17 Nov
2004
17 Nov
'04
11:14 a.m.
Bob Shannon wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doc Shipley" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
To: <news(a)computercollector.com>om>; <General(a)mdrconsult.com>om>;
"Discussion(a)mdrconsult.com :On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: 10 year rule
Or, an example that's sitting in front of me right now - an SGI 320
"PC".
It is a PC, and a pretty recent one, in that it runs Windows and is a
dual-PII. As a matter of fact, to my eternal disgust, it will *only*
run Windows in graphics mode.
However, it's a decidedly non-commodity system. SGI used a custom
BIOS that bypasses a lot of the x86 legacy cruft and is optimized to the
NT/Win2k OS family. Very fast RAM, all SCSI, very high-end graphics,
and one of the first Wintel systems to drop PS/2 in favor of USB HIDs.
Plus, they're so ugly they're cute.
Since my spousal equivalent retired her W98 Athlon in favor of an
eMac, the only PCs in the house have been the Linux files/DNS/DHCP/MOPS
/TFTP server and a little Soekris firewall. But when this 320 and its
flat panel came available, I jumped on it without a second thought. I'm
not very sure what I'm gonna do with a Windows box, but I'm sure I'll
think of something.
Now I just wish I could afford the ~$300USD for a DVI multilink
adapter for this 1600SW.
Anyhow, the point is that since it's not 10 years old, and it only
runs Windows, it's not "classic" by the conventions of this group. It
*is* a major departure from commodity PC hardware, though, it is fairly
uncommon, and I wouldn't blush a bit about discussing it on this list.
Computer Collector E-Mail Newsletter wrote:
I think the problem with this discussion is partly that age does not
equal collectability.
Lets not even discuss the concept of 'value' and really muddy the
waters. But in any
type of 'collectable' items, mass-production, commodity products are not
as desirable
as a rare or hand-made version.
Think of nails here, a hand-wrought vintage nail is a lot more
interesting than one you
might find in a modern hardware store. The terms are too similar, people will just get
more confused.
All I intended to do when I started this discussion topic was to
point out the
obsurdity of considering things like the Web and Pentiums as
"vintage" (or any
other synonym). But then others observed back that I was being
short-sighted
-- if you ignore that actual age, "vintage" just means "anything
considered
obsolete by the mainstream," and that's a good enough answer for me.
But I do
think that 15 years, not 10, is a better divider between what's just
"old" and
what's truly vintage.
I think you're all looking at this completely backwards.
The rate of electronic evolution (OK, change) has *accelerated* over
time, meaning that computers are obsoleted much more quickly than
their older counterparts. Therefore the age limit for this list
should be *lowered* to about 8 years now.
Sometime in about 12 years a computer that's two weeks old will
qualify as a classic.
I'll be grabbing my hat....
Doc The 10-year rule, as I understand it, is intended to
prevent the list
from degenerating into
a WinTel support group.
You guys do realize that my 8-year suggestion was a joke, right?
Doc