20 Sep
1998
20 Sep
'98
8:20 p.m.
Ward Donald Griffiths III <gram(a)cnct.com> wrote:
You say you don't consider an '86 box that
runs an MS OS to be a
classic -- please give us examples of '86 boxen that _can't_ run an
MS OS.
OK, the HP-94. Also I have an S100 8088 box for which (to the best of my
knowledge) CPM/86 was the only available OS. Not that I consider CPM/86 to
be that much better than 86/DOS, QDOS, or MS-DOS.
And tell us how those are more "classic"
than an XT.
It probably isn't, although it is certainly more obscure. I don't care much
for old x86 machines even if they run non-MS operating systems. The fact
is that the x86 architecture is evil. I have nothing but the highest
regard for the Intel engineers that somehow managed to take the disgusting
8086 and 80286 architecture and make an almost respectable 32 bit
processor out if it (the 386). However, that doesn't make me like the
x86 any more.
My point (for what little it's worth; I've already conceded that the charter
of this list explicitly covers all computers over 10 years old) was that
I don't consider any computer that instead of inspiring interest makes me
want to run away screaming should be considered a classic, notwithstanding
its popularity.
This is obviously only me own personal opinion, and I really didn't intend
to start a religious war. I'm sure there are some demented people out there
that actually *like* the 8086. And I'm sure that there are many people who
are happy to consider even disgusting machines classics; I just happen not
to be one of them.
Cheers,
Eric