1 Sep
2006
1 Sep
'06
11:11 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Cameron Kaiser once stated:
I waivered a bit about adding a year-based clause to the commercial
support ("... nor is there any commercial support to be had for it, or it's
older than 10-15 years old") but thought simpler would be better. But on
the other hand, do the tech notes and software cost anything to download?
> > So how about, "If it's a computing
device of some sort that isn't made
> > anymore, nor is there any commercial support to be had for it. Oh, and if
> > the computing device is capable of running Windows 95 or better, it's
still
> > off topic."
>
> That would still exclude many 386s, for one. Even 2K could theoretically run
> on a P133, although that would be clinical evidence of masochism, I think.
I said "capable," not "theoretically possible." 8-P
XP wants a
233MHz Pentium-type CPU minimum. I think that would be a more
reasonable cutoff, if we want a particular Windows version to be the cutoff.
Hit send too fast, there was one other thing I wanted to add: commercial
support is a pretty wide term. Even a IIgs is still "supported" by Apple
insofar as there are tech notes and downloadable software still up on the
website for it, despite the fact that their service department would get a
good chuckle if you ever dropped by asking for a new motherboard. And there
are still companies making hardware for the Commodore 64 in small quantities,
which is still "commercial support" of a sort. I think using a Windows-based boundary will be firmer
and less ambiguous.
I agree, and that seems to be the most contentious part of this whole
definition of a "classic computer."
-spc