Re: Rewriting computing history...

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3E00F879.1090705@noneofyourbusiness.com>,
Exegete  <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> Don't be so sure about that!  Otto constructed his engine in 1882
>> (his engine was the basis of the majority of car combustion engines
>> today), and already 4 years later (in 1886) that engine started to be
>> used in vehicles.  Of course today's mass car'ism requires more than
>> just vehicles and engines: it requires roads which just didn't exist
>> back then.  So the earliest cars could not travel far, and definitely
>> not fast.  In England there was a law that if you wanted to drive a
>> car, you had to have a man walking ahead of the car, waving a red
>> flag as a warning to people around.
> 
> I think you missed the point - I'm not so sure that when Intel created 
> the 4004 that they envisioned a personal computer market, or, for that 
> matter, the 8008 or the 8080.
 
I'm equally sure that Steve&Steve, when they built their Apple I in
their garage, didn't envision today's personal computer mass market
either -- then considered the home computer to be something for
tinkerers and enthusiasts.
 
Revolutions rarely happen as planned.... :-)
 
>>>The "average" person couldn't make a computer out of a pile of
>>>chips, resistors, capacitors and boards either.
>>  
>> True; likewise the "average" person couldn't make a car out
>> of sufficient amounts of ore, plastics, glass, rubber, etc either...
> 
> Of course, those aren't parts ready for assembly, as were the first 
> personal computers.
 
Doesn't matter here really -- the "average" person would also be unable
to assemble a car from a pile containing all the parts needed for the
complete car.
 
>>>Frankly, I coudn't afford the first TRS-80, and, at a later stage,
>>>I couldnt' afford a Timex-Sinclair 1000. Though, two years later,
>>>I could afford 6 times the price for a Coleco ADAM.
>>  
>> One single person isn't a sample large enough to be statistically
>> significant... :-)
> 
> No, but I wasn't so poor that my family was on public assistence either. 
> True, Apple has always been a "premium" brand name, as has been IBM but 
> I knew people who could, and did, afford both brands.
 
I guess "couldn't afford" is a relative term, which perhaps should
be replaced with "wasn't willing to pay for what you got".  If you
absolutely desperately needed the TSR-80, or the Timex-Sinclair 1000,
you'd probably find a way to get the money needed to get them, but
then you'd have to refrain from buying something else instead.  It's
a matter of priorities.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se
WWW:     http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
         http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/