23 Apr
1999
23 Apr
'99
10:46 a.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.
23 Apr
23 Apr
11:21 a.m.
New subject: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the80s
Just a couple of stray thoughts. While a person could possibly have
purchased a $300 computer in the 50's, why would they? What could they
have done with it? The answer is almost nothing. The only people who
might have been interested would have been ham radio or electronics
hobbysists, and they would very likely have built there own. I don't
even believe there was a viable used market for low cost computers in
the 50's, they would all have been enormous mainframes.
To make things a bit more difficult, I believe "personal computer" is a
term that invites trouble. It seems so simple, but when you look at it,
you see that it means ANY computer put to personal use. If you have an
old 360 in the garage you use to balqnce your chequebook, this qualifies
as a personal computer. The term is very open ended and any attempt to
limit it by a specialised definition will likely result in gibberish. A
new term will need to be chosen, especially for earlier, small
individually used pieces of equipment, which is what we are trying to
quantify.
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Mark Gregory wrote:
At 10:19 PM 4/22/99 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
dastar(a)siconic.com
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
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.
1:37 p.m.
New subject: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were th
On 23 Apr 99 at 16:21, Merle K. Peirce wrote:
Just a couple of stray thoughts. While a person could possibly have
purchased a $300 computer in the 50's, why would they? What could they
have done with it? The answer is almost nothing. The only people who
might have been interested would have been ham radio or electronics
hobbysists, and they would very likely have built there own. I don't
even believe there was a viable used market for low cost computers in
the 50's, they would all have been enormous mainframes.
To make things a bit more difficult, I believe "personal computer" is a
term that invites trouble. It seems so simple, but when you look at it,
you see that it means ANY computer put to personal use. If you have an
old 360 in the garage you use to balqnce your chequebook, this qualifies
as a personal computer. The term is very open ended and any attempt to
limit it by a specialised definition will likely result in gibberish. A
new term will need to be chosen, especially for earlier, small
individually used pieces of equipment, which is what we are trying to
quantify.
The ham radio or electronic hobbyist would have been more likely building a TV
or adapting tube technology to solid state.
Another aspect that hasn't been addressed is the change from leased to bought
outright. Many mini's were still leased at this time as well as software. This
would impact on even the concept of a "personal" computer as well as the
problem of what you would do with it.
ciao larry
lwalker(a)interlog.com
Let us know of your upcoming computer events for our Events Page.
t3c(a)xoommail.com
Collectors List and info http://members.xoom.com/T3C
1:57 p.m.
New subject: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the80s
Just a couple of stray thoughts. While a person could
possibly have
purchased a $300 computer in the 50's, why would they? What could they
have done with it? The answer is almost nothing. The only people who
might have been interested would have been ham radio or electronics
hobbysists, and they would very likely have built there own. I don't
even believe there was a viable used market for low cost computers in
the 50's, they would all have been enormous mainframes.
Where is the difference to the 70s and 80s ?
Gruss
H.
--
Der Kopf ist auch nur ein Auswuchs wie der kleine Zeh.
H.Achternbusch
2:17 p.m.
New subject: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the80s
In the 30 years from 1952 to 1982, many older systems became redundant;
minicomputers appeared, matured and were surplused, and the micro appeared.
at the end of this period, it would have been possible to acquire a
computer that actually did something, possibly at a reasonable cost.
Also, to help keep things in persepctive, the new computer I would buy
today would cost in the $2700-4400 range., although I'm waiting for the
new models in the next 12-18 months.
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Hans Franke wrote:
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
Just a couple of stray thoughts. While a person
could possibly have
purchased a $300 computer in the 50's, why would they? What could they
have done with it? The answer is almost nothing. The only people who
might have been interested would have been ham radio or electronics
hobbysists, and they would very likely have built there own. I don't
even believe there was a viable used market for low cost computers in
the 50's, they would all have been enormous mainframes.
Where is the difference to the 70s and 80s ?
Gruss
H.
--
Der Kopf ist auch nur ein Auswuchs wie der kleine Zeh.
H.Achternbusch
9203
days inactive
9203
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
at258＠osfn.org -
gregorym＠cadvision.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
lwalker＠mail.interlog.com