Article about collecting in Antique Trader.

From: Philip.Belben_at_pgen.com <(Philip.Belben_at_pgen.com)>
Date: Wed Jun 30 04:15:13 1999

> In a message dated 6/29/99 6:14:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Tony Duell
> writes:
>
>> This means the history of computing is being distorted. Truely important
>> machines are being forgotten. Other machines, much less significant, are
>> being remembered. This is not a good thing.
>>
>> OK, let me ask a very simple question. I will give below the
>> specification of 2 machines, both from around 1980. The questions are :
>> Which do you think is the more historically important, and which one
>> would fetch a higher price (Oh, and would anyone care to name the 2
>> machines :-))
>>
>> OK. Machine A :
>>
>> Processor : Custom 16/20 bit CPU. Graphics processor. Z80-A for I/O
>>
>> RAM : 1Mbyte
>>
>> Storage : 8" floppy disk, 24Mbyte hard disk
>>
>> Keyboard : Full QWERTY keyboard, Keytronics
>>
>> Display : Bitmapped display, 768*1024 pixels (portrait monitor)
>>
>> Mouse : Sumagraphics Bit Pad 1
>>
>> Languages : Pascal, LISP, etc
>>
>> Comments : Version of the first commercially-sold graphics workstation
>>
>>
>> Machine B :
>>
>> Processor : Z80A
>>
>> RAM : 1Kbyte
>>
>> Storage : Sockets to connect optional audio cassette recorder
>>
>> Keyboard : QWERTY membrane keyboaard
>>
>> Display : Text (22*23 or something like that), block graphics. Disappears
>> when program running
>>
>> Mouse : You must be joking
>>
>> Languages : 4K ROM containing strange (integer only?) BASIC.
>>
>> Comments : Very inexpensive home computer
>
> Machine B is very obviously a Sinclair ZX80 or ZX81. Pardon my confusion,
> but are you saying that the ZX80/81 was "much less significant?" Perhaps I
> misunderstand.


Machine B is a ZX80 from Tony's description. Machine A seems to be a Perq 2T2,
but I may be wrong.


> Millions of people worldwide were introduced to computers by these machines
> (and their Timex cousins). Because of the low price, people bought them to
> see if they "liked computing" -- if not, they could throw them away and only
> be out $100 or so.
>
> On the other hand, many, like myself, found they had a small talent for
> working with computers -- in whatever capacity -- and thus found employment,
> careers, and satisfaction because of their initial experience with
> Timex/Sinclair computers.


There is significance and significance, unfortunately.

Tony seems to be concerned about the distortion of history, and I strongly
sympathise. Let me digress by telling you a story.

A week or two ago I had a rep call from the bank to advise me about investments
(refreshingly candid - "%Bank has a lot of cash at the moment, so you won't get
a good rate by putting your money as cash in the bank").

When we sat down at the one free corner of table, he noticed my mechanical
calculator (Facit) and asked me what it was. I demonstrated, and he was amazed
- he had no idea that any such devices had existed before the electronic pocket
calculator.

This is the distortion of history. People, used to modern computers with
impressive specs and mediocre performance under W*****s, have no idea how much
could be done by the technology of even 10 years ago, let alone 19 years ago
(the date of those two machines).

If they see the ZX80 as typical computers of 1980, they will continue to think
that PCs with Windows were the first serious personal computers (by some
definition - someone on this list posted a URL the other day that claims
personal computer == home computer).

If they see Perqs as typical computers of 1980, they will think no wonder nobody
had a computer at home 20 years ago!

To present a balanced view, we need to preserve both ends of the market. Both
are significant, the Perq from a technology point of view and the ZX80 from a
market point of view, so from the point of view of significance, one ought to
see both attract the same price. The Perq is rarer, so perhaps rarity value
would push the Perq up a bit.

But what we observe is that people preserve ZX80s because of their market
significance - the first sub-100-pound computer (not that it was, of course),
the first home computer for non-enthusiasts (hardly that, for that matter) or
whatever. And ignore other machines, simply because they are insufficiently
educated. Result, ZX80s fetch premium prices, and Perqs go for a song, thus
reinforcing the perceived significance of the former relative to the latter.

Result: history is distorted, because people see the ZX80 as a typical machine,
not as the bottom end of a highly varied market.


>> I think that if you own a classic computer you should learn how it works,
>> how to use it, how to repair it, etc. Note, I am _NOT_ saying that you
>> have to be qualified (after all, I'm not). I am not saying that you have
>> to know everything before you start. I am saying, though, that you should
>> want to learn.
>
> The TS computers' simple but clever architecture encouraged learning all the
> "how to's" you mention above.


Sorry, Tony, I must agree with Glen here. Sinclair did not go to the trouble
that Apple and Microsoft have since expended to separate the user from the
nitty-gritty of how the machine works. The Sinclair is a far better machine to
learn on than a PC clone, say. (Hey, it even has a programming language as
standard...) Cheap and nasty, perhaps, but a real computer nonetheless. (Not
that I particularly want one...)

>
> But, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying . . .
>
> So: what are these two computers? Which is the most historically important,
> and, in your opinion, which would fetch a higher price?


Well, you have my opinion - equal on significance, Perq higher priced through
rarity value. I will now stand back and let others have their say.

>
> BTW, I use my Timex/Sinclair computers for some purpose at least five days
> out of seven.


Yes, those ZX81 cases make excellent door wedges, don't they ;-)

Philip.
Received on Wed Jun 30 1999 - 04:15:13 BST