--- Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com> wrote:
> > > > The PC-AT came out several years later with a
> > > > standard configuration price (including hard disk) of $5K.
> > > >
> > > August of '81, IIRC. I got my technical reference in March of '82.
> >
> > AT AT AT 80286 IBM PC AT
> >
> Yup, that was spring of '84. IIRC.
OK. A little before I remember them, but I'll concede the date.
> Clones were available from Korea before
> one could even get an IBM version around here.
I will debate the term "clone" for a machine that came out before
the machine it supposedly is a knock-off of. I will accept that
there were Korean '286 boxes before IBM had one. Were they 100% AT-
compatible, or did they jump the gun? This is a serious question; I
personally have no knowledge of them.
> Were the AMIGAs available then? What did they cost? How were they
> equipped?
And where did Amiga crop up in this? We were discussing the C-64. Why
are you dragging the Amiga into the fray?
No... the A1000 came out in late 1985, IIRC, for $1,100, 7.something MHz
68000 processor (32-bit registers, 16MB flat address space, unlike the
80286), 256KB RAM, 4096 colors, stereo sound, 3.5" 880KB floppy, 15KHz RGB
monitor, serial port, printer port, two mouse/game ports, two-button mouse.
Extra 256KB of RAM was approx $100. I got mine in early 1986 for $850,
new, without monitor, but with everything else (still have it, too, but
with an extra 2.5MB RAM, SCSI, dual ROM socket, Rejuvinator, etc.)
That's how it was equipped when it first came out. It is roughly
contemporary with the widespread availability (not first release)
of the PC-AT. When the Amiga came out, there were lots and lots of
PC-XTs and quite a few PC-ATs in the real world.
> > I don't think that model was available in 1981. I am fairly certain
> > that the only model available in 1981 was the IBM 5150 PC. Not the XT.
> > It came in two basic flavors - 16KB and 64KB. CGA extra. Disk drives
> > extra. Just about everything extra.
> >
> Was the AMIGA available in '81? What did it cost?
This question shows that you consider all IBM PCs and PC clones to
be interchangable and undifferentiated. Was the PC-AT available in
1981? How much did _it_ cost? At least the C-64 was virtually
unchanged from 1982 onward (barring a motherboard cost-redesign and a
slightly modified sound chip) The "PC" changed every 3 years...PC,
XT, AT, 386SX, 386DX, 486, Pentium, etc., etc., etc. Not that this
is a bad thing, but it means that you cannot compare machines without
clearly specifying the year and what you are models you are comparing.
> > I was attempting to suggest why the PC became the preeminent platform
> > at home...
> I remember quite a few people who had PC's at home but didn't have PC's
> at work, wishing that they did, rather than the terminal to the
> PDP-whatever, or IBM mainframe down the hall.
Most is not all. I knew plenty of those people, too. At the company I
worked at from 1984 onward, we all had at least one VT100-class terminal
(some DEC, some CIToH) on our desk and not a PC in sight, with two
exceptions over the years - one 5150 (still have _it_, too) attached to
a 68000-bus analyzer in the engineering department (c. 1983-1984) and
one PS/2 Model 30 in the accounting department (c. 1986; not too sure
about that) - and, you guessed it, I have _that_ as well (there is, in
fact, little from that company that I _didn't_ get when they went bust,
including 3 MicroVAXen, 3 Unibus and BI VAXen, numerous PDP-11s, two
Straight-8s, etc...)
Nevertheless, in company after company, people did have a 5150 or better
on their desk at work after 1981, and I assert that that more than any
other factor drove them into peoples' homes. Why buy a $500 word processor
when you can steal one from work? Why learn two computers when you can
get by with one?
> That might have been for the same reason
> you mention, though. It was quite some time before PC's, particularly
> PC/XT's went down under $1k. PC/AT's were slow getting to the general
> market, and clones got there first around here.
I expect that was typical.
> It was easy to understand why someone
> would buy a $1200 clone rather than paying $5k for the "real McCoy" when
> the clone often ran faster.
Absolutely, except for brand-name die hards who _did_ pay the $5K. I
met several of them who wanted to run Windows 3.1 on their $5,000
computer and were horrified that they could not. "I just paid thousands
of dollars for this..." I heard over and over.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 01:07:05 BST