18 Nov
1997
18 Nov
'97
10:50 a.m.
How about making the rule something to the effect of "Systems older
than 20 years, or which were actively produced for less than _x_ (2?)
years running" ? Too complicated? At least it would cover almost all
of the "unique" machines. If they were made for more than 2 years,
they probably didn't end up being all that unique, because there would
be lots of them, and probably clones to boot, if they were that
successful. I agree with Jeff in that the thing that makes most of
the systems "special" to me is the fact that not everybody could just
go down to the local Best Buy/Circuit City/Sears store, buy one, plug
it in, and use it. It took some determination, some ingenuity, and a
real love of the whole concept of computers and computing.
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:20:03 -0600, "Jeff Kaneko"
<Jeff.Kaneko(a)ifrsys.com> wrote:
Now while I agree with other comments made about
keeping contemporary
computing discussions out of this mailing list, I have to say that
there will always relatively "modern" systems that will be worthy of
discussion.
The thing about the PC business is its sameness: Innovations and
uniqueness (once hallmarks of the computer industry) are heresy -- to
be different is certain death (hence the BE Box, RIP).
The aim of this group, I think, should be a celebration of the things
that made our _favorite_ computing machines unique-- whether it's
Babbages difference engine, an S-100 box, an ageing PDP, or a
casualty as recent as a Be Box.
<snip>
-Bill Richman
bill_r(a)inetnebr.com
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bill_r
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it."
-www.paranoia.com