28 Sep
2005
28 Sep
'05
8:02 p.m.
Well then, it's not obsolete ** enough **. But we can keep trying to make
it so. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Teo Zenios
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:46 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(
Well Windows 3.1 IS obsolete on many levels, yet still not "vintage" to
people here.
----- Original Message -----
From: "'Computer Collector Newsletter'" <news at
computercollector.com>
To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(
Vintage is very simple: it must be architecturally
obsolete. Windows 95
isn't.