New Definiton REQUIRED

Okay.... recently, there's been lots of "off-topic" stuff going on here about computers... but I think that it's not "off-topic." In my mind, there is no doubt that the early mass-produced CD-ROM drives (not the origionals of 1984, but the ones that were made to be put into PCs, not servers) are classic componets, even though many are of this decade. In my opinion, the first 486 PCs (not servers) are classics... ones that are still used, but classics... even though most of 'em were made in like 1991-93... arguebly, early Pentiums (60, 66 Mhz) could be classics, as they steped into a new era (superscaler arceticture) for the mass-production market even though the Pentium chips wern't even on the market until mid-1993... if you remember, in the "welcome" message, it said that it was hard to state the definiton of a classic... but 10 years or older would do. I do not wish to offend the owner, but they are one person, and they can make mistakes... and together, as a group, the chances of making an accurate definiton are smaller with us. Possibly (out for MUCH revision...) is the definition "Any computer which has aged sufficently to be considered "outdated" by the computer market and has historic signifiance, OR is 10 years old or older." The one evedeint place that requires revsion is the "historical signifiacne" but I'm not sure how to include that while still aknowladgeing the presence of many of the best machines and componets that did indeed fail in the process... but at least Wang's did eventually fall.... I can't even rememeber all of the problems that they had... Openly, innocently, and waiting for improvement (on my quote, not the other stuff,), Tim D. Hotze