29 Sep
2005
29 Sep
'05
1:57 a.m.
Vintage is very simple: it must be architecturally obsolete. Windows 95
isn't.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Teo Zenios
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:51 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:26 PM
Subject: YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(
Yet Another Ten Year Rule Discussion)
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Scott Stevens wrote:
While Windows 3.1 and 95 might not be "cool" these days, I predict it will
be in 10 or more years to quite a few people. I have machines dedicated to
Windows 3.1 and Win 95 now to run old apps I have (Win 3.11) or to play
retro games (Win 95). Every collector has an era of machines they are
interested in for various reasons, what is cool to you might not be cool to
me. Do people just have issues with mainstream OS's and hardware? If IBM
owned the desktop market today with OS/2 would Win 3.1 and 95 be cool to
talk about?
Step careful, now. By that criterion, it's
time for long technical
threads about getting obscure graphics adapters to work under Windows
3.1.
It's WAY worse than that. Under the simplistic 10 year rule, Windoze 95
is now "ON-TOPIC"!
Under the "coolness" principle, it might NEVER be on-topic.
OB_OT: Yesterday, I saw a Packard Bell running 95. I didn't know that
they would last this long.