[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]My first computer was a VIC-20, and I used to dream "If I only had that 8K ram expander, I'd be set - FOR LIFE!", a year later - I get the C=128 for Christmas, as I didn't want the breadbox old C64. But I did have to use my cassette TAPE drive for months. Since I was a kid, and worked at $3.75 an hour it took many many months to save enough to buy the $280 360k 5.25" Floppy Disc Drive!So when people COMPLAIN about the high prices of technology (which we are used to nowadays) - they don't know squat! I still have my 1571 drive, its bigger and much heavier than my ThinkPad.$400 iPad is expensive... blah!14Mhz 6502 CPU?! geez! Talk about serious upgrade for a C=64!But yeah, when Apple was buying 6502s for their APPLE IIs, they are buying them from C= This also allowed C= to sell their computers a bit cheaper since their made their own CPUs. The C=64 put the AppleII to shame. It was a lot cheaper ($600 vs $1200~$2500 depending on memory), it included upper and lower characters, sound and color graphics without requiring add-on cards. Ugh, Apple II was SOOO horrible compared to a C=. But Apple made the profits while the C= sold millions of more units (even at Toys R Us).And yes Hoofhearted, I remember the days of LOAD "*",8,1 - I don't miss them. But it was a neat time to learn a whole new era of inventions.I of course upgraded to the Amiga 1000 (7Mhz / 512K of RAM / 880k 3.5 floppy drive) which very quickly meant my C=128 was soon put in the closet. Back in 1986~87, the 2MB ram expander for my A1000 had a retail price of about $1600! I got mine used for $300, still have it and its HEAVIER than my ThinkPad, it can be used as a murder weapon. I still use my 1986 era C= 1802C RGB monitor for my video equipment... its the only CRT I still have left. This 12~13" monitor does 640x200 folks, 640x400 in flickering interlace, the picture was far better than a TV, but crap compared to a 60hz VGA screen... but back then, a VGA monitor was $600~1200.[/citation]
but they were all relativity new processes, un refined at least to to the extent they are now. the cost of tech now is so cheap because of all the advances we made in the processes, the transistors themselves dont cost much, its the wafer size that dwarfs the transistor cost.
if you want to compare now to back than its really hard, because formats dont make it to the consumer range till they are tested and proven... it would be like if we launched holo (sp) discs tomorrow to the consumer range. the process to make the drive would cost an absolute crap ton, and the discs would be unbelievably expensive too. with the tech today, we dont make those one up leaps any more because everything is now good enough, we don't make a 10tb drive because it would be cost prohibitive, though a 4tb drive is a far more reasonable price (though i do think we should make a 5.25 inch storage drive, just because how many of those 2 or 4 dvd bays ever get any use anymore?