1 Jul
2016
1 Jul
'16
9:48 a.m.
The original iMac is old enough to vote... And besides, I don't think
drawing a chronological line in the sand is necessarily sensible.
Just don't violate the spirit of classic computing? (A G5 tower that you
run Linux on is not classic computing, for instance)
Likewise there are Packard Bell X86 older than that iMac, that would
qualify by most age limits I'd expect to be imposed, but that I'd cringe at
seeing discussed here.
If you post your Mattel HotWheels PC here, it might be worth getting
irritated. But there is no upgrade path from classic MacOS, and it's not
X86, so I'd say it has far more of a place here than the constant 30+
message modern-OS RANT threads I'm constantly subjected to on here.
- Ian
On Friday, July 1, 2016, Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> wrote:
I don't think anything ever came of this any of the other myriad of times
it was brought up.
But that said, it's a landmark system (I'm typing this on a 1GHz iMac G4,
which is also a design landmark), it runs a now-unusual desktop
architecture,
it uses an obsolete operating system (as well as OS X) and it's long past
being obsoleted by its manufacturer.
--
------------------------------------ personal:
http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
ckaiser at floodgap.com <javascript:;>
-- Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. -L.
Nimoy -
--
Ian Finder
(206) 395-MIPS
ian.finder at gmail.com
>> Some
would say this is not vintage, classic or collectible (and so
>> shouldn't be discussed here). However, these are all subjected terms
which
> can
be (and are!) argued about at length.
Wouldn't have guessed to discuss an iMac
here, but rather than picking & choosing
certain computer models as being
appropriate to discuss here or not,
wouldn't it just be easier (and fairer)
to define a certain number of years past
which it *is* appropriate? Or has
this already been stipulated?