26 Oct
2004
26 Oct
'04
10:16 a.m.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:47:08 -0400, Teo Zenios <teoz(a)neo.rr.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk(a)yahoo.co.uk>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: YAAYD (Yet another "Ten (0A) year" discussion) (was: GOPHER
I agree with the help me fix this problem on windows. But some talk of
windows should be allowed if revelent ie. problems with simh,
emulators and serial console problems. I'm sure a lot of people on
this list do use windows wether they like it or not.
I thought the idea of cctalk and cctech was that cctalk allowed OT questions.
Dan
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 14:02 -0700, Fred Cisin
wrote:
You would be better off just making a note that MS Windows 3.0 or above
questions as being OT. Making a cutoff date for the day the IBM XT came out
would kill off allot of cool machines not even related to the PC (Atari ST,
Amiga, C128, bunch of early Apple stuff etc).
What is wrong with talking about esoteric OS and hardware for x86 systems
other then windows like XENIX, other old and forgotten Unix, Desqview/X etc?
Most people just don't want this list to turn into a "help me fix this
common problem in Windows" resource.
YAAYD (Yet another "Ten (0A) year"
discussion)
I thought the same thing :-)
I'm sure people raise the ten year rule more often than used to happen
on this list. I don't know why that is - I first joined 1998 or so and
the ratio of on topic vs. OT was about the same as it is now (i.e.
hardly any OT content) - that's pretty amazing considering the diversity
of list members. Surely the fact there's cctech now makes it even better
for those not wanting the odd OT post?
Personally I don't see the problem at all; things kinda regulate
themselves, and some pretty nice hardware has been made around the 10
year boundary - just not in the PC/Mac world IMHO (but I still wouldn't
get upset at people posting such questions because it's still a fraction
of total list traffic)
Seriously, what's wrong with the way things are? I don't get it...
cheers,
Jules