23 Apr
1999
23 Apr
'99
2:46 p.m.
At 10:19 PM 4/22/99 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
dastar(a)siconic.com
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:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.