17 Jul
2003
17 Jul
'03
3:34 a.m.
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
computers have been designed with uncollectability, as well as a high
degree of user-annoyance, in mind. Somehow, either some marketing
idiots, or clueless enginers, got the idea to design computer
equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off shape... the iMacs
and some Compaq PeeCees (e.g. Presario 4814) come to mind. Is anyone
going to be seriously interested in collecting computer equipment that
can't be stacked, and does anyone actually find equipment that can't
be stacked, or have anything stacked on top of it (not even a monitor
or books, etc), to be other than an annoyance?
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
17 Jul
17 Jul
4:08 a.m.
Being stackable has nothing to do with being collectible.
The only major problem with collecting newer computers 10+ years from now is
that they are made so crappy that finding one in usable condition will be a
problem. The Imac tends to have power supply and overheating problems. Most
of the newer processors run very hot and will tend to die quicker then older
processors.
Apple found that if they made colorfull rounded computers people would buy
them because they were tired of beige boxes, then the other computer makers
followed. Its just like ford and the rounded taurus.
I like whats under the hood, not what it looks like. If its nice looking and
has interesting hardware thats a plus.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:33 AM
Subject: Future uncollectable computers...
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought
just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
computers have been designed with uncollectability, as well as a high
degree of user-annoyance, in mind. Somehow, either some marketing
idiots, or clueless enginers, got the idea to design computer
equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off shape... the iMacs
and some Compaq PeeCees (e.g. Presario 4814) come to mind. Is anyone
going to be seriously interested in collecting computer equipment that
can't be stacked, and does anyone actually find equipment that can't
be stacked, or have anything stacked on top of it (not even a monitor
or books, etc), to be other than an annoyance?
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other
animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature
&
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures,
using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
4:42 a.m.
I don't see the connection, many 70's computers aren't
stackable, including all the single board "no case"
computers. In addition, you can make any unstackable
computer stackable by putting it in a box. Personally,
none of my computers are stack, so its not a problem
for me, my computers are all on their own shelfs (Home
Depot adjustable shelves, from 5 to 12 shelves from
floor to ceiling to accommodate various sized
computers). Manuals and books are stack in boxes
though.
--- "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org> wrote:
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought
just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to
collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that
many of the newer
computers have been designed with uncollectability,
as well as a high
degree of user-annoyance, in mind. Somehow, either
some marketing
idiots, or clueless enginers, got the idea to design
computer
equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off
shape... the iMacs
and some Compaq PeeCees (e.g. Presario 4814) come to
mind. Is anyone
going to be seriously interested in collecting
computer equipment that
can't be stacked, and does anyone actually find
equipment that can't
be stacked, or have anything stacked on top of it
(not even a monitor
or books, etc), to be other than an annoyance?
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference
between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures,
using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to
justify much human cruelty.
8:04 a.m.
Hello Robert,
due to its rounded-off shape
This design style has come into practice in the design of many products like
portable boom boxes, etc. and even more recently designed automobiles have
more rounded, and less angular or rectangular, designs. Doesn't do much for
me either.
Best Regards
At 11:33 AM 7/17/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought
just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
computers have been designed with uncollectability, as well as a high
degree of user-annoyance, in mind. Somehow, either some marketing
idiots, or clueless enginers, got the idea to design computer
equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off shape... the iMacs
and some Compaq PeeCees (e.g. Presario 4814) come to mind. Is anyone
going to be seriously interested in collecting computer equipment that
can't be stacked, and does anyone actually find equipment that can't
be stacked, or have anything stacked on top of it (not even a monitor
or books, etc), to be other than an annoyance?
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
8:43 a.m.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Mail List wrote:
They don't stack well either.
due to its
rounded-off shape
This design style has come into practice in the design of many
products like
portable boom boxes, etc. and even more recently designed automobiles have
more rounded, and less angular or rectangular, designs. Doesn't do much for
me either. 
8:22 a.m.
Is anyone going to be seriously interested in
collecting
computer equipment that can't be stacked, and does anyone
actually find equipment that can't be stacked, or have
anything stacked on top of it (not even a monitor or books,
etc), to be other than an annoyance?
Well, a lot of the early integrated keyboard designs (my own
favorite, Ohio Scientific, C1, C2 and C4 models), even though
you can put a monitor on them, are still a pain. Fortunately,
the OSI integrated keyboard models have flat sides and will
balance nicely on them, so you can store them on a shelf in
that orientation. The pain is that, in factory configuration,
there are no external connectors on the floppy cables. You
have to disassemble the unit to detach the floppy drives. I
sometimes daydream about some kind of shelving/storage system
that could efficiently accommodate all of the odd sizes and still
provide better access than packed-in-a-box. (I also daydream
about renting/owning a floor of an office building and having
everything set up and running.)
11:37 a.m.
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought
just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
It does worry me that there's not a single microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
computers have been designed with uncollectability, as
well as a high
degree of user-annoyance, in mind. Somehow, either some marketing
idiots, or clueless enginers, got the idea to design computer
equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off shape... the iMacs
This is a problem, albeit a minor one (you can always fit shelves, etc
round the stupidly-shaped machines so as to put other things on top). I
do wonder, actually, if the shape is designed to prevent the user from
stacking stuff on top of the machine and blocking the cooling vents, etc.
More of a problem is that modern machines are plain unrepairable. Spares
are unavailable even now (when the machine is in production -- you try
getting an ASIC for an Imac or similar...), so %deity knows what it'll be
like in 10 years time. Technical manuals don't exist. The chances of
being able to keep these machines running is minimal :-(
-tony
1:14 p.m.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
There is one microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
Peace... Sridhar
Hopefully this
isn't too off-topic, but a thought just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
It does worry me that there's not a single microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
1:43 p.m.
Quothe vance(a)neurotica.com, from writings of Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:10:21PM -0400:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
One of those certainly would be useful for the music and sound
synthesis software that won't run on my fastest, older, Power Mac,
although the machine would be more enjoyable if it resembled a
PDP-11/45, was built mostly from TTL ICs and came with schematics,
firmware sources and OS sources. If I ever acquire one of those Power
Mac G5s, I'll probably apply a hacksaw to the handles on the top of
the case so that it will be a stackable machine upon which other
equipment, books, papers, tools, etc. can be stacked while it's in
use. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
It does worry me that there's not a single
microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
There is one microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
2:04 p.m.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, R. D. Davis wrote:
One of those certainly would be useful for the music and sound synthesis
software that won't run on my fastest, older, Power Mac, although the
machine would be more enjoyable if it resembled a PDP-11/45, was built
mostly from TTL ICs and came with schematics, firmware sources and OS
sources. If I ever acquire one of those Power Mac G5s, I'll probably
apply a hacksaw to the handles on the top of the case so that it will be
a stackable machine upon which other equipment, books, papers, tools,
etc. can be stacked while it's in use. :-)
If it were built from TTL IC's, would it still be a microcomputer?
Peace... Sridhar
It does worry me that there's not a single
microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
There is one microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5. 
17 Jul
17 Jul
2:25 p.m.
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought
just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
It does worry me that there's not a single microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
2:51 p.m.
Quothe Cameron Kaiser, from writings of Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 07:33:42PM -0700:
Just tell us which dumpster you're going to dump it into! To save you
the trouble of dumping it somewhere, surely someone on the list will
make a free pickup. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
There is one
microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
Me too. Need some bucks though, and a good excuse to dump the dual G4
I already own. ;-)
4:09 p.m.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
There is one microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
Me too. Need some bucks though, and a good excuse to dump the dual G4 I
already own. ;-)
As far as I'm concerned, the G5 is enough excuse to sell a G4. 8-) It's
schweeeeet.
Peace... Sridhar
Hopefully this
isn't too off-topic, but a thought just occured to
me about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in
the future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the
newer
It does worry me that there's not a single microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
1:36 a.m.
It will make g4 machines dirt cheap as the herd sells them off to buy the
G5.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: Future uncollectable computers...
There is one
microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
Can you convince the rest of us? Does OS/X render all the earlier
Macs obsolete? Why would somebody need a G5?
John A. 
2:36 a.m.
It will make g4 machines dirt cheap as
** the herd **
sells them off...
Wasn't it Apple themselves that made the "Lemmings"
commercial featuring people marching off a cliff in unison?
Things change... Oh Well.
I like to think that I think for myself and so far nobody
has made (much) of a case for the G5.
John A.
3:09 a.m.
If your a current mac user the g5 WILL be alot faster then what you have, if
your an Intel user I dont see a rush to buy anything made by apple. If your
a unix geek you might want a G5 just to say you own one and make fellow
geeks unworthy of your presence.
The funny thing is mac users who laugh at PC guys upgrading their hardware
every year are now doing the same thing, except its alot more costly for
them buying complete new machines while PC users just chuck the
motherboard/ram/video card in their old rig. This upgrade cycle of hardware
will eventually kill the mac market because only the very rich can keep up.
What percentage of mac owners are using OSX? What percentage will upgrade to
a current OSX running machine anytime soon?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Future uncollectable computers...
It will make
g4 machines dirt cheap as
** the herd **
sells them off...
Wasn't it Apple themselves that made the "Lemmings"
commercial featuring people marching off a cliff in unison?
Things change... Oh Well.
I like to think that I think for myself and so far nobody
has made (much) of a case for the G5.
John A. 
3:53 a.m.
If your a current mac user the g5 WILL be alot faster
then what you
have,
if your an Intel user I dont see a rush to buy anything
made by apple.
If
your a unix geek you might want a G5 just to say you
own one and make
fellow geeks unworthy of your presence.
The funny thing is mac users who laugh at PC guys
upgrading their
hardware
every year are now doing the same thing, except its
alot more costly
for
them buying complete new machines while PC users just
chuck the
motherboard/ram/video card in their old rig. This upgrade cycle of
hardware will eventually kill the mac market because only the very
rich
can keep up. What percentage of mac owners are using
OSX? What
percentage
will upgrade to a current OSX running machine anytime
soon?
There was an article in the San Jose Monkey News yesterday about this
very thing. It seems that all of the Apple commercials featuring people
who have switched (most of whom seem unqualified to monitor their own
shoelaces) have had no impact on their market share. It has stayed
virtually unchanged. The only think keeping the company alive is that
the pool of Apple users spends more per capita then the pool of PC
users.
This is just my opinion, but that's not a sustainable business model. .
.
Erik Klein
www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum
The Vintage Computer Forum
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Future uncollectable computers...
It will make
g4 machines dirt cheap as
** the herd **
sells them off...
Wasn't it Apple themselves that made the "Lemmings"
commercial featuring people marching off a cliff in unison?
Things change... Oh Well.
I like to think that I think for myself and so far nobody
has made (much) of a case for the G5.
John A.
11:57 a.m.
Quothe Erik S. Klein, from writings of Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 08:48:52AM -0700:
who have switched (most of whom seem unqualified to
monitor their own
shoelaces) have had no impact on their market share. It has stayed
virtually unchanged. The only think keeping the company alive is that
the pool of Apple users spends more per capita then the pool of PC
users.
This is just my opinion, but that's not a sustainable business model. .
Why not? Who says that businesses have to expand? All of this
foolishness about an economy based on constant growth (greed) is
ruining this nation, our quality of life, and the world. The problem
is the businesses that can't survive without constant growth, they're
the poorly run ones. More growth needs more people (more
overpopulation), more houses, more highways, more schools, etc., which
all, in turn, require more growing companies and sources or goverment
revenue to keep the lunacy growing. A dangerous cycle. Stable
companies and a stable zero-growth based economy would surely be a
better business model, but one can't expect most monkey-brained
biz'droids, politicians, or most people, whose minds are rotting from
immersion in dogma and propaganda, to understand something so sensible
and simple.
Of course, I'm not saying that Apple isn't making any big mistakes...
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
9:47 p.m.
Zero groath economy means young people would have to wait for an employee to
die or retire to get a job. Wages would be the same (except a slight
increase for inflation) since there is no groath. New industries cant come
up unless and old established one dies.
Maybe what you meant to say was a slow long term groath instead of 100%
increase in sales veery year.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Future uncollectable computers...
animals:
Quothe Erik S. Klein, from writings of Fri, Jul 18,
2003 at
08:48:52AM -0700:
who have
switched (most of whom seem unqualified to monitor their own
shoelaces) have had no impact on their market share. It has stayed
virtually unchanged. The only think keeping the company alive is that
the pool of Apple users spends more per capita then the pool of PC
users.
This is just my opinion, but that's not a sustainable business model. .
Why not? Who says that businesses have to expand? All of this
foolishness about an economy based on constant growth (greed) is
ruining this nation, our quality of life, and the world. The problem
is the businesses that can't survive without constant growth, they're
the poorly run ones. More growth needs more people (more
overpopulation), more houses, more highways, more schools, etc., which
all, in turn, require more growing companies and sources or goverment
revenue to keep the lunacy growing. A dangerous cycle. Stable
companies and a stable zero-growth based economy would surely be a
better business model, but one can't expect most monkey-brained
biz'droids, politicians, or most people, whose minds are rotting from
immersion in dogma and propaganda, to understand something so sensible
and simple.
Of course, I'm not saying that Apple isn't making any big mistakes...
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature
&
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures,
using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
11:17 p.m.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, TeoZ wrote:
Zero groath economy means young people would have to
wait for an
employee to die or retire to get a job. Wages would be the same (except
a slight increase for inflation) since there is no groath. New
industries cant come up unless and old established one dies.
Not necessarily. That only applies if you don't have ZPG, which is a
pretty good condition in and of itself in many cases.
Peace... Sridhar
6:03 a.m.
The funny thing is mac users who laugh at PC guys
upgrading their hardware
every year are now doing the same thing, except its alot more costly for
them buying complete new machines while PC users just chuck the
motherboard/ram/video card in their old rig. This upgrade cycle of hardware
will eventually kill the mac market because only the very rich can keep up.
What percentage of mac owners are using OSX? What percentage will upgrade to
a current OSX running machine anytime soon?
I don't think this is a valid point. The *average* PC user doesn't do incremental
Upgrades, just like the average Mac user doesn't. Granted you can't replace the
Motherboard on your Mac (at least not easily). However you can replace anything else.
Also, how often does the *average* person replace their system? Last I checked it's
every 3+ years. It's the same for the OS.
You have to remember that computer companies make their money from average user, not from
the PC users that build their own systems and are in a constant upgrade cycle.
What is a problem with the current G5 offerings, is that the prices are all whacked out.
Normally the sweet spot is the midrange system. With the G5's the sweet spot is the
high-end. Also, they really need to shave $200-400 off the price of the systems.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
20 Jul
20 Jul
8:34 p.m.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I don't think this is a valid point. The
*average* PC user doesn't do
incremental Upgrades, just like the average Mac user doesn't.
Indeed; they lack
the skills to do so. Which is usually why they call
upon their (more) geeky friends to do that for them.
Also, how often does the *average* person replace
their system? Last
I checked it's every 3+ years. It's the same for the OS.
Down here, I see
people change their hardware at least once every year,
and the really geeky ones even more often. The lost ones are in a
coninuous cycle of upgrade-and-expand, and then, they sell the box
and buy a new one (usually in parts) and start over :)
You have to remember that computer companies make
their money from
average user, not from the PC users that build their own systems and
are in a constant upgrade cycle.
Here, we see four markets:
- business user: complete A-brand systems, no upgrades, replacements every
2 to 4 years.
- home user: complete systems, either brand (A/B class) or clone. They
sometimes build their systems from parts, or just ask a
tech friend to do so for them.
- techie user: get parts, build system. then slowly replace parts to
go with the (speed/features) flow of the market. sell
the box eventually, and start over.
- lost geek: same as above, but much shorter cycle.
And then there's also the 'schools' and 'government' user markets-
the
schools here usually depend on aftermarket sales (new, but older models
of A/B class brand systems) and sometimes clones, and the government
usually does like the business user market, with a 2 or 3 year cycle,
and buy in bulk from mfcts'.
Companies typically live off the business users (where price is less
important than reliability), with the home-user buying systems being
a good second market (if you have good products.)
The parts stuff is mostly a fair stream of income for parts suppliers,
not as much for the manufacturers, given that the profit margin is
set/maintained by the resellers mostly.
I do see a tendency towards quality, though... in the past, the self-
built home boxes were usually made of cheap parts. Now, I see people
buying the more expensive parts (better brands, or "higher" models of
a part) at the expense of having to sit on it for a while longer.
(example: I see VERY few Realtek cards sold here, as opposed to the
better 3Com and intel-based cards)
Cheers,
Fred
21 Jul
21 Jul
3:55 a.m.
Quothe Fred N. van Kempen, from writings of Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:30:07AM +0200:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I don't think this is a valid point. The
*average* PC user doesn't do
incremental Upgrades, just like the average Mac user doesn't.
Indeed; they
lack the skills to do so. Which is usually why they call
upon their (more) geeky friends to do that for them. Down here, I see people change their hardware at least
once every year,
and the really geeky ones even more often. The lost ones are in a
[...]
Something about all of this upgrade mania makes no sense to me.
Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading seems rather pointless. If I
need more disk space, I'll just add another drive, or another file
server. If speed becomes an issue, which it rarely does (I'm talking
about UNIX, not Windoze with all of it's super-duper crash-happy
bloatware), I'll do processing on a faster system on the network, find
a faster system at a hamfest, replace a PC's CPU with a faster CPU,
etc... whatever's cheapest. A 200 MHz CPU on a PC running FreeBSD,
for example, is plenty fast for most things, from compiling large
programs to the kind of processing needed for LaTeX (when writing
manuscripts hundreds of pages long), Csound and Lilypond. Peripherals
such as keyboards, monitors and laser printers go for many, many,
years without being replaced, unless they become unrepairable or
higher-resolution is needed... 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768 displays
have been available for many years. Tape drives - those only get
replaced with higher-capacity drives as storage needs increase.
Network cards... well, those old 10MBit/s cards from a decade or so
ago still work fine.
To get this thread more on topic for the list, I can also think of
many programs that run, with very satisfactory performance, on many
classic systems, from 1MHz Z80 systems, to various PDP-11s, C-64s,
Sun-4/110, and assorted MicroVAXen, etc. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
5:06 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Future uncollectable computers...
Alot of people use their computer as a status symbol just like people who
sell a perfectly good 3 yr old car at a loss to buy the newest model.
There are different hardware requirements for each age of PC's (IBM
compatible). The dos era programs ran fine of xt/at/386 systems, windows 3.x
on 386/486 systems and windows 9x on high end 486 to today. The main reason
people upgrade alot is because of computer gaming, especially the 3d games
of the last 5+ years.
My last job I was using a p200 compaq and it worked fine for the programs
and computations I had to run. A newer computer would have been nicer/faster
but wasnt manditory. The CAD guy made use of a dual p2-300/512mb ram/some
old expensive video card/9gb uwscsi system that is ancient but ran autocad
just fine on windows nt4.
I am building a nice collection of original 68k mac software that is still
fast and usefull even today on upgraded 68k machines (fast scsi hd's and max
memory) even though I have a xp1500 amd 512mb ddr and an ati 9000 video card
on my main game pc. If you have any boxed software for the 68k macs you dont
want let me know.
Quothe Fred N. van Kempen, from writings of Mon, Jul
21, 2003 at
10:30:07AM +0200:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I don't think this is a valid point. The
*average* PC user doesn't do
incremental Upgrades, just like the average Mac user doesn't.
Indeed; they
lack the skills to do so. Which is usually why they call
upon their (more) geeky friends to do that for them. Down here, I see people change their hardware at
least once every year,
and the really geeky ones even more often. The lost ones are in a
[...]
Something about all of this upgrade mania makes no sense to me.
Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading seems rather pointless. If I
need more disk space, I'll just add another drive, or another file
server. If speed becomes an issue, which it rarely does (I'm talking
about UNIX, not Windoze with all of it's super-duper crash-happy
bloatware), I'll do processing on a faster system on the network, find
a faster system at a hamfest, replace a PC's CPU with a faster CPU,
etc... whatever's cheapest. A 200 MHz CPU on a PC running FreeBSD,
for example, is plenty fast for most things, from compiling large
programs to the kind of processing needed for LaTeX (when writing
manuscripts hundreds of pages long), Csound and Lilypond. Peripherals
such as keyboards, monitors and laser printers go for many, many,
years without being replaced, unless they become unrepairable or
higher-resolution is needed... 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768 displays
have been available for many years. Tape drives - those only get
replaced with higher-capacity drives as storage needs increase.
Network cards... well, those old 10MBit/s cards from a decade or so
ago still work fine.
5:21 a.m.
R. D. Davis wrote:
Something about all of this upgrade mania makes no
sense to me.
Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading seems rather pointless. If I
need more disk space, I'll just add another drive, or another file
server. If speed becomes an issue, which it rarely does (I'm talking
about UNIX, not Windoze with all of it's super-duper crash-happy
bloatware), I'll do processing on a faster system on the network, find
a faster system at a hamfest, replace a PC's CPU with a faster CPU,
etc... whatever's cheapest. A 200 MHz CPU on a PC running FreeBSD,
for example, is plenty fast for most things, from compiling large
programs to the kind of processing needed for LaTeX (when writing
manuscripts hundreds of pages long), Csound and Lilypond. Peripherals
such as keyboards, monitors and laser printers go for many, many,
years without being replaced, unless they become unrepairable or
higher-resolution is needed... 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768 displays
have been available for many years. Tape drives - those only get
replaced with higher-capacity drives as storage needs increase.
Network cards... well, those old 10MBit/s cards from a decade or so
ago still work fine.
Congratulations, you just did a good job of showing why it doesn't make any sense to
you, and proved you're not a typical user. Most people (that's most people not on
this list) don't have a network of various speeds of computers, so finding a faster
system on their network isn't an option, just like adding another file server really
doesn't make sense in a home environment. As for a 200Mhz PC running FreeBSD being
plenty fast for most things, it totally depends on what you do with the computer, and how
much time you have to waste waiting on it. I maintain that surfing on a system that slow
is painful, it takes way to long to render the webpages. Also, you can forget gaming,
graphics, and video (well you can run older games and graphics apps, but video is still
out).
Basically my point is it's all in what you're using the computer for, as to if
it's to slow or not. There are other issues to consider as well, by upgrading, do you
get something that is quieter, generates less heat and uses less power?
Oh, and how many typical users have tape drives at home :^)
Still a lot of those upgrades are pointless. Is it really worth upgrading to get a 5-10%
increase in performance? In certain cases, yes, but in most, no.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
8:27 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Fred N. van Kempen wrote:
- business user: complete A-brand systems, no
upgrades, replacements every
2 to 4 years.
- home user: complete systems, either brand (A/B class) or clone. They
sometimes build their systems from parts, or just ask a
tech friend to do so for them.
I think the typical home user is much more like the business user, with a
bit lower system specs and a longer replacement cycle (3-6 years). Fewer
and fewer people have the time, or more importantly the skills, to build
their own systems these days, and unless they really want performance,
there is no longer any cost advantage to building your system from parts
as their was 6-10 years ago.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
6:13 a.m.
As a totally dedicated Intel user my roots were with the Apple ][.
My meager collection includes a Lisa and Next ...
Then I bought a G4 Cube just for the novelty and love it. It's quiet
fan-less design is an engineering masterpiece. It is too bad that Intel
PC's just can't be that elegant (or afford to be)...
George Rachor
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, TeoZ wrote:
If your a current mac user the g5 WILL be alot faster
then what you have, if
your an Intel user I dont see a rush to buy anything made by apple. If your
a unix geek you might want a G5 just to say you own one and make fellow
geeks unworthy of your presence.
8:44 a.m.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, George Leo Rachor Jr. wrote:
Then I bought a G4 Cube just for the novelty and love
it. It's quiet
fan-less design is an engineering masterpiece. It is too bad that Intel
PC's just can't be that elegant (or afford to be)...
It's also too bad that the system tends to overheat and self-destruct
because of fan-less design :(
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
22 Jul
22 Jul
11:35 a.m.
Greetings Sellam,
Our cube has been running for a long time. Are we just lucky or was there
a specific problem that we ought to know about?
George Rachor
=========================================================
George L. Rachor Jr. george(a)rachors.com
Hillsboro, Oregon http://rachors.com
United States of America Amateur Radio : KD7DCX
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, George Leo Rachor Jr. wrote:
Then I bought a G4 Cube just for the novelty and
love it. It's quiet
fan-less design is an engineering masterpiece. It is too bad that Intel
PC's just can't be that elegant (or afford to be)...
It's also too bad that the system tends to overheat and self-destruct
because of fan-less design :(
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
18 Jul
18 Jul
3:15 a.m.
I like to think that I think for myself and so far
nobody
has made (much) of a case for the G5.
John A.
For those of us with the very early G4's and older, a G5 would be an awsome upgrade.
Like I mentioned in a previous post, I have one of the original G4/450's, it's
almost 4 years old, and it's starting to feel a bit slow. I mainly have speed
problems in Adobe Photoshop, Adobe InDesign, and when compiling something. Actually I
wouldn't mind speeding up mailbox operations in Eudora either (the OS X version is a
lot slower than the old classic version I was using).
On the G5, the combination of Hypertransport, faster RAM (PC3200 DDR vs. PC100 SDRAM), AGP
8x vs. AGP 2x, SATA vs. ATA66, USB 2.0 vs. USB 1.1, a 4x DVD-R/W drive, and lastly a
significantly faster processor (or two significantly processors) make for a very good case
for me upgrading. However, I'll be limping along with my G4/450 for probably at least
another year.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
21 Jul
21 Jul
12:44 p.m.
At 10:30 AM 7/18/03 -0400, John Allain wrote:
The catch is that many Apple users actually make money fairly directly
related to the performance of their computers, so they do tend to grab the
latest greatest as soon as they can get one in there hands. I remember
talking to a graphic arts person back when the Apple Cinema display came
out at like $3499, and she expected it to pay for itself within a couple
months.
It will make
g4 machines dirt cheap as
** the herd **
sells them off...
Wasn't it Apple themselves that made the "Lemmings"
commercial featuring people marching off a cliff in unison?
Things change... Oh Well.
18 Jul
18 Jul
10:37 a.m.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, John Allain wrote:
I *do not* use MacOS classic. I find it terribly annoying. I have
earlier Macs, but I run NetBSD on them. They do it rather well. I *like*
OSX, though. Works well. Never had trouble with it. Does everything I
expect of it the way I expect of it, with a couple of minor exceptions
(like case insensitivity -- but that's more of a filesystem issue).
But you could use OSX with a G3 just as easily. With the G5, it's not a
question of *need*. It's a question of *want*.
Peace... Sridhar
There is one
microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
Can you convince the rest of us? Does OS/X render all the earlier Macs
obsolete? Why would somebody need a G5?
20 Jul
20 Jul
6:05 a.m.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 vance(a)neurotica.com wrote:
There is one microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
That and the G4 Cube and the "iLamp".
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought
just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
It does worry me that there's not a single microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
4:45 p.m.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
There is one microcomputer I would love to have. The Power Mac G5.
That and the G4 Cube and the "iLamp".
I wouldn't mind having a G4 cube sometime, but my brother has a G4 iMac
and I'm not impressed by it. I think I'd rather have an AIO G3 with a G4
upgrade.
Peace... Sridhar
Hopefully this
isn't too off-topic, but a thought just occured to
me about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in
the future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the
newer
It does worry me that there's not a single microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own.... 
18 Jul
18 Jul
6:51 a.m.
It does worry me that there's not a single
microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
But that just leaves space for the stuff you *do* want :-)
More of a problem is that modern machines are plain
unrepairable. Spares
are unavailable even now (when the machine is in production
-- you try
getting an ASIC for an Imac or similar...), so %deity knows
what it'll be
This has been true for quite a while now and it's only going to
get worse. 10 years ago DEC used its own fab to churn out
custom chips (but at least docs were available for these).
Now there are plenty of custom fabs that will knock out as
asic cheaply if you need them in large quantities. Everyone
else uses an fpga. I cannot see this trend changing: the
economics will dictate this.
like in 10 years time. Technical manuals don't
exist. The chances of
being able to keep these machines running is minimal :-(
The chances probably would not be much better even with a technical
manual! Reworking those smt devices is a skill I've not yet needed
to acquire (but, hey, how hard can it be!) but a 768 ball(pin?) BGA
is probably something that needs a specialist (i.e. expensive)
workstation (and even then the success rate seems not to be
that high).
But as long as there is plenty of old stuff kicking around, I'm
not too bothered about the modern stuff. I suppose if my Ultra 5
goes belly up, I'll become more bothered!
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini(a)iee.org
10:43 a.m.
It does worry
me that there's not a single microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
But that just leaves space for the stuff you *do* want :-) More of a problem is that modern machines are
plain
unrepairable. Spares
are unavailable even now (when the machine is in production
-- you try
getting an ASIC for an Imac or similar...), so %deity knows
what it'll be
This has been true for quite a while now and it's only going to like in 10
years time. Technical manuals don't exist. The chances of
being able to keep these machines running is minimal :-(
The chances probably would not be much better even with a technical manual! Reworking those smt devices is a skill
I've not yet needed
to acquire (but, hey, how hard can it be!) but a 768 ball(pin?) BGA
is probably something that needs a specialist (i.e. expensive)
workstation (and even then the success rate seems not to be
In 10 years time hackers might be able to do this at home. They certainly
won't be able to do it if the chip (or the specs of said chip) are
unavailable.
-tony
20 Jul
20 Jul
6:02 a.m.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
More of a problem is that modern machines are plain
unrepairable. Spares
are unavailable even now (when the machine is in production -- you try
getting an ASIC for an Imac or similar...), so %deity knows what it'll be
like in 10 years time. Technical manuals don't exist. The chances of
being able to keep these machines running is minimal :-(
And all of the programming will have been sourced out to low-paid
workers in India and other developing nations, adding another element
of the unknown to picture.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
7:20 a.m.
Quothe Vintage Computer Festival, from writings of Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:52:09AM -0700:
And all of the programming will have been sourced out
to low-paid
workers in India and other developing nations, adding another element
of the unknown to picture.
Shucks... that's just one of those important necessities needed for
the U.S. to be on its way to becoming a third-world communist
totalitatian nation... we're getting close... just a few more nitwits
in chief (presidents) away from it, methinks... by that time, what
will anything historical matter?
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
21 Jul
21 Jul
9:32 a.m.
At 12:15 AM 7/18/03 +0100, Tony Duell wrote:
It does worry me that there's not a single
microcomputer system made
today that I actually want to own....
Actually this is sort of an exciting time to be a collector. This is the
last decade that I suspect computers will "look" like computers, as
reductions in size and the push for lower costs force more and more
integration of functions, and the CRT slowly fades away to flat panel
technology. The last of a generation must have a few gems worth preserving.
Three possible items off the top of my head are:
Apple Cube
Tricked out lucite case lan party PC with all the lights and fans and leds.
A Generic tower systen, since that is what will be gone.
20 Jul
20 Jul
5:29 a.m.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, R. D. Davis wrote:
Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought
just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet. It seems that many of the newer
computers have been designed with uncollectability, as well as a high
degree of user-annoyance, in mind. Somehow, either some marketing
idiots, or clueless enginers, got the idea to design computer
equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off shape... the iMacs
and some Compaq PeeCees (e.g. Presario 4814) come to mind. Is anyone
going to be seriously interested in collecting computer equipment that
can't be stacked, and does anyone actually find equipment that can't
be stacked, or have anything stacked on top of it (not even a monitor
or books, etc), to be other than an annoyance?
Let's see:
AT&T Unix PC
Intertec SuperBrain
Commodore PET
PDP-8 (original)
...to name but a few.
All classics. None lend themselves well to stackability. But they are
certainly worth collecting.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
7:13 a.m.
Quothe Vintage Computer Festival, from writings of Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:19:15AM -0700:
AT&T Unix PC
[...]
All classics. None lend themselves well to
stackability. But they are
Not stackable, but the monitor does at least have a flat ridge on
which books, papers, parts, etc. can be placed. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
21 Jul
21 Jul
6:12 a.m.
Does the new Commodore-One count as vintage, or is it considered new? That
is a system that I consider to be collectable already. Also the round little
iMac with the flat screen.
8:44 a.m.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Ernest wrote:
Does the new Commodore-One count as vintage, or is it
considered new? That
is a system that I consider to be collectable already. Also the round little
iMac with the flat screen.
Not vintage, but like the eMate or the iMac or the G4 Cube (as examples)
it is definitely an "instant collectible" :)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
29 Jul
29 Jul
2:41 p.m.
I have one of each in the collection (except for 2 different versions of the
iMac). And they are pretty cool to look at and use.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: Future uncollectable computers...
Festival
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Ernest wrote:
> Does the new Commodore-One count as vintage, or is it considered new?
That
> is a system that I consider to be collectable
already. Also the round
little
iMac with the
flat screen.
Not vintage, but like the eMate or the iMac or the G4 Cube (as examples)
it is definitely an "instant collectible" :)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at
www.VintageTech.com *
7600
days inactive
7612
days old
45 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
allain＠panix.com -
arcarlini＠iee.org -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp＠vintage-computer.com -
ernestls＠comcast.net -
george＠rachors.com -
gkicomputers＠yahoo.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jrkeys＠concentric.net -
mail.list＠analog-and-digital-solutions.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
vance＠neurotica.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
waltje＠pdp11.nl -
wh.sudbrink＠verizon.net