29 Sep
2005
29 Sep
'05
4:05 a.m.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:51:16 -0400
"Teo Zenios" <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote:
will
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:26 PM
Subject: YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(
> Yet Another Ten Year Rule Discussion)
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Scott Stevens wrote:
> > Step careful, now. By that criterion, it's time for long
technical
> > threads about getting obscure graphics
adapters to work under
Windows
> > 3.1.
>
> It's WAY worse than that. Under the simplistic 10 year rule,
Windoze 95
> is now "ON-TOPIC"!
>
> Under the "coolness" principle, it might NEVER be on-topic.
>
>
> OB_OT: Yesterday, I saw a Packard Bell running 95. I didn't know
that
they would
last this long.
While Windows 3.1 and 95 might not be "cool" these days, I predict it
be in 10 or more years to quite a few people. I have
machines
dedicated to
Windows 3.1 and Win 95 now to run old apps I have (Win
3.11) or to
play
retro games (Win 95). Every collector has an era of
machines they are
interested in for various reasons, what is cool to you might not be
cool to
me. Do people just have issues with mainstream
OS's and hardware? If
IBM
owned the desktop market today with OS/2 would Win 3.1
and 95 be cool
to
talk about?
Right now I am trawling around the net on a Quadra 650, to see what is
possible and what's not. Some interesting surprises I am finding. The
'Low End Mac' website crashes when you try to go there on a Quadra 650
using Netscape 4. Huh? Internet Explorer 4.01 is still available for
Mac 68k if you trawl around enough looking for it. (don't bother
looking at Microsoft)
Not as interesting as the time I installed Windows NT for PowerPC on an
RS/6000 box and trawled around trying to find anything AT ALL on the net
that it would run. (You're stuck with the Internet Explorer 2.0 that
comes built into NT, which _won't_ _even_ _load_ _www.microsoft.com_
_anymore._