1 Sep
2006
1 Sep
'06
2 p.m.
> > 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."
Speaking of which, that gave me an idea .... How about we in the
anti-10-year camp compromise by adding this clause to the definition of
what's classic: "IF it's post-1981 (when IBM launched the PC), THEN it must
have been unique when it was new." That way you include all the first-of-breed stuff (i.e., the PS/2), you include all
the exceptions to the
mainstream (i.e., the iMac), and you exclude all the same old PC crap.
But what does 'unique' mean? Different CPU? Different case? Different
architecture? And how much difference constitutes 'different'?
I think something like this has the same drawbacks as the 'coolness'
exemption.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- If the dictionary misspells a word, how would you know? -- Steven Wright ---