On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:35:20PM -0700, Richard wrote:
In article <01a001c652da$c2f62fe0$6700a8c0 at HPLAPTOP>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
Richard wrote....
You mean we can't talk about Windows 95? Its
vintage, baby.
Nope.
Its 10 years old. I thought that was the requirement for "on topic",
or are we going to get snooty about *which* 10 year old things we can
talk about?
Yes.
10-years is a quasi-guideline. Things must be non-pedestrian --
interesting, you might say. If you want to talk about Windows 95,
there's a lot better places to be discussing it than here.
Why do we have to argue about this over and over? It seems like some
people can't understand the difference between a 'guideline' or 'general
idea' and fixed rule that cannot be broken (assuming there really is
such a thing).
If this decends into a WinTel PC discussion list, any interest I have in
this list will die a quick death.
IBM PCs, PC/XTs, PCjrs, PC/ATs, etc (perhaps PS/2's as well) are
generally excepted as they were at least somewhat novel machines at the
time of their inception. A Packard Bell 486 running Windows 95 (for
example) isn't.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC ---
http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge ---
http://computer-refuge.org