5 ms·

Looks like inflation makes $1 in 1982 about $2.67 today. https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1982?amount=1 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/198

by rb808 7y ago

Looks like inflation makes $1 in 1982 about $2.67 today. https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1982?amount=1 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1982?amount=1 So the Apple II+ were $4000+ in today's money. Still doesn't make the new Mac Pro look reasonable. :) Those 80 column mono-color screens though, nice.

scarface74 7y ago
The Mac //fx was $9000 in 1990 - $17200 inflation adjusted.
- sgerenser 7y ago
  But that 40MHz 68030 was wicked fast!
  - scarface74 7y ago
    If you look at the Wikipedia description, it was the Mac Pro of its day. It came with hardware that was rather extreme. I remember the lust I felt over reading about it in Macworld. It had two 10Mhz specialized 65C02 chips just to control IO. I was rocking an Apple //e at the time with a 1Mhz 65C02. Two years later, I got a Mac LCII with a 16Mhz/68030. A year after that, I got a 40Mhx accelerator for it and ran Speedometer to discover at least in the benchmarks, it ran about the same speed.
brandonmenc 7y ago
> So the Apple II+ were $4000+ in today's money. Still doesn't make the new Mac Pro look reasonable. :) A rich hierarchy of professional-grade desktop-ish-sized computers no longer exists because the PC architecture replaced everything. The Mac Pro is the modern equivalent of an SGI workstation or - if we're talking late 1970s, when the Apple II was introduced - maybe a DEC VAX - both of which could cost up to a quarter million dollars. It's actually unbelievable how cheap the Mac Pro is if you think in those terms.
- stan_rogers 7y ago
  In terms of what it's used for, a more fitting comparison would likely be a Scitex and Hell prepress suite. You could pour a couple of million into that and feel there were things you'd left out.
- PostOnce 7y ago
  SGI workstations had software that only ran on SGI workstations, they had hardware that did things that consumer PCs just didn't (like 3D hardware before that became a consumer item) The Mac Pro isn't different enough to categorize it along the lines of SGI. It doesn't run software that regular Macs don't, it doesn't have any particularly special hardware, it's "prosumer" equipment, not "professional" in the sense that SGI and similar were. In other words, it's a PC. That's not a bad thing, by the way; we all have amazing computers now, and we should be glad.
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    It has access to local cpu, cooling resources and ecc ram amounts that aren’t available to the masses. Agreed, not as deep a moat but there still is one.
  - brandonmenc 7y ago
    > it's "prosumer" equipment, not "professional" in the sense that SGI and similar were Does the average consumer purchase a Mac Pro? No. Is the Mac Pro being used in every professional setting previously dominated by SGI? Yes. > The Mac Pro isn't different enough to categorize it along the lines of SGI. Uniqueness of architecture is orthogonal to the argument - which is that the cost of handling professional-grade workloads on the desktop is lower than ever.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  A desktop Onyx was about 60k in the late 90s if memory serves. Felt special logging in.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
pram 7y ago
If only Apple sold cheaper computers.
- cable2600 7y ago
  My father refused to pay money for the Apple // and IBM PC because they were too expensive. The Atari 2600 PC upgrade was a bust so he didn't like Atari 8 bit computers, so we got a Commodore 64 instead. I think Atari and Commodore made inexpensive computers that were part video game console. The video games were the real market.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    C64 was a beast. Crushed Apple II.
    - cable2600 7y ago
      Apple countered with the IIc but it was not cheap enough. IBM countered with the IBM PCJr which Tandy licensed to get the graphics and sound for their Tandy PC 1000 series.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  There are plenty of people selling cheap computers, I’m just glad there is someone selling expensive ones.
cstross 7y ago
The current Apple equivalent is probably an iMac Pro, or possibly a tricked-out 27" 5K iMac with all the extras. The Mac Pro is arguably an SGI/Sun workstation equivalent.

by rb808 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

The Mac //fx was $9000 in 1990 - $17200 inflation adjusted.

sgerenser 7y ago
But that 40MHz 68030 was wicked fast!
- scarface74 7y ago
  If you look at the Wikipedia description, it was the Mac Pro of its day. It came with hardware that was rather extreme. I remember the lust I felt over reading about it in Macworld. It had two 10Mhz specialized 65C02 chips just to control IO. I was rocking an Apple //e at the time with a 1Mhz 65C02. Two years later, I got a Mac LCII with a 16Mhz/68030. A year after that, I got a 40Mhx accelerator for it and ran Speedometer to discover at least in the benchmarks, it ran about the same speed.

brandonmenc 7y ago

> So the Apple II+ were $4000+ in today's money. Still doesn't make the new Mac Pro look reasonable. :) A rich hierarchy of professional-grade desktop-ish-sized computers no longer exists because the PC architecture replaced everything. The Mac Pro is the modern equivalent of an SGI workstation or - if we're talking late 1970s, when the Apple II was introduced - maybe a DEC VAX - both of which could cost up to a quarter million dollars. It's actually unbelievable how cheap the Mac Pro is if you think in those terms.

stan_rogers 7y ago
In terms of what it's used for, a more fitting comparison would likely be a Scitex and Hell prepress suite. You could pour a couple of million into that and feel there were things you'd left out.
PostOnce 7y ago
SGI workstations had software that only ran on SGI workstations, they had hardware that did things that consumer PCs just didn't (like 3D hardware before that became a consumer item) The Mac Pro isn't different enough to categorize it along the lines of SGI. It doesn't run software that regular Macs don't, it doesn't have any particularly special hardware, it's "prosumer" equipment, not "professional" in the sense that SGI and similar were. In other words, it's a PC. That's not a bad thing, by the way; we all have amazing computers now, and we should be glad.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  It has access to local cpu, cooling resources and ecc ram amounts that aren’t available to the masses. Agreed, not as deep a moat but there still is one.
- brandonmenc 7y ago
  > it's "prosumer" equipment, not "professional" in the sense that SGI and similar were Does the average consumer purchase a Mac Pro? No. Is the Mac Pro being used in every professional setting previously dominated by SGI? Yes. > The Mac Pro isn't different enough to categorize it along the lines of SGI. Uniqueness of architecture is orthogonal to the argument - which is that the cost of handling professional-grade workloads on the desktop is lower than ever.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
A desktop Onyx was about 60k in the late 90s if memory serves. Felt special logging in.
- reaperducer 7y ago

pram 7y ago

If only Apple sold cheaper computers.

cable2600 7y ago
My father refused to pay money for the Apple // and IBM PC because they were too expensive. The Atari 2600 PC upgrade was a bust so he didn't like Atari 8 bit computers, so we got a Commodore 64 instead. I think Atari and Commodore made inexpensive computers that were part video game console. The video games were the real market.
- jacobush 7y ago
  C64 was a beast. Crushed Apple II.
  - cable2600 7y ago
    Apple countered with the IIc but it was not cheap enough. IBM countered with the IBM PCJr which Tandy licensed to get the graphics and sound for their Tandy PC 1000 series.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
There are plenty of people selling cheap computers, I’m just glad there is someone selling expensive ones.

cstross 7y ago

The current Apple equivalent is probably an iMac Pro, or possibly a tricked-out 27" 5K iMac with all the extras. The Mac Pro is arguably an SGI/Sun workstation equivalent.