"Help! I've started replying and I can't stop!"
(Last one, I promise!)
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, "Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote:
] > ] I personally feel the 10 year "rule" is useful as a guide, however, I also
] > ] consider that there are several machines that rightly qualify as "Classic
] > ] Computers" that are less than 10 years old. There is a particular "grey"
] > ... snippage ...
]
] > Unless the list-maintainer gets active, "on-topic" is by concensus.
]
] If I may add here - he _is_ active - not acting as teh big boo-boo
] doesn't mean beeing non existent - After all, I guess nobody wants
] a dictatoric on/of topic thing.
And being existant doesn't mean active either. Has he nipped any
single thread, ever? If he never acts to control off-topic messages,
then I feel safe in saying he is not active, at least in defining
"on-topic". I'm not bitching about that, BTW. Just pointing out
that it is up to us as a group to define that.
] > 1. Ten years is just a guideline. If something is only 9 years old,
] > I won't much mind hearing about it. I might even like it. But if
] > it is only two or three years old, there must be a surviving
] > users-group or something. Go find it, or start your own, but please
] > don't clutter up my mailbox with it.
]
] THere are 'surviving' user groups for machines that are
] _way_ older than 9 years - and before getting deeper into,
] this is not a user group !
]
] And for the mailbox thing - what about a filter ? No, serious,
] from my simple point, all this /11/ stuff is useless (help, no,
] no, I didn't mean is - pleeeeease :) and just adds trafic. But
] I also read them, or at least open them and have a look, since
] sometimes, beside stupid facts, how to configure a special card,
] or device, there are beautiful insights and stories - and BTW,
] the 11 is not classic (since still available new, or at least
] have been sold new less than 10 years ago) nor there is no other
] support - there are _plenty_ of specialised lists, user groups
] and news areas. I even learned to love this PERQ thing (now I
] just need to get one :).
Yup, someday I'll have to figure out mail filters. As of now I'm
still using plain old Unix (UCB) mail (a classic!). And while
there is plenty of on-topic stuff that I skim over (like you, I
don't own a PDP-11), there is also plenty of stuff that really
doesn't belong here. It is easy enough to skim over. But it
would be easier and better to just post messages on the right
lists.
] > 2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's
] > just an indisputable fact. :-)
]
] Boooo - shuld I throw my Apple II PC into the garbage ?
Um, I meant PC as in "IBM PC". You know, the same way everybody
else has meant it for the past fifteen years or so. :-)
Besides, even if it were not a classic computer (which I won't
dispute), you could still treasure it.
... snippage ...
] > 3. Guns, cars, schools, Star Trek, and politics are not classic computers.
] > (This is not to disparage people interested in those things, just to
] > point out that those discussions belong on other mailing lists.)
]
] Guns ? Depending.
Okay, I'll bite. Give me an example of a gun that is a classic
computer. And I don't want to hear about computers controlling
guns, or computers designing guns, or computers owned by gun
companies, or computers used in anti-gun legislation. In those
cases it is the computer, and not the gun, that could be relevant
here.
] Cars ? At least related somewhat.
Okay, by that measure, everything on Earth (and almost everything
not on Earth) is related somewhat. Shall we make this into the
"everything" mailing list? Absolutely everything is on-topic,
because we can always stretch far enough to find _some_ relation?
<sarcasm>
Heck, we are *people* talking about those things, and *people* made
those classic computers, therefore everything anyone says is related.
Cancel all the other mailing lists! Route all their traffic here!
It is all on-topic now!
</sarcasm>
] Schools ? Hey, this discusion was _very_ on topic at all !
] Thats where our next collectors generation is growing, and
] it's part of our mission to take our idea of old technik
] use and preseravion to them. Themes like that is waht this
] list makes so different - it's not just 'put this IC into
] that socket' type of mails, it's about real people doing the
] real thing in the real world, with all interactions. Not just
] technik dummys.
Nope, MOST of this was way off-topic. How bad teachers are,
how great Uncle Roger's girlfriend is as a teacher, how the
schools are underfunded, how funding isn't the problem, blah,
blah, blah... Maybe your filter saved you from it?
] And for the Star Trek part - Of course, ST had no infuence
] to the idea of computers et all - you're right (BTW1: when
] was the last occurance of ST in this list ? BTW2: OT: I'm
] still searching on data for the Star Wars premiere)
*Everything* has influence on everything else. It is not all
on-topic.
] > 4. Simply having origins in something that is classic does not make a
] > thing classic. Otherwise *everything* would be classic.
]
] But looking at the origins visible in a new product is still
] a _very_ on topic thing - otherwise we would just ignore the
] world of the last 10 years. And it's one of the most interesting
] things about this hoby, to see how the things have evolved,
] how small and insignificant (at this time possibly good) decisions
] have breed new monsters (see A20 gate :). The advantage of an
] historian is not only to review a specifig period, but also
] trace the ways leading there, AND leading from there to 'now'.
Yes, it is very interesting. There are thousands of other mailing
lists full of interesting stuff too. But they are not classic
computers. I suspect you'd like comp.arch more than this list.
Which is not a bad thing, as long as you don't confuse the two.
If I wanted to read comp.arch (as I sometimes do), I would just
subscribe to it (as I also sometimes do). But despite some overlap,
there is a clear difference between the two.
] > 5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off
] > in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is
] > not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use,
] > there will be other places to discuss it.)
]
] If we go for an 'exact' date, I think the mfg date of the
] specific unit is the only possible anchor - just think of
] machines like the A2 - acording to your definition it wont
] qualify. I would even go one step further and use the date
] of first production as base for the rule (as often done
] within the list - best practice rule). Just remember that
] new machines always have been escorted by a increased
] attention and speculation (no, not today :). This event
] itself is classic and part of the history, and the acording
So the release of any new machine is automatically a classic
event? I hope I'm misunderstanding you here.
] machine. No mater if the Mac is still in production or not,
] the small guy, saying "I'm glad to be out of this bag"
] _is_ classic, without any doubt.
Er... huh?
] > 6. Do I really need to add "IMHO" here? :-)
]
] No, as always, we interprete anything we want into your
] words :)
Very convenient. It will save me a lot of typing. :-)
] To get to an end: I still think the 10 year thing is a
] thump rule, not a law - and as rule we don't need _exact_
] fixings, since this would just force the development of
] pseudo exact exemptions (Do I have to mention all these
] laws, where our beloved politicians want to do is best,
] and most exact as possible, and then spend the next 10
] years to add sub laws without even touching the problem ?).
I wasn't suggesting an extreme policy. Going a little off
topic is fine. Going way off topic is okay once in a while.
But we should at least be aware when we've done that, so
we can exert a little self-control, and not go way off-topic
all the time.
] And, to say it once more, I don't think this list
] 'unmaintained' - our 'boss' is just _not_ one of
] the I-know-it-all-and-I-will-rule-them guys.
That's what I meant by "not active". He is not ruling with an
iron fist (or with any sort of fist at all) so we define what we
want to talk about, by consensus. I didn't mean to disparage
him. After all, he pulled our collective niblets out of the fire,
n'est ce pas?
] Gruss
] H.
]
] --
] Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
] HRK
And
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, "Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote:
] > As for the rule itself, I agree that ten years after last manufacture
] > implies classic status - that is, the item is an antique. However,
] > that requirement of time is not necessarily the most prudent for some
] > items. In some cases, classic status might be applied to an item
] > available only two or three years ago. Such cases might be
] > rare but, justified by the circumstances.
]
] To look at similar things, what about cars: wasn't the
] VW Käfer already a classic, _years_ befor the production
] in Germany ended (and in fact, he is still in production
] in Mexico!).
]
] So, when is a classic car classic ? Basicly there is a
] 20 year rule (at least over here), that applies on the
] date of first usage of this particular unit.
Yes, let's look at cars.
A 1979 Pinto is classic, but a 1980 Pinto won't be until next year.
(Pardon my ignorance here; I have almost no idea when Pintos were
actually made.)
By that logic, your Apple 2 may or may not be classic, based on
its exact date of manufacture. Is this the position you want to
take?
Okay, I'm falling asleep at the wheel here. I'd better go nap.
... lots of snippage ...
Good night all,
Bill.
] Gruss
] H.
]
] --
] Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
] HRK
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
Subject: Re: Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.
] > <1. Ten years is just a guideline. If something is only 9 years old,
] > < I won't much mind hearing about it. I might even like it. But if
] >
] > I happen to like that.
]
] So do I. 10 years should be taken as a guideline. If you happen to have
] just rescued some unbelievably cool machine - say a supercomputer - that
] happens to be only 8 years old, I don't think anyone will flame you for
] mentioning here.
Of course, nobody gets flamed for being only slightly off-topic.
But we should at least be clear about what "off-topic" means, so
we can recognize how far off we've gone.
] There are better places IMHO for mainstream stuff like PCs, Macs,
] Windows, Linux, etc. Not to say that there aren't some real experts on
] all of those here, but you'll get better answers elsewhere.
And even if you could get better answers here, I submit that it is
rude. I am here because of an interest in older computers. The
whole point of having distinct mailing lists for distinct topics is
to get information to the people who want it, and not add to the
collective information overload. *Please* go to the right list
with each question.
] > <2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's
] > < just an indisputable fact. :-)
] >
] > I draw a line based on two things early 386 or older and uniqueness. There
] > are many clones but a few were very unique and interesting of themselves.
] > An example is the Leading Edge Model D I have or the Kaypro ProPC both Xt
] > class and a bit different.
]
] As I've said before, I have great difficulty in calling a no-name
] PC-clone a 'classic'. Especially when what you actually find in the case
] depends on the week that it was made. Even if it's 10 years old.
]
] Some clones will be 'classic'. The first Compaq probably is. Things like
] the Torch Graduate (A PC-compatible add-on for the BBC micro) is.
]
] And the non-clones (80x86 boxen that run MS-DOS, but which are not PC
] compatible) can be classics IMHO. Things like the Sirius, Apricot, HP150,
] Sanyo, etc...
Okay, I'll agree that you think they are classic. :-)
] > <5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off
] > < in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is
] > < not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use,
] > < there will be other places to discuss it.)
] >
] > Humm. This one is tough. We talk about VAXen and the MicroVAX is only
] > about 14-15 years old and some models do persist but they are uniquly
]
] Rememeber that DEC sold PDP11s until a couple of years ago, and that ISA
] cards with CPUs that execute the PDP11 instruction set are (IIRC) still
] in production.
Yup, PDP11's are classic. The ISA cards emulating them are not.
] However, a lot of us think of the PDP11 as being a very classic machine.
] It also happens to still be in serious commerical use in a lot of places.
] There are probably more PDP8's out there in control systems than a lot of
] us realise.
PDP11's are still in serious use. But is it not well past its prime?
How many had Dec manufactured in the last year? Ten years? When you
want to buy a computer from Dec, do they offer you a choice between a
PDP8 or an Alpha?
] > The keys are OLDness, UNIQUEness and desireability. I'm sure there are
]
] Of course what's desirable to one person may not be desirable to another.
] I can't see why I'd want an Altair, but I'd go quite a way to get a Xerox
] D-machine. I suspect that for others on this list that would be reversed.
]
] -tony
A lot of people want the latest PC, too. And prices on PC's are
generally higher; doesn't that indicate greater desirability?
Even to people on this list, how many can honestly say that the
most expensive computer that they own, as measured in the price
that they actually paid, was not a PC or Mac? (I can, but I
strongly suspect I'm an exception.)
Desirability does not make a computer a classic. Age does.
Rarity doesn't make a classic, but excessive commonality could
preclude it. (Which I think is the source of my bias against
PC's and Macs).
Bill.
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Roger Merchberger <zmerch(a)30below.com> wrote:
Subject: CoCo3's & Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.
] >On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Bill Yakowenko wrote:
] >> 2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's
] >> just an indisputable fact. :-)
]
] But what about a "Mac Classic???" ;-) Methinks they're over 10 years old,
] and they have *classic* right in the name!!! ;-)
Oh boy, they guys at http://www.classic-computers.com/index.html must
be thrilled to suddenly be "on-topic"! :-)
] >> 5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off
] >> in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is
] >> not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use,
] >> there will be other places to discuss it.)
]
] Erm, sorry... I (and I think most others would agree with me here) don't
] believe that would work correctly, either. My beloved CoCo3 is more than
] easily considered a classic here, as they *started* production in 1986 (and
] mine was the first one in over a 50 mile radius of my area), but they were
] still in production at least into 1990, and I know they were still in-stock
] items in Radio Shacks & RSCC's in 1990, maybe 1991.
I'm sorry to say this, being a bit of a CoCo nut myself, but if they
peaked within the past ten years, they are not yet classic. Of course,
they are right on the edge here, so you'd get no flames from me for
posting about them. I mean, they couldn't have peaked in popularity
after they were no longer being sold, right? So that puts them at
eight or nine years; almost ripe. But again, slightly off-topic !=
on-topic.
I'm guessing there will be a bell curve of opinion for any machine.
Maybe I'm in one of the tails. Does everybody else think that this
should be an "everything but this-year's x86" list?
] Due to active production and showroom floor presentation, I submit they
] were in common use less than 10 years ago... yet considered a classic by
] most everyone (and me) here.
I just had a little revelation. To me, classic means something more
than being old. And being terribly common, like being in every house,
negates that. When I think of classic computers, I think of machines
that had some personality, like a unique creation from an old sci-fi
movie. Electronic brains. Blinky lights. Arcane OS's. High voltage.
Made you feel like a mad scientist just to be able to dork around with
one.
CoCo's, as much as I like them, can't be that. Those and Atari's and
Commie's and, yes, even Apple-2's are just too darn ordinary to be
classic in that way. PDP's are classic because nobody (well, almost
nobody) has them at home.
I guess I'm unique in that. So I'll stop the tirade now. You've
still got to count my vote though. :-)
Cheers,
Bill.
] BTW, my CoCo3's serial # is 102404... anyone know if there are different
] serial number series for US-sold versus Canadian-sold CoCo3's? I purchased
] mine in Canada; much cheaper!
] =====
] Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- zmerch(a)30below.com
] SysAdmin - Iceberg Computers
] ===== Merch's Wild Wisdom of the Moment: =====
] for (1..15) { print "Merry Christmas\n"; }
] (from perl.1 man page, version 4.)
Perverse. I like perverse. :-)
I have plans one day to write a PL/M++, an object-oriented PL/M that has
classes... declared using based pointers.
- Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: John Lawson <jpl15(a)netcom.com>
>evening.. in the damn box with the rack slides for the drive) then I
>think I'll be completely perverse and write a VIC-20 emulator for
>it.
When the Prime 2550-II I rescued is finally up and running (I just
discovered the rare and missing Kennedy 9100 I/O cables this
evening.. in the damn box with the rack slides for the drive) then I
think I'll be completely perverse and write a VIC-20 emulator for
it.
Anybody who wants... you send me a reel o' tape and I'll return
it with the code. Stay tuned for Progess Reports.
I think it'll be in PL/1G.
Okay. 0630Z; time for beddie-bye.
Cheerz
John
ps: yawwwnnn....
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, allisonp(a)world.std.com (Allison J Parent) wrote:
] <5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off
] < in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is
] < not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use,
] < there will be other places to discuss it.)
]
] Humm. This one is tough. We talk about VAXen and the MicroVAX is only
] about 14-15 years old and some models do persist but they are uniquly
] new compared to others. Example, we wouldn't be talking about 6xxx series
] as the oldest ones are early 90s. However BA123 based Microvaxen
] introduced in the 80s were still made in the early 90s and are able to
] run current version of the OS. They are old enough to be of interest.
First, are you telling me that Vaxen haven't dropped off in popularity
yet? Sure, some are still in use. But then, so are some valve-radios
(by collectors). Being in use isn't a problem; being in *common* use,
still being at the peak of popularity; *that* is what I would like to
avoid on this list. This list is (for me) a refuge from the marketing
crap that I get every day about current products.
So, I agree that Vaxen are classic, because they are well past their
prime. If some model of that peaked within the last ten years though,
it isn't classic yet. (Not that I'd mind so much, either. I'm just
arguing that it would be mildly off topic.)
] Another example is the DECMATE-III sold up to the early 90s but they are
] related too. Why, they run OS/278 and WPS both legacy software.
Yeah, and my Pentium runs CoCo software (via an emulator). And Pentia
are related to the 8080, so they have exactly the same two claims to
classichood. So lets talk about Pentia!
Not.
If they peaked in the early 90's, they are not yet classic. We can
argue about how far off-topic they are, but it is more than zero.
(x86 lose big here because they have not yet passed their peak.)
] The keys are OLDness, UNIQUEness and desireability. I'm sure there are
] technical aspects that would qualify like machines with unusual word
] length or the like but, they should be 80s or earlier in introduction
] or common use.
]
] So long as it's related to the collecting, preserving and discussion
] centered around older machines there is little conflict.
Agreed. Little off-topic == little conflict.
] Just my small cash investment in opinion.
Thanks for voting. "Vote early, vote often."
Cheers,
Bill.
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Max Eskin wrote:
] On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Bill Yakowenko wrote:
] > 2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's
] > just an indisputable fact. :-)
]
] How about a VAX emulating a PC?
The Vax is classic. When was the emulator written? :-)
] > 5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off
] > in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is
] > not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use,
] > there will be other places to discuss it.)
]
] How do you define 'common'? What percent of the population must use it?
] What if it's uncommon in my city and common in yours?
I intentionally left that undefined. If we disagree about when
something passed its prime, then we may also disagree about it
being classic.
Do you think there are any great geographic differences in computer
usage? It may not be a practical issue, but it is an interesting
question anyway.
I suppose these things should also be settled by concensus. If
enough vocal subscribers are from Outer Sluterpia, where Univacs
still rule, and the Outer Sluterpian branch of Univac is still in
business, then we might have to stop calling Univacs classic (and
visit there with big U-haul trucks!) (But don't announce it on this
list, or Doug will be upset! :-P ).
In practice, I think this is a non-issue. There really is not
that much geographic difference in computer use in the areas that
our subscribers reside, and I think we can mostly agree on which
systems are still selling like hot-cakes and which are long past
that point.
Bill.
I received the email message below from one Andrew
Davie who resides in Australia. Thought there might
be subscribers to this list who could offer him some
aid.
Bob Wood
_____________________________________________________
> From: Andrew Davie <adavie(a)mad.scientist.com>
Bob,
I'm a computer collector based in Australia. Recently I posted a
queston on the 'net about moving computers and equipment
>from Russia. In reply, I was given your name as somebody who may have
some experience in the field. As you can see from
my sig at the bottom, I run a site devoted to Soviet Calculators.
Recently I've started branching into Soviet Computers, too -
but have yet to find a way to get bulky items reliably out of Russia.
I'm writing to see if you might offer me any advice / assistance ?
Cheers
A
--
adavie(a)mad.scientist.com
visit the Museum of Soviet Calculators at
http://www.comcen.com.au/~adavie/slide/calculator/soviet.html
a Yahoo!, Netscape, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and New Scientist Cool
Site!
Andrew,
Wish I could help but have had no experience with Russia.
I have shipped computers from the US to Europe
but that is about the extent of it. Someone has given me
more credit than I deserve.
I will post your message on the classic computing listserve
and see if the worldwide participants to that message board
can provide you with some advice. I will forward any replies
I receive to you.
Good luck
Bob Wood
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Marvin,
Just to let you know... I had already put a bid on at least one of the items
you posted about, and I was planning to snipe another one. I'm not going to
tell you not to post your lists, but I'd be happier if you didn't.
- Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug <doug(a)blinkenlights.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Ebay: Stuff & Help needed with Osborne 1
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Marvin wrote:
>
>> I really thought and hoped this topic had died a well deserved death.
>
>Me too, but you couldn't resist. Might I suggest a compromise? I will
>host a special "Marvin's Ebay Advertising" list. Anybody can subscribe,
>and you can make as much noise and as many bidders miserable as you like,
>OK?
>
>-- Doug
>
>
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Andrew Davie wrote:
> An interesting quote from my ALTAIR BASIC manual...
> "The Software Department is at Ext. 3; and the joint authors of the ALTAIR
> BASIC Interpreter, Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Monte Davidoff, will be glad
> to assist you."
> So, where is Monte these days? I haven't heard of him before.
> A
I don't know the answer, but I have a similar question. In Time magazine
(IIRC), they had a big article on Billy G. and said that one of his
business partners died/was injured in a car crash. Who was this?
