IBM PC 5150 vs. Alienware Area-51 ALX
|
Computer
|
IBM PC 5150
|
Alienware Area-51 ALX |
|---|---|---|
|
Year Sold
|
1981
|
2009
|
|
Price
(2009 Dollars) |
$7,127.69 |
$7,113.00 |
|
Price
(1981 Dollars) |
$3,000.00
|
$2,993.82
|
|
CPU Type
|
Intel 8088
|
Intel Core i7 975 Extreme Edition
|
|
CPU MHz (Total)
|
4.77
|
15,440
|
|
RAM (KB)
|
64
|
12,000,000
|
|
Fixed Disk (MB)
|
0
|
3,500,000
|
|
Removable Drive Type
|
5.25″ Floppy
|
Blu-ray Disc Burner
|
|
Removable Capacity
(KB, Per Media) |
360
|
50,050,629
|
|
Operating System
|
IBM PC DOS 1.0
|
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
|
|
Extras
|
None
|
21.5″ LCD Monitor, Dual 1.8GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295, 802.11n Wi-Fi card
|
In matching IBM’s first PC price-for-price, it seemed natural to look to IBM’s descendant in the desktop PC market, Lenovo, who bought IBM’s PC division back in 2005. But Lenovo’s most expensive desktop PC offering (ThinkCentre M58p Tower) maxed out at $2,343 using the company’s online configuring tools. So I looked to another source to match the PC’s inflation-adjusted $7,127 price, and Alienware’s offering fit quite nicely (notice that it includes a 21.5″ LCD monitor).
Commodore 64 vs. HP Pavilion Elite
|
Computer
|
Commodore 64
|
HP Pavilion Elite e9280t |
|---|---|---|
|
Year Sold
|
1982
|
2009
|
|
Price
(2009 Dollars) |
$1,331.62 |
$1,329.99 |
|
Price
(1982 Dollars) |
$595.00
|
$594.27
|
|
CPU Type
|
MOS 6510
|
Intel Core i7-920
|
|
CPU MHz (Total)
|
1.02
|
10,640
|
|
RAM (KB)
|
64
|
8,000,000
|
|
Fixed Disk (MB)
|
0
|
1,500,000
|
|
Removable Drive Type
|
None
|
16X DVD-ROM
|
|
Removable Capacity
(KB, Per Media) |
0
|
4,700,000
|
|
Operating System
|
Commodore BASIC 2.0
|
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
|
|
Extras
|
None
|
1GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 graphics card, integrated 10/100/1000 Ethernet, 15-in-1 memory card reader, TV tuner card, integrated 7.1 channel sound, multimedia keyboard, optical mouse
|
During the Commodore 64’s heyday, consumers and the media alike were impressed by the machine’s low cost, especially given its impressive 64K of memory. An aggressive price war instigated by Commodore’s Jack Tramiel fueled the C64’s rock-bottom prices, which dropped dramatically over its life span. Those prices helped make the C64 the world’s highest-selling computer model of all time.
From a modern perspective, just how cheap was the C64? It premiered for $595, which is $1,331.62 in 2009 dollars. $1,331 can buy you a very impressive PC these days, as you can see above. It’s interesting that the C64–a $1,331 computer–was considered the low-end (price wise) of the computer market in the early 1980s. Today’s low-end computers, which are still millions of times more powerful than the C64, typically retail for around $300-400 dollars.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
It’s amazing how computing technology advances in leaps and bounds. My first computer was a 486 with 64mb RAM. And I thought it was the greatest thing around when I got it.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:55 am
My first was a Leading Edge Model D. About $1600 in 1988, running at 4.77 MHz. It had a 20 MB hard drive, and they had “tweaked” it to get 30 MB out of it, but it had all sorts of problems,and they ended up installing a regular 20 MB in the machine. Amberchrome monitor to top it off. That thing lasted me through graduate school….
I just started using a new Macmini, and I don’t think I have done much of anything to come close to taxing it.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:05 am
My first computer was a Commodore Vic-20. It had a mind blowing 3.5 kilobytes of RAM. Including cassette tape drive, it would have cost several hundred Australian dollars back in 1982.
I am typing this on a 2009 Macbook Pro with 4 gigabytes of RAM. I reckon in 1982 it is possible there wasn’t 4 gig of RAM in all the personal computers in Australia combined.
Wow.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Anyone want to try this for gaming systems? The original NES v. Wii? Atari v. X-Box 360? How about early PDA’s compared to the iPhone?
October 26th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
There’s a mistake on page 4: the iMac doesn’t come with a Xeon, let alone dual CPUs ;)
October 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
You’re right, Bouke. I fixed it — a simple copy/paste error on my part. Looks like everything else about that entry is correct.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Yeah, I remember many of those old classic machines – but where are the TRS-80 and Commodore PET? :) It would be interesting to see some other form factor comparisons, too – Compaq Portable vs. Shuttle XPC? Data General One vs. ThinkPad? GRiD Compass vs. MacBook Pro?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
My first PC was the Ohio Scientific Challenger 1P, one of best 6502 based machines of its time. Very obsolete by todays standards but not forgotten.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Guys, when are you going to learn that 1KB is 1024B, not 1000B?
256B is not 0.256KB. It’s 0.25. Also, 4GB is not 4,000,000KB. It’s 4,194,304 etc., etc…. HDD capacities are sometimes given in billions and trillions of bytes to trick the customers. However, it would be very impractical to make RAM chips like that.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Lol, great comparison between technology yesterday & now. Really it cant be measured where it will be tomorrow. Lets imagine what might be the change in computers, dare to do it?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I’m another who started with a Vic20 with 5kb RAM (3.5kb usable with the built-in Microsoft Basic 2.0 ..that was easy to fill up.) Had a tape drive for storage (ie: standard cassette tapes.) As I recall the tape drive cost around US$100 ..a 5.25″ disk drive (128kb, single sided) cost as much as the computer! Great machine though.
As I recall, the Sinclair ZX-81, the original UK version of the Timex-1000, had only 1kb of RAM. And the CPU did *everything*.. including drawing to the screen. (32×24 characters.. pure black and white.) :) In the picture shown in the article, the Timex has a whopping 16kb RAM expansion plugged into the back. Great things, but didn’t seat itself particularly firmly and could crash the machine if it moved too much.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:46 am
ok guys, lets speak about 2010. what do you expect about processor, memory module & graphics ?? lets share our expectations :-)
November 5th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Now come on, this isn’t fair. C= 64 cost $595 when it was the absolute cutting edge fastest thing around whereas $1330 for the HP Pavillion does not represent a huge new-tech premium.
I know for a fact that my mom… er, Santa that is… didn’t spend nearly $600 when I got my C= 64. We just didn’t have that kind of money.
How much did it cost at the rock-bottom prices Jack Tramiel’s marketing schemes brought it to? Now compare it to hardware at that price inflated to today’s dollars and it’s not quite the same picture, eh?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Indeed things have come a long way. I practically lived through much of the home computing history. My first computer was the venerable Texas Instruments TI-99/4A (CPU: Texas Instruments TMS9900 @ 3.0 MHz; RAM: 16Kb; storage: cassette recorder and ROM cartriges, though 5.25″ floppy drives were supported; Video: NTSC video output), and my first game console was the original Atari 2600 (CPU: MOS Technology 6507 @ 1.19 MHz: RAM: 128Kb; Storage: ROM Cartriges; Video: NTSC Video output).
Fast forward to today, I use a custom-built desktop PC which I’m typing on right now (CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.43 GHz; RAM: 2GB; Storage: total fixed storage over 1TB in RAID 1 configuration, 22X Dual Layer DVD Burner; Video: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS), and I have a Sony Playstation 3 as my game console (CPU: Sony/IBM/Toshiba “Cell” Processor @ 3.2 GHz; RAM: 256MB System + 256MB Video; Storage: upgradable 80GB 2.5″ SATA Hard Disk, 2X Blu-Ray Drive; Video: “Reality Synthesizer” aka NVIDIA G70).
Amazing how far technology has advanced.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am
The Lisa vs Mac Pro comparison floored me. FOUR 30 inch cinema displays?! LOL!
You just have to keep throwing in “stuff” to bring the price up.
overheard while preparing this article:
“Um, dude, we’re like $5000 short of the adjusted price target.”
“Max out the RAM.”
“Already is. So are the hard drives, burners, and video cards.”
“Hmm…Give it a bigger display.”
“It’s already got Apple’s top of the line Cinema display.”
“Only one? We’ve got four graphics cards, give it four displays!”
“We’re close now, but still not quite there.”
“Throw in one more video card. I don;t know what we’ll do with it, but just throw it in there.”
November 11th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Nit: Your numbers for RAM are incorrect. 1K = 1024 bytes, not 1000. 1MB = 1024*1024=1048576. 256 bytes = 0.25 KB, not 0.256 KB.
Unfortunately, your numbers are “correct” for disk size, as somehow the hard disk industry has made 1k = 1000 a standard.
Aside from the nit, these are very interesting comparisons. I had no idea the Apple Lisa was as expensive as that back then!
November 11th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
My first computer was an Atari XL running TOS. I forget how much RAM it had but it was far less than a pimple of the a** of what we use today. My first hard drive was for an Atari ST and I believe it was 5 megs and it cost me around 5000 bucks. All my friends were green with jealousy and at that price thought it was a steal (!). When I finally went PC it was a 486/DX and man I was rockin’ at the Ritz then! For two grand it had all the bells and whistles with Windows 3.1. Woohoo!
Man have we come on long way baby!
November 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Oops! That would be 500 bucks, not 5000.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
My first pc was a Xerox 820. I don’t remember the specs. other than it had dual 8 inch floppies and CPM was the operating system. Wordstar was the word processor and Supercalc was the spreadsheet program, all on floppies. Extra was the 300 baud modem. I got the system at Goodwill for $50. It was over $5000 when new.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Actually, although I hate to admit this… their numbers ARE correct. ISO standards now specify that “kilo,” “mega,” “giga,” et cetera, refer to powers of ten, while “kibi,” “mebi,” “gibi,” et cetera, refer to powers of two. So a kilobyte (kB) is 1000 bytes, and a kibibyte (kiB) is 1024 bytes.
Yes, it sounds ridiculous, and yes, nobody actually uses the things, but *technically* they are correct.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I got my first home computer in 1983, an Atari 800 for which I spent $550. It used the Moto 6502 chip running at a full 2 MHz (the Commodore and Apple 6502 machines ran just slightly under 2 MHz) and had 48 KB of user available RAM. It didn’t come with a floppy (that was an add-on extra) but it did have a tape storage drive. It took a full 15 minutes to load in the game Zaxxon from tape to memory.
In 1985, I moved up to an Atari ST, for which I spent $800. It used a Moto 68000 chip running at 8 MHz (interestingly enough, the Commodore and Apple 68000 machines ran slightly under 8 MHz) and had 512 KB of available RAM. It came with a built in 3.5″ floppy drive. A year later I added a homemade external 5 MB hard drive for $500. Those were fun times.