Comment on Cost of a 128KB computer with floppies in 1985
BrownianMotion@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So everything is about right. Today you can buy a budget pc, and skim on performance, but back then (and I was there man!) you could not.
In 1985 HDD were only starting to gain traction for PC’s and that was about the only thing you could spec up. That IBM pc is “High Res” which probably means it was VGA multicolour (yay!lol) with 640x480 resolution. So you were basically buying top of the line.
Today, if you were to build a top of the line PC, RTX4090, latest best intel cpu, PSU, etc, etc it would be easy to spend $5K!
But damn, the difference in performance from back then to now!! (That IBM is an XT which means it was a 4.77Mhz with 8086 cpu. Just looking at that picture, I can feel the weight of the bloody thing)
Today you can buy a budget pc, and skim on performance, but back then (and I was there man!) you could not.
For PCs? Maybe not, but you could get plenty of other types of home computer for reasonably cheap. A Commodore 64 was $150 in 1985, for instance. Just had to stay away from the absolute bleeding edge.
eh. Money is worth a third it was worth.
squaresinger@feddit.de 1 year ago
Also, these PCs back then were heavy (=>much more resource intensive), handbuilt and low-volume. All things that add a lot to the price.
Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 year ago
I don’t know about resource intensive, today you need a frigging powerplant to feed a decent PC. At least the 286 and onwards didn’t consume that much right?
astropenguin5@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think they mean resource intensive as in it literally took more physical material to build them, which costs more.
Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 year ago
Ah okay, that’s totally true.
squaresinger@feddit.de 1 year ago
Resource intensive to make. If you have a PC that consists of 20kg steel and other materials, that’s gonna add to the price.
Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 year ago
True true!