On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 5:35 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: As mentioned elsewhere, the old "10 year" rule is long irrelevant. I think 1995 is a good general cut-off for a strictly time-based threshold, but it's not a hard boundary - PPC Macs I would think should still be in bounds. A softer rule would probably be "(nearly) anything goes except nearly-current Windows PCs". If a machine can run WinXP, it's too new. Also as mentioned, there are plenty of lists about modern PCs. -ethan

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:31 PM Zane Healy via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.orgwrote: Zane You've apparently never heard of Tony Duell: last I read he was running Windows 98 on an IBM PC/XT or something like that :) Sellam

On 12/22/22 3:41 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: I don't think "happy" is how I would describe that. Would it run? Maybe. Would I want to run it like that? Nope. Not at all. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 6:16 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.orgwrote: Shirley none of you are serious about a 32-bit (at least partially) operating system being able to execute on a 286 processor. You couldn't even run Windows 3.1 in Enhanced mode on a 286 processor.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: Well, some of that was just being ignorant that certain things weren't "possible" until after they were done. but, really, nothing fancy. If you have A computer, and need it to do many different things adequately, you have much greater requirements, than if you have MANY computers, many of which are dedicated to specific tasks. "Telephone log", "order entry", "order processing", "bookkeeping and accounting" don't require much; "documentation" and "desktop publishing" need a bit more, but different needs. And NONE of those should EVER be on the same machines used for software development and testing. Software development calls for more speed, for decent compile, assmble, and link times. Software testing must be done on a variety of machines, specifically including ones at the level of the customer. XenoCopy 1.000 was tested on 5150. And that was ALL that it ran on. Changes had to be made when "compatible" machines came out. Many companies make the mistake of providing state of the art machines to their testers, who therefore don't experience the kinds of problems that the customers get on crappy machines. For example, when an operating system company uses high end RELIABLE machines for testing, they don't experience the problems, and end up with very poor error handling. For example, Microsoft was unaware that a disk error, even a minor one, could/would corrupt the content being written to disk by write cacheing in SMARTDRV. When that was reported to them by Win3.1 beta testers, their response was LITERALLY, "That's a hardware issue; NOT OUR PROBLEM." They had to do a major free "update" towards DOS 6.2x because of that (SMARTDRV was the only issue that actually forced that free update; the "problems with disk compression" were virrtually ALL SMARTDRV.) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com

Well, there's always Linux on an 8 bit microcontroller... https://hackaday.com/2012/03/28/building-the-worst-linux-pc-ever/ Will I do not think you can name many great inventions that have been made by married men. Nikola Tesla

On Friday, December 23, 2022, 01:54:57 AM EST, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: On 12/22/22 18:45, Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: Well, if you want to pedantic about it, you certainly could emulate a 32-bit processor on any reasonably Turing-equivalent processor, given sufficient memory. It might be incredibly slow, but you could do it. --Chuck I was going to say assembly language texts and maybe even Intel docs give examples of substituting 2 or more instructions to replace a newer processors instructions, that the earlier one never heard of. Not sure if that's what Fred was talking about. Who cares about W95/98. I want to see NT 4.0 running on PC Peanut.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:41 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: QSL The only 'classic' Windows system I have is an HP150. Of course that is a specially modified version of Windows1 (doesn't even have overlapping windows) Alas I have had to get a more modern PC to have access to the internet and this list. I don't regard it as a computer. I do not know how to program it, I do not know how to interface it. It does what the manufacturers want, not what I want. And we call this progress. Still got all my classics though, and a few more. Spent the last couple of months sorting out a strange 68020 box called a Stride 440. I guess that's on-topic here. -tony

On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 11:52 AM Liam Proven via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: I have a memory of installing Windows 95 on a monochrome 386SX laptop w/4MB of RAM in August, 1995 at McMurdo because that's the equipment we had on hand when Win95 arrived on the continent. It was unpleasantly slow but it did run. Way better on a 486 w/8MB. -ethan

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: Another possible exception for banning XP: I think that the OQO is interesting enough to call for inclusion. It is a handheld, running XP. Screen slides partway off to reveal a keyboard. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: There is a common problem, that if that battery is discharged below some threshold, it won't charge on the normal charger(s). But, SOMETIMES, if you open the battery and force a little bit of charge into it, sometimes that will revive it. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com

I am going to ditto Zane because I basically could've written that same exact message like an infinite monkey on an infinite typewriter. Sellam On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:41 PM Zane Healy via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:

Maybe it should be "Before Moore's Law was over." Processors hit 3 GHz about twenty years ago, and haven't gotten any faster.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: Howzbout: INTERESTING, and olde enough to not be like the current stuff, I'd like to think that OQO might qualify, but not anything Dell or Gateway.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:17:19PM -0800, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: Turing Monkey? Does it have infinite roll of paper? -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com **

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: I'm going to play the old fogey card and suggest that we should use a specific year as a cutoff, rather than a floating limit. Something like 1986, or possibly a little later. As has been mentioned, there are many other outlets for discussions about Windoze machines and i386+ systems. Mike Loewen mloewen(a)cpumagic.scol.pa.us Old Technology http://q7.neurotica.com/Oldtech/

Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing. I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for discussion.

Has anyone here been to the Kennett Classic museum? There is what was originally called the "post vintage" room that has stuff like NeXT, Sun, SGI, PS/2's, Windows 3.1, 386/486 laptops, GridPad/IBM Thinkpad, Go Pad, DEC Alphas workstations, etc. Now it's referred to as the "32-bit GUI workstation collection". I learned real fast that when highschool kids come to the museum they don't even know what a Commodore 64 was, not to mention anything older. So each era has it's vintage-of-that-era things. It's not our place because we're mostly experts in the older vintages to really have as much of a say in what is vintage for the late 90's early 2000's. Would it really be PCs, or is this the era of smart phones, IP networking dial up ISP, etc. It's not time yet for the XP/Win server 2003, not yet. But save these things and your ipADs and google glasses, and your blackberries and palm handhelds. Their day is coming in a few years. We have to avoid thinking it's just the next PC as "vintage" - the day of the desktop is kind of done except for gaming machines, as far as sales go. b On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:05 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

I was not disagreeing with you. I thought that "dang obsolete" was an amusing wording; and applies to most of my interests. These days, doing web browsing, email, and transcoding video, I use a bunch of XP and Win7 machines, but my heart, and nostalgia, are with older stuff. in the process of having to downsize considerably, I gave away my N* Horizon, my TRS80s, and most of everything else. Soon, I will pack up my Poqets and OQOs. I am soon going to give the rest of my Leicas and large format cameras to an old friend. I doubt that any "definition" could really be adequate to pin down the topics to the fun stuff. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote: > Windows 2003 and XP is about as obsolete now as the IBM PC was in 1995. Probably more so. XP is popular on Vogons but I'm sure considerably less then 5% of computers actually host it. > > There's also the issue of beating a dead horse. There will always and forever (and forever...) be some esoteric issue to discuss about some bizzare and mostly unknown 8 bit system that 3 people on the whole of planet earth own (now not to brag, but chances are there are a dozen or less Northstar Dimension owners (never mind users) out there. And I'm proud to be 1). Who am I going to discuss that with?? And a larger issue is what? An even larger issue is why? Well I got plans ... > > Lists of this sort are about tech and used by people who love it. Windows 11 is not germain to these conversations. But what about, and I'm just putting this out there, making pre UEFI shtuff -on-? I don't even know how I personally feel about such a delineation. But the suggestion is there. Nostalgic weirdos like older tech. Yes often dang old. Now a Thinkpad T60p doesn't exactly seem dang old. But it's pretty much dang obsolete (can't remember what sort of firmware it has but the processor, though 64 bit, is part of that hazy quasi transitional grouping that had more similarities to a 32 bit chip). On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 10:05:06 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote: >> Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has >> thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing. >> I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near >> equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite >> sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. >> Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at >> least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this >> board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for >> discussion. > > To summarize:  "On-Topic" == "Dang obsolete" > >

Traffic on the list is so low I'm not seeing the issue. I'm also not seeing complaints about threads being off topic. Seems like solution seeking a problem. On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:28 PM Chris via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

This is really funny. Do you all realize how many times we've gone over this over the past 25 years? As Bill poignantly explained, maybe instead of trying to establish a cut-off date, we instead think outside of the box: If enough people object to a topic, it stops. Let's call it three objections. If three different people reply to a post objecting to it then whoosh, off it goes into the bit bucket, never to be spoken of again. Example: Someone A: Hey, is it OK if I talk about Windows 11? Someone B: Objection. Someone C: Objection. Someone D: Objection. Someone A: Ok, sorry [bashfully skulks away] Food for thought. Sellam On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:33 PM Tony Jones via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

So long as we don't talk about what is or isn't allowed, the list traffic is low enough not to need specific rules... Except maybe not talking about what is vintage. :p Warner Ps :p is retro emoji :). On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 9:58 PM Chris via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

I typically change the subject header when I reply to a post that I consider OT with the hopes that the original poster gets my point that way... On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:46 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 04:28:35AM +0000, Chris via cctalk wrote: [...] From my rather limited experience, it grossly depends on cache size vs size of movie frame, at least for some kinds of processing. I can, (well, could) have seen it very well - processing (say, denoising) a 1:1.85 ratio material with 560x304 resolution was going with, say, acceptable speed. Of course I would love it ten times, hundred, thousand times faster, because, why not. But, acceptable. Increase frame size twofold (because experimenting - is it worth to process like this, will results be any better?), still fits in cache, I still can live with it even if it is circa four times slower. Increase fourfold, eightfold, and it seems to choke my 8-10yo cpu. So, yeah, modern formats, 4K and whatnot, they would not fit in cache. On the positive side, even old cpu for which new Windows is "too good to install" can still do a lot of sound processing - which is, again, as far as I understand it, related to cpu cache vs problem size. And why would anybody waste cpu cycles on showing all the Windows menus and stuff :-). Unless you guys talk about video crunching on PDP-8? (runs and ducks) -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com **

I obtained a copy of Image Processing in C recently, with the disk, a book which is nearly vintage in it's own right. Back in the 90s I wanted to digitize my then vast library of books. That book, which I foumd at a library, seemed a good starting point. Truth is though it really didn't seem practical prior to the availability of cheap digital cameras. And transcoding would have a necessary service as the only framegrabber I had at the time was some weird little box for a Mac. And the only mac I had was a IIx. It's surprising what you can accomplish sometimes with very little. But sometimes you need a little more for the job too be even feasible. I abandoned

From the headers of your message (and most likely the one you responded to): To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk.classiccmp.org> Seems like this is the list for on-topic and off-topic discussions? Further, List-Help: <mailto:cctalk-request@classiccmp.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <mailto:cctalk-join@classiccmp.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cctalk-leave@classiccmp.org>

The subject to f that is and what isn’t vintage computing is an argument as ancient as the computer itself. Fact is, it’s a moving target. As every year passes, products you can categorise as “vintage” changes at different rates. For example: IBM PC’s have largely standardised and “stagnated” in the last 10-50 years. A machine from 2010 is largely similar in operation as a machine from 2022. However, an iPhone from 2010 (such as the iPhone 4), is woefully obsolete compared to modern offerings. Certain product lines and categories age worse than others. Another example is the PPC Macintosh line. Radically different, and largely unsuported, this range of computers were only discontinued in 2006, but i’m sure there’s no argument that they’re pretty on-topic. What is defined as on-topic and off-topic is something we can argue until the cows come home, but utimately it’s a matter of opinion. However, i believe that this list, in particular, seems to aim at the weird and wonderful, regardless of decades. There’s people on this list who are experts at the Apollo Guidance Computer, there are people here who understand the BeBox. There’s people here who have experience with Cray supercomputers and Connections Machines supercomputers. There’s places to discusss early 00’s winboxes, 8-bit home computers, or video games consoles. But ultimately, if i’m interested in information on some obscure 70’s-80’s-90’s-00’s box of chips, i bet this list is the place i can get an answer. I think, in general, this list is ultimately aimed at the “weird and wacky”, and not any sort of age. Even if that is pretty frab run-of-the-mill stuff like modern winboxes or 8-bit consoles. Looking to see how to rig an acoustic modem and a 5.25” drives to a Server 2003 machine? Here’s a good place. Looking for ROMs for your C64? Probably not. Cheers, Josh Rice

I agree that we should probably use the intent of a specific era. I believe that the world certainly dropped out of my personal definition of 'Classic' when the 386 came in. I have an interest in things up to and including 80186, and they certainly are not run of the mill. Just my thoughts. Doug Jackson On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 13:13, Mike Loewen via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

Vadem made 186 clones? They made dense glue for V40 based Ampro sbc's. Never knew they made cpus. Not saying they didn't, but if so that's a shocker to me. On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 10:22:18 PM EST, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: Something like the HP LX series or even the portable ZEOS DOS palmtops would probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent of an 80186. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com -- Beware the Lollipop of Mediocrity: lick it once, and you suck forever! -----

I don't think I've ever even heard of Innovasic. I guess given the degree to which it was utilzed, the 80188/80186 and their variants would naturally have many manufacturers. And I say this with all the warmth and cuddliness I can muster, the suggestion that the 80188 is off topic is just plain nuts. Sbc's and particularly 80188/80186 based sbc's are a huge and fascinating topic. I have to conclude there are spies embedded on this list who have been working to take it down, by suggesting early pc's should be considered off topic. On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:02:33 PM EST, Doug Jackson via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: Off topic - but interesting. I had a very frustrating experience with an 80188 made by Innovasic. The SBC188 BIOS would halt if the chip was used because its power on behaviour was different to the Intel 80188. http://www.vk1zdj.net/?p=551 That's *many* hours of my life I won't get back. Kindest regards, Doug Jackson em: doug(a)doughq.com ph: 0414 986878 Check out my awesome clocks at www.dougswordclocks.com Follow my amateur radio adventures at vk1zdj.net On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 14:53, Chris via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

The point is Vadem made cpu's and I was unaware of that. The distinction between the v30/v40/80188/80186 is blurry. Non intel or nec versions perhaps habe additional idiosyncrasies. On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:04:36 PM EST, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: would probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent of an 80186. It has a VG230 in it which apparently is a NEC V30HL variant. My mistake, it's an 8086 clone, not an 80186. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com -- NEWS ITEM: Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery ------------------

Why? Create another list becauae a minority of subscribers consider their opinions paramount? Don't read what isn't of interest to you. Somewhat of a majority of topics don't interest me. Should I complain that some topics are about stuff that is too old and irrelevant (and annoying, in actuality, yes it's so) to some of us? My intent isn't to force my will on anyone. Nor even alter what is appropriate. My post posed a question. Some said go for it. I went for it. And 1 odious objection was raised. Somebody just keep an accurate tally. On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 12:40:29 AM EST, ben via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: On 2022-12-20 4:36 p.m., Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:   I think a sublist , for 8 and 16 bit micros might be a good idea. Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist and Soviet PDP 11  might be on say the rare sublist. Ben.

When I was considerably younger I told my mother that I was going to a Hamfest today. She replied "Oh how nice". Needless to say the woman enjoyed ham. As to the "odious objection", I think it was sent to me directly. Never mind. And Odious Objector LOL LOL a joke, cut me some slack, will ya. On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 01:08:48 AM EST, Tony Jones via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 10:03 PM Chris via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: b/c Old people are a bit like old computers?  Starting to slowly break down? Usually when I see such crankiness there is a ham call sign present :-)

I keep hearing allusions to many forums. I think there are very few. I don't do FB. Incidentally is selling allowed here? I really can't recall. On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 01:19:35 AM EST, Jim Brain via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote: As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.

Ok for cbm and atari yes I'm familiar with most of those. I meant in general. And specifically where would you go for server related discussions for pII through socket 771? Every classic/vintage forum seems to adhere to a classic in it's own right (but perhaps totally valid) definition of obsolete hardware and software. Remember before this stuff was classic it was overwhelmingly considered to be obsolete junk. Win98/2000/XP has been moderately collectible for a while. Don't care what category it falls into. Socket 775 stuff is more or less just obsolete junk. There's a grouping between and contemporary somewhat with those 2 and that's the early-ish server class, which no one may _ever_ care much about, because it's comparitively rare (few can relate) and lacks agp, so less then ideal for gaming. So where do I go for those discussions? As an aside 2000+\- beige boxes have become pretty collectible, and the larger server cases like an Inwin A500 has a chassis that slides out. Real nifty. It'll take a full size ssi-eeb mobo, and standard atx. If someone gets their hands on 1 they'll likely toss the serverboard and replace it with something more appropriate for gaming. On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 01:49:24 AM EST, Jim Brain via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: On 12/21/2022 12:28 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote: There are many web forums. Just for CBM, there's lemon 64, vcforum, atariage (yes, CBM on atariage), denial, Everything 64, and 6502.org handles a few things. If you can grok German, there's forum64.de Mailing lists include cbm-hackers. Apple, TI, Atari all have similar. AtariAge handles all of them nominally. Retro Hackers also handles multiple. Jim

There is also TinkerDifferent- which is growing in size quickly (covers all systems, but is skewed a bit towards apple): https://tinkerdifferent.com/forums/pentium-6x86.185/ <https://tinkerdifferent.com/forums/pentium-6x86.185/>

Old 8-bits are fun. All you need is a television generally and you're ready to go. Power it up, drop into BASIC, and start doing stuff. With a PC you need a keyboard, a monitor, a mouse probably, a desktop, some software, etc. How cumbersome. And uninteresting. And boring. Maybe not the greatest comparison but that's why I don't come to the ClassicCmp maillist expecting PC discussions. Sellam On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 11:22 PM Chris via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

Chris, That was me saying after 1990, within the context that one should start thinking "is this on topic" if the thing is any newer, and I gave some examples of then it would be and not so much be in my opinion. I also mentioned that to high school kids interested in vintage computers, their *start* point is 1990 many of them based on what I have seen at Kennett Classic museum. They're interested in much newer stuff. Also, smartphones and devices, not just computers. But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage computer hobbyist. b On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Chris via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

You see, you see. A lot of people are getting stressed oit! Somebody please give me a pillow. And a candy bar would be nice. A draw the shades LOL On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 02:38:37 PM EST, Alan Perry via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: Is that what is on-topic for this list? To me those were kinda cute toys in the day. But I was using CYBERs and PDPs and VAXen and Burroughs mainframes then. That stuff and JAWS-era workstations and pre-Ultra Sun boxes are what interest me. Am I in the wrong place?

Chris, This list was never declared to be exclusively an 8-bit affair. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. From the get go in 1997 when Bill Whitson founded the list, all computers of a vintage or obsolete nature were game for discussion. It's only after a few years and time marching on with its inevitable technological progress, and companies that were once industry stalwarts started to fall by the wayside, that we began to question what the cut-off is. And as far as the IBM PC, it was definitely vintage by the time the list was launched. The objections back in the day as I remember them were to questions pertaining to modern x86 or Macintosh systems that had plenty of forums elsewhere on the internet to engage in discussions of those (i.e. this is not a tech support forum) (...unless it's vintage tech). These days, however, I think it's fine to discuss 286/386/486 and even Pentium (below the II, at least) systems because they're sufficiently "vintage" now in the sense of the word that I think brings focus to the purpose and nature of this hobby. In the interest of putting this thread to rest, if I were to call the rule, I'd make it simple: don't bring up boring modern topics that have a better home somewhere else. And with that, I hope we can move on, or at least morph this thread into a more interesting topic. Sellam On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:34 AM Chris via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

Anything up to 64-bit has been on topic over the life of this list. Though 64-bit initially was pushing it, less so now, as I’d definitely consider something like a Sun Ultra 2, or DEC Alpha to be very much on topic. I definitely participated in discussions of early Macintosh systems back around ’97. I doubt I participated much (if at all) in discussions of early PC’s. I’ve always viewed discussion of off-topic PC’s to be of more interest, though I am starting to look at vintage PC’s a bit differently (simply due to wanting to still access some vintage software, and needing to move off Parallels Desktop on my Mac). While I probably wouldn’t want to participate in a discussion of them, I’d argue that a “Willamette” Pentium 4 is sufficiently vintage, and something of an odd-ball today. Same with any PPC based Mac. While I have Intel based Mac’s that are 10+ old, I don’t consider them to be classic, especially as one is still in nearly daily use. I like your proposal of, "don't bring up boring modern topics that have a better home somewhere else." Having seen another of your posts, I’m left to wonder how many of us had our eyes opened by this list back in 1997. In my case having worked on some systems decidedly “vintage” systems, prior to joining the list helped spark my interest. That and my love of Operating Systems. I want to say that I found the list after picking up my first couple vintage computers, back when you could find them at Goodwill cheap. Zane

It was thus said that the Great Chris via cctalk once stated: One rule I remember (from the early 2000s) is that anything 10 years or older is on-topic. At that point, it was pretty much stuff up to around 1990 or there abouts. I personally feel that MS-DOS is fine, and even Windows up through 2.x is okay, but Windows 3 or higher is probably not a fit for this list (aka, anything Wintel is not fine). As far as 1990 goes, that is now 30 years ago (nearly 33 in fact). The SGI I used in 1992 is probably on topic (as it was never mainstream, but a cool machine nonetheless), but not a PC from 1992. -spc

100's of replies later... The first rule of Off-Topic Club is that you do not talk about Off-Topic Club.

There were many computers that predate the 8 bit microprocessor based computers. Most of these systems are 12 bits, 16 bits, 18 bits and 36 bits (I excluded 32 bits because I'm not familiar with any 32 bits systems that were not microprocessors) DEC, Data General, CDC, IBM, Honeywell, Amdahl, GE & Cray to name just a few systems that predate 1990 that are not 8 bit microprocessor based systems. All of these would be totally on topic. On 12/21/2022 1:05 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:35 PM Mike Katz via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: What about VLIW? Not that many places to discuss Itanic these days :)

apologies for hijacking the "on topic" thread Steve On 12/21/22 10:55 AM, steve shumaker via cctalk wrote:

No kidding!   It has been a while.  I've pretty much been lurking without much to say here since I lost all my toys in the fires two years ago.   Managed to replace a couple Heathkit units since then but with prices what they are, it'll never be what it was. I did score a PET 2001-8 that seems complete to include the keyboard (with keys missing).  Been watching EBay for parts boxes but even those are usually serious money now. I'll keep watching though! I was hoping someone had already put some effort into 3d printing the keys as a solution - figured someone here would know about if it was done.  Mike Stein pointed me at a complete set of replacement labels for the key tops so that's start. Enjoy!     Happy Holidays! Steve On 12/21/22 11:40 AM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Oops. On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:10 PM steve shumaker via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

No personal experience but maybe this'll help: https://corei64.com/shop/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=285 Sorry for encouraging inappropriate threads ;-) m On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:56 PM steve shumaker via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote:

I've not (yet) read 40+ messages in this thread. I'd borrow a measure from vehicle licensing in what defines a "classic" car. Specifically any care 25 years old or older. It's not a perfect line, but it is a relatively easy line. I find that a quarter of a century to be easier to remember than something else; 20 / 30 years. Of course, this is a guideline and things will fall either side thereof. Just my 2¢ worth. On 12/20/22 4:36 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: -- Grant. . . . unix || die

Yep. It's called dang old Guy. Anything dang-old is like totally appropriate dude. On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 10:23:36 PM EST, Guy N. via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: Perhaps a good but blurry line is "old enough not to be of much practical use anymore for most people, but significant in the history of computing for some reason"? [1] http://www.macos9lives.com, for anyone else playing with such toys.