Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

That's _exactly_ my point. Having atbitrary limits may cause problems later on. Ah no, you misnderstood me... Presumanbly there is a database of the artefacts in the museum, indexed by the indentification numbers. That database includes more details about the particular object, things like (I would hope), options, serial number (s), version, etc. All we've been discussing. I see no reason why the date of acquisition (full date, not just the year), source (maybe 'anonymous donor' :-)), and the like should not be stored there as well. It's far better to store too much information than too little. But what I am wondering is why the year of acquisition should be a field in the indentifier. As an aside, maybe in principle, but not always in practice... Suppose I did have an HP9820 (say) that had been used for some famous bit of work. Yes, I could sell it for more than the normal 'going rate' for such a machine. But could I be sure ot be able to buy another one? There's not an infinite supply of old computers, and some people may well not sell _at any price_. You could offer me a million pounds/dollars for a machine in my collection and I would turn you down. And I'll bet there are others like me. Agreed... I feel you should err on the side of recording too much information. It's easy to ignroe it later ;-) Nor would I, and for the record I don't consider DELLs or other PC clones to be the machines I want to collect. That doesn't mean I think that nobody should collect them. Or that the PC clone has not had a very significant impact on computing (not necessarily for the better :-)). -tony