You’re familiar with Moore’s law. You know all about the accelerating pace of information technology. Regardless, you’re still amazed at how many gigabytes you can fit in your pocket these days. Remember how your first computer’s entire hard disk only held 20 megabytes? You could accidentally swallow a thousand times as much data now if you weren’t careful.
But how much did that old hard drive cost? I mean really cost? Our memories get fuzzy on this point, because the buying power of the U.S. dollar has not remained constant over the years. Inflation has decreased the value of the dollar, per dollar, continuously for over a century. That means if you bought an IBM PC for $3,000 in 1981, you were actually spending the equivalent of $7,127.69 in today’s dollars.
Wait..what? $7,000 for a PC? Does anybody buy a $7,000 PC these days? Does anybody even sell a $7,000 desktop PC now? In our present climate of plentiful sub-$1,000 computers, surely a $7,000 PC must be the most incredible machine ever invented. But for a business-oriented machine in 1981, that sounded cheap.
To examine this trend, let’s take six classic personal computers from yesteryear–some cheap, some expensive–and see what you could buy today for the same price. And we’re not talking original retail price here; we’re going to take inflation into account. For example, the Commodore 64–once considered a low-cost home computer–originally sold for $1,331.62 in 2009 dollars. Today you can get quite a bit for that much money. How much? That’s what we’re going to find out.
Special thanks to Steven Stengel for providing many of the vintage computer photos in this article.
About the Methodology
Every specification listed in the charts below is what a buyer received for the retail price at the date listed, not the best possible configuration. So before you say, “Hey, but you could get a hard drive for the Commodore 64!” hold your breath, count to ten, and read the following key to our charts:
Price (2009 Dollars): Retail price adjusted for inflation to 2009 US Dollars
Price (xxxx Dollars): Retail price adjusted for inflation to xxxx US Dollars
CPU: CPU type included at retail price listed
CPU MHz (Total): Total clock speed (in MHz) of all CPU cores combined at retail price listed
RAM: RAM in kilobytes included at retail price listed
Fixed Disk: Capacity of fixed storage (i.e. hard drive) in megabytes included at retail price listed
Removable Type: Removable storage type included at retail price listed
Removable Cap.: Capacity of removable media (per media) in kilobytes for drive included at price
Operating System: Operating system included at retail price listed
Extras: Extra features included that appreciably influence the price listed
Note: I know that CPU clock speed is not a particularly good indicator of performance between CPU architectures. The only problem is that other measurements of relative CPU capability–such as exact transistor counts, or MIPS–are hard to pin down for some of these processors. For our purposes, the clock speed merely serves as an approximate indicator of CPU performance.
I’m also aware that multiplying the CPU’s clock speed by the number of its cores doesn’t mean much from a technical standpoint, but it does serve as a rough continuous indicator of performance from the old days of single-core CPUs into our modern multi-core era. Theoretically, each core multiplies a machine’s computational ability.
All inflation adjusted prices have been calculated using the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index as of September 2009.
MITS Altair vs. Dell Precision T7400
|
Computer
|
MITS Altair 8800 |
Dell Precision T7400 |
|---|---|---|
|
Year Sold
|
1975
|
2009
|
|
Price
(2009 Dollars) |
$1,987.08 |
$1,999.00 |
|
Price
(1975 Dollars) |
$495.00
|
$497.97
|
|
CPU Type
|
Intel 8080
|
Quad Core Intel Xeon E5410
|
|
CPU MHz (Total)
|
2
|
9,320
|
|
RAM (KB)
|
0.256
|
4,000,000
|
|
Fixed Disk (MB)
|
0
|
80,000
|
|
Removable Drive Type
|
None
|
16X DVD-ROM
|
|
Removable Capacity
(KB, Per Media) |
0
|
4,700,000
|
|
Operating System
|
None
|
Microsoft Windows Vista Business Edition
|
|
Extras
|
Fully assembled (vs. kit form)
|
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290 graphics card, USB Optical Mouse, Keyboard
|
At first glance it seems rather unfair to compare what some consider to be the first personal computer — the Altair 8800 — with a modern Dell workstation. It’s obvious even without a chart that the differences between the two are almost absurdly dramatic. But perhaps more than the other examples below, this comparison shows how far we’ve come in the PC industry. Altair, the first popular PC, sold for $1,987.08 (2009 dollars) and included no storage and only 256 bytes–yes, not kilobytes, bytes–of RAM. Today, the Dell Workstation (one of many possible modern PCs to sell for about $2000) contains 15,625,000 times as much memory, among other whiz-bang improvements.
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.