24 Nov
2009
24 Nov
'09
3:37 p.m.
Yep... best not touch it. A "classic" computer is really an amorphous
designation, so it would be nigh impossible to completely categorize it. And probably
unnecessarily anal as well.
________________________________
From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 9:20:46 AM
Subject: Re: Ten Year Rule
...which is precisely why this discussion comes up about once a year, and always ends
unresolved.
-Dave
On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:13 AM, geoffrey oltmans wrote:
Hence my inclusion of an age factor as well, but I
think this illustrates the point. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
________________________________
From: Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 9:09:52 AM
Subject: Re: Ten Year Rule
geoffrey oltmans wrote:
--Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I don't know that any further classification
is necessary for whether
an obsolete computer is worthy of discussion. But, if one was
required, my suggestion would be to base it on a expanding scale of
how much system memory the machine is capable of supporting and/or
how old. Most old machines that people would consider "interesting"
on this list I'm sure would use far less than 128MB of system memory
for example.
But, of course I'm sure someone else on the list will disagree, and
therein lies the problem. :)
Indeed, because that criterion tends to discount supercomputers and
mainframes.
Peace... Sridhar