26 Jun
2007
26 Jun
'07
3:15 p.m.
On 26/06/07, Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Depends. A Compaq SystemPro (really early SMP PC) is still a PC, it's
just a PC that could do interesting things running Unix. A Sequent
multi-proc server isn't a PC, 'cos it won't run PC OSs or apps, so
it's marginally more interesting, but it's still relatively mainstream
compared to some of the exotica that people have been suggesting here.
So would a Sun 386i be.
--- Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
It's one. If it runs all the programs from PCs, it's a PC. PCs are a
commonplace, mass-market item and therefore, to the sorts of
collectors who hang out here, for example, not that interesting.
I'm curious as to why you're becoming so exercised over this?
If it runs IBM PC programs of its time period -
whether that's Windows
or Lotus 1-2-3 or whatever - then it's a PC.
Many pseudo-compatibles had to have PC programs
ported to their particular architecture. So the
criteria for uninteresting has become whether or not
it can run a particular program/s? About
the only time a PC
compatible is interesting in architectural or design
terms is if it's
something like a BBC Master 512 - a 2nd processor in
an alien computer
connected over a CPU-to-CPU bus. Thus, there's some
interest in
hardware PC cards for the various Macs, in the
add-in boards for the
Acorn RISC PC (I have one here, if I ever get it
working) and so
forth.
What about dual or triple processor machines that
just happent to have an 80x86? Are they immediately
deemed uninteresting? It seems that some boxes w/an
Intel processor can often be some of the rarest pieces
around. I can give you a list if you like and
challenge you to find 2 or 3 others on this list with
one, sometimes their won't even be another single
person. The problem is when people utter those words
it's
really indicative of a unit with an 80x86.
Not really, no. I've seen lots of non-PC-compatible x86 kit; I even
wrote an article about it for Wikipedia before some little idiot
deleted it, which I'm not happy about.
Linux? We seem to be diving off topic there. And
I'll
grant there are many OS' more interesting then DOS.
But if you're rendering all DOS based machines
uninteresting, you may as well throw CP/M, TRS-DOS and
a number of others in with it. Remember this is a
vintage forum. If you want real *interesting* stuff,
you'd typicall fare better somewhere else, interesting
typically signifying cutting-edge.
Why would you discard pre-PC machines? You're throwing the baby out
with the bathwater. Ancestors of PCs need not be PCs themselves.
Keep in mind there are at least a few Intel based
boxes that won't even run DOS at all.
You're repeating yourself...
--
Liam Proven ? Blog, homepage &c: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508