1 Jul
2016
1 Jul
'16
10:49 a.m.
On 7/1/2016 11:48 AM, Ian Finder wrote:
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
Computers don't (yet) have voting
rights. :-)
But you're defining "spirit" and listing
criteria by which a machine is
appropriate or not. A PS/2 with an
80386 running Windows 3.1 is acceptable,
whereas a Packard Bell with an 80386
running Windows 3.1 is not. Yeah, you
and I would cringe at a PB being
discussed, but maybe there's someone out
there who really is fond of their PB.
So as Terry ("Tezza") acknowledges,
terms like "landmark," "classic,"
"collectible" are subjective (but I
don't think "vintage" is subjective --
that term is usually set by age alone).
This is why it's just easier to use a
single criteria -- age -- and leave it
at that. Why is age acceptable
everywhere else in collecting, but not
here? Otherwise, someone (the list
owner?) has to pontificate over a list
of acceptable computers. Good luck with
that.
- J.