Personally I work on the basis that 1982 is the cutoff year for
anything interesting Anything newer is only interesting if it isn't
powered by Intel or AMD.
Doug Jackson
Information Technology Security Architect
IBM Australia
8 Brisbane Ave. Barton. ACT 2600
Mo 0414 986 878
Sent from my iPhone
On 24/11/2009, at 11:35 PM, Kirn Gill <segin2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking recently, and I know that the general
threshold for
discussion on this list is ten years, but is that enough?
As it stands, given the rule of a minimum of ten years, most early
Pentium III PeeCees are listworthy for discussion.
I have a Dell OptiPlex GX110 that could be discussed here; the machine
is twelve years old, and if I am not mistaken, twelve is greater than
ten. (For those of you that live in alternate realities in which
twelve
is *not* greater than ten, please disregard this whole email.) I also
have an Apple iMac G3 Rev. B that could be listworthy, as it is eleven
years old.
In just two more years time, the world's most popular computer
operating
system (as of the time of this email's writing) would be perfectly
valid
to discuss, even as "on-topic". 2001 to 2011 is ten years, isn't it?
I know that it's not a strict and absolute rule, being more just a
guideline than anything, but still, is ten years enough?
Personally, I'd give it fifteen, possibly twenty years for some
piece of
computing history to be considered listworthy.