Good point. I usually say that to be vintage, it has to be obsolete and
"unique when it was new" -- but then we'd be excluding a lot of the
follow-ups / clones of vintage stuff. But it we allow that technicality,
the two-part definition pretty much works.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at
classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at
classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Zane H. Healy
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:03 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(
Well Windows 3.1 IS obsolete on many levels, yet still
not "vintage" to
people here.
More importantly, it's not very interesting, but then it never was!
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at
aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
|
http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |