>Hmmm... There are 2 ways to collect money (at least). Either you collect
>particular coins/banknotes/etc because of their historical significance.
>Or you just collect any money you can get, with a view to spending it
later.
>
>In other words you either collect money for its significance or because
>you can later exchange it for something else.
That's true, but it applies particularly to money because that's why we have
it. Even money involves a little speculation. In general, however, the
value of money varies very little with fads or changing tastes, and
relatively little over time, at least a lifetime. The value of most
"collectible" computers is not generally higher than the money it took to
buy them when they were new. In fact, I've observed that even the more
famous collectible computer stuff sold on the eBay auction doesn't go for
more than it cost new.
>The same applies (unfortunately) to computers.
. . . as it does to all other durable goods.
>I am a little concerned that articles like this further distort computer
>history by making certain machines 'collectable' (and out of the reach of
>people who would truely use them :-(), while other, possibly more
>important machines are worth next-to-nothing
If you think an eBay IMSAI computer is unreachable now, consider what it
cost in "real" money, back in the days when it was on the market, which was
back when a dollar was a DOLLAR and not just the price of a candy bar.
>You may think I exagerate, but I can get a true descendent of the Xerox
>Alto for a few pounds while the illegitimate child (aka Apple Lisa) is
>many times that figure.
>
As for why the Alto costs less than the Lisa, consider how many people have
the knowledge and resources to do anything anything even remotely useful, to
an average person, i.e. something other than creating software or meaninless
calculations. It's not really easy to get software to make the Lisa do
anything useful, either, but it's probably billons of times easier (forgive
the weak attempt to quantify something unquantifiable) than for the Alto.
The difference is between showing off what a LISA is known (to a small but
significant few) to be able to do (I even made overhead slides with one,
having hooked it to a laser printer myself), and just going in the back room
and saying OOh! and AAh! at the computer the capabilities of which are
certainly unfamiliar to me.
>
>-tony
>
Received on Tue Jun 29 1999 - 14:59:36 BST