PDA

View Full Version : Least valuable computer



Dwight Elvey
December 5th, 2009, 03:49 PM
Hi
In line with the other thread, I thought I'd add one for
the least valuable computer.

most of the mid-range Macs
vic-20

Add more
Dwight

gerrydoire
December 5th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Hi
In line with the other thread, I thought I'd add one for
the least valuable computer.

most of the mid-range Macs
vic-20

Add more
Dwight

Most no name clones produced by the billions?

tezza
December 5th, 2009, 04:48 PM
I'm not sure I'd agree that the Vic-20 is the least valuable computer. It's limited in capability certainly, but its status as one of the first inexpensive "home" colour computer marketed to the masses gives it a certain collectibility status. In good condition, they are often sold for more than C-64s here.

Tez

Unknown_K
December 5th, 2009, 04:53 PM
The least valuable would be whatever is flooding the recycling centers these days (P2-early P3 systems).

People actually buy Vic-20's on ebay, so there is some demand for them.

Why did you pic mid range Macs? If anything people seem to snag those up.

willowmoon93
December 5th, 2009, 05:24 PM
I'd have to say the bare-bones TI-99/4A computer, as far as vintage goes. Peripherals for it, however, command a lot more.

Ole Juul
December 5th, 2009, 05:47 PM
The least valuable would be whatever is flooding the recycling centers these days (P2-early P3 systems).

People actually buy Vic-20's on ebay, so there is some demand for them.

Why did you pic mid range Macs? If anything people seem to snag those up.
Gotta agree. The recycling centres tell all. :) Everything between "vintage" and "modern" is the least valuable.

MattCarp
December 5th, 2009, 06:02 PM
Good topic!

I think the Macs Dwight was referring to were all of those Performas and Centras, basically anything between the Quadros and iMacs.

I definitely agree the bare TI-99/4As are not worth much. Now that the machine's technical architecture is well documented and the technical information is available, I would have never bought one in 1980!

Here's one I personally would add - the C64! Before everyone jumps on me, I know that this was many people's first machine, there were lots of games, but I had one in my collection and hated it!

When I was in acquisition mode, I thought I wanted a Tandy CoCo 3. Then it reminded me of the C64. ugh. From that genre, I think the Ataris are the only ones I can stand.

I'd add the Sinclair ZX81. Flaky keyboards and the expansion connector. The one I had in my collection had a flaky power supply. I'm hard pressed to think anyone can spend more that 10 minutes with the thing! I sold mine.

I also agree that the zillion XT, 286, 386, and 486 clones are worthless.

After researching some of the machines mentioned in the "most valuable" thread, I'd have to say that the crossover game console and computers don't do much for me.

I might add any machine where you can't get at least a few pieces of software! When I set out to collect some machines, I at least wanted to get the OS, a programming language, a terminal program, an editor/word processor, and a spreadsheet.

I'm sure to have stirred up some passion on some of these machines!

Unknown_K
December 5th, 2009, 06:02 PM
The thing is "valuable" fluctuates over time. I am sure millions of old IBM PC/XT/AT got recycled years ago because they had no value at the time but people pay decent money for them now. I remember when schools flooded the market with IIgs Apple systems and nobody wanted one even free, now people pay money for them again.

Believe it or not the 386/486/P1/P2/P3 systems being junked now will be a collectors item down the road. They might not be valued for the CPU design. but they will be for the old apps and games people used with them. Sure millions were made but millions of people also had one as their first computer and might want one down the road (when the vast majority are recycled). If anything the more modern machines seem to be recycled must fast and more completely then the older more expensive when new machines.

carlsson
December 6th, 2009, 10:33 PM
In my opinion, ANY Macintosh is "least valuable". Next to those are Atari ST's, which usually people won't pick up with a long stick, at least not around here.

Ole Juul
December 6th, 2009, 10:56 PM
In my opinion, ANY Macintosh is "least valuable". Next to those are Atari ST's, which usually people won't pick up with a long stick, at least not around here.
Personally speaking I'd have to agree on the Macs. Although those early cubie all-in-one boxes (like the IBM model 25 only much better) were nice - too bad they were made out of plastic.

BTW, have you ever tried to pick up a computer with a stick?

Bobthearch
December 7th, 2009, 05:33 AM
This is a really old topic... but this is a vintage forum after all. ;)

In my book, the least valuable computers are ones that don't work. :bomb:

The low-end pizza box Macs don't seem to be worth much, like the lc II. Not only are they incapable of doing much, but schools throw these away by the thousands.

The most common vintage home computers - made by the thousands, stashed in closets everywhere, and every interested collector already has one or more. Commodore Vic-20/64/128, Timex Sinclair, Atari 2600, CoCo...

fred3rd
December 7th, 2009, 09:57 AM
I'd have to say anything with the Packard Bell logo on it.

Vint
December 7th, 2009, 10:59 AM
Like Bobthearch says, "The least valuable computers are the ones that don't work!"

I (almost) lie awake nights fearing one of my vintage machines may stop starting. If that metal and plastic box doesn't turn on when I flip the switch - it becomes just that . . . a metal and plastic box - {doorstop}.
I wish I had the gumption of many of the others on this forum that tackle fixing their vintage machines. (I did, when I was younger) - but alas to me, time is now more valuable than money.

barythrin
December 7th, 2009, 11:14 AM
That's a tough one. On one hand most non-IBM compatible clones aren't worth much but they can be few and far between. Number one selling computer is Commodore 64 so technically I'd say it's the least valuable though I see them selling more on ebay now. The catch is with a lot of these systems you only get a small amount for them and you have to bundle them with a monitor, disk drive, and software to make the sale. Although historically significant I still think it's a must have in a collection :-)

TI99/4a is a close second though as I see those fairly often (system only) for still under $15.

NobodyIsHere
December 7th, 2009, 11:57 AM
Hi! Well, I can't say for sure what the least valuable vintage computer is but I can tell you one that is not the least valuable -- XT clones. They may be rather meager as a personal computer but they make great test stations.

I use them often for stuff since they are cheap and plentiful. I test all sorts of vintage gear using XT clones. They are valuable for experimenting and useful in the workshop if nothing else.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch

Zachary
December 7th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Probably a heavy tower-style Pentium II with a 28.8 "winmodem" and Windows ME. If it's the least valuable you'll have a hard time selling it at all.

Ole Juul
December 7th, 2009, 06:28 PM
I'm with lynchaj on the value of XT clones. I love those and to me they also have good value even though I wouldn't pay a lot.

As for Zachary's "heavy tower-style Pentium II with a 28.8 "winmodem"". I'd have to agree, except for one small point. Most of those have flat metal sides which are quite valuable. Metal is becoming more and more expensive and the amount of clean sheet in those is worth keeping for sheet metal projects. It's when you get into plastic boxes that you end up with no value at all.

Unknown_K
December 7th, 2009, 07:39 PM
I have a Gateway G6-300 and a G6-450 (P2/early P3) and love those solid metal cases.

While both were free, I would have spent a nominal amount for them since I use them for projects (they house video capture cards of that era).

Personally I think the later machines which are mostly made of cheap brittle black plastic and spray painted chewing gum wrappers as being junk.

My only XT is a clone, they might not be worth the same as an IBM XT/AT but they do the same job and look decent (actually the Tandy 1000's I have are XT class too I guess).

carlsson
December 7th, 2009, 10:44 PM
Ooh.. is the topic the least valuable computer, all kinds, all ages? I agree for a collector of vintage computers anything Pentium II is close to worthless since it neither is vintage nor recent enough for a workhorse. Fast forward 20 years, and things may have changed, depending on how many of us bothered to clutter our basements with those.

Chuckster_in_Jax
December 9th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Like Bobthearch says, "The least valuable computers are the ones that don't work!"

I have to disagree that a computer isn't worth anything if it doesn't work. Only if it doesn't work and can't be repaired. In the past I have had computers that didn't work and I didn't have the parts. If you are patient, eventually parts will show up on eBay. It could be as long as 3 years, but it's worth the wait.


I (almost) lie awake nights fearing one of my vintage machines may stop starting. If that metal and plastic box doesn't turn on when I flip the switch - it becomes just that . . . a metal and plastic box - {doorstop}.
I wish I had the gumption of many of the others on this forum that tackle fixing their vintage machines. (I did, when I was younger) - but alas to me, time is now more valuable than money.

I have the most fun with my computers when I'm fixing them.

andyt31
December 10th, 2009, 05:01 AM
I could not even give away a Apple LCIII....

hmbrew
December 10th, 2009, 05:58 AM
You could probably give it away to me... :D

(If I thought I'd ever be able to find an Apple //e card for it that is...)

Lord Moz
December 10th, 2009, 07:28 AM
How about a Mattel Aquarius?
4KB ram, Z80 processor, rubber chicklet keyboard, very large non-removable external brick powersupply and NO GRAPHICS mode on a home/games machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattel_Aquarius

Acc. to wikipedia there, Mattel actually paid the original designers to take the rights to the machine back! That's gotta be pretty high on the list of least valuable...

I acquired mine at a Salvation Army thift shop probably about 15 years ago for $8...

__
Trevor

carlsson
December 10th, 2009, 08:13 AM
The Aquarius is quite uncommon and at least used to be rather collectable. You can find far cheaper home computers than it, even if I have a feeling value and interest has declined in the past 1-2 years.

Actually opposite of what you think, often the inferior computers only produced and sold in a few thousand units are the ones some collectors value the most. Part because they are hard to find, but also because they are so bad that you feel sorry for it and pay good money just to own an ugly duckling of your own.

tezza
December 10th, 2009, 08:45 AM
Actually opposite of what you think, often the inferior computers only produced and sold in a few thousand units are the ones some collectors value the most. Part because they are hard to find, but also because they are so bad that you feel sorry for it and pay good money just to own an ugly duckling of your own.

Yes, that's why I've got one. It was such an inferior product for it's time and sold so badly, it has some historical interest.

Tez

nige the hippy
December 10th, 2009, 10:38 AM
I still get a slight shudder faced with pretty well any Amstrad.
I recently acquired a PCW nnnn for 1 because I felt sorry for it, but I'm probably going to have to take it apart at some point, and lugs are going to snap & screwholes are going to open up, and sometime in the process I'm going to remember why I can't stand Amstrads.
It'll take 3 worth of glue, solder & components, 25 of my time, and still be worth 1 net value to me -26!

Bungo Pony
December 10th, 2009, 03:17 PM
The Timex Sinclair / ZX81 is pretty low on my list. It was useless back then, and it is useless today. That thing made my Vic-20 look like a supercomputer.

The worst has to be those V-tech laptops for kids. I see them in the thrift store and open it up to see if it's something cool. Then I realize it's one of those crappy Leapfrog things.