17 Nov
1997
17 Nov
'97
7:41 a.m.
At 01:39 PM 11/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
OK, I am probably going to get yelled at...
I agree. I even think that there are better sources of info on the
day-to-day operation of things like an Atari ST or Falcon (which I have)
than here. If you want to know how to copy disks under CP/M, you'll be
better off in comp.os.cpm. Which is not to say that such a question would
necessarily be unwelcome, just not as well answered. Better might be
"Where/who should I ask about formatting CP/M disks?"
Mind you, I've answered PC questions posed to a Land Rover list (and
suffered through discussions of florists in Oregon and which guitars are the
best (I like Fenders, if I could afford one) on the same list.)
Okay.... recently, there's been lots of
"off-topic" stuff going on here
about computers... but I think that it's not "off-topic."
In my opinion it is. There are lots of good, smart people on this list
that can help everyone with modern(ish) equipment, but there are also lots
of them on other lists and USENET. > if you remember, in the "welcome"
message, it
> said that it was hard to state the definiton of a classic... but 10
> years or older would do.
Well, 10 years is kinda arbitrary (and probably rather recent at this
point.) Still, gotta do it somehow. My personal guideline is
non-mainstream stuff (non-pc and non-mac) unless it's something really weird
(like the Outbound laptop or the IBM PC Radio.) Still, that keeps it to
10yrs for almost everything except the occasional
oddity.
I wouldn't, fer instance, bother mentioning the Sharp PC-7100's or Compaq
lunchbox here, even though they're probably 10yrs+ (Sharps for sure.)
(Except, of course, as part of a larger discussion on the history of
portable computers.)
In any case, as with any such list, the decision and definition really
belongs only to the list owner (Bill Whitson in this case) no matter how
much he might solicit or be affected by input from list members. (And, of
course, we all have the option of setting up our own DOS-PC-Collectors or
whatever list if we want.)
Personally, I'm not all that into DEC stuff (though a PDP 11/70 was my first
and I thought it was great) so I wouldn't mind seeing less VAXstationery
this or DECwindowshades that messages, but I wouldn't think of suggesting
that others not post them. I just delete them (sometimes even without
reading them -- Sorry!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
sinasohn(a)ricochet.net that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
18 Nov
18 Nov
4:20 a.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definiton REQUIRED
Okay... it seems that after several days of discussion of this topic, we have
the following info: (1) The definition is bendable, as circimsances dicatate,
(2) The definition is pretty much fine as it is, but (3) (The BIG one) Many
computers will NOT be significant classics... origionally, as has been pointed
out, the "10 year" rule was to make sure that IBMs weren't included... first
the
IBM/PC, then the IBM XT, then the AT, and pretty soon, we'll be getting in to a
time where the words "IBM Compatible" are going to get replaced with
"PC." The
fact is, there are just to darn many 386s to contemplate... we have a few
options... (1) Allow only the first/last (IE Deskpro 386 first, I don't know
about last) or there are many others.... but it seems that the correction that I
was trying to push to allow MORE was wrong: It seems that you want LESS... and
when I think about it, it might make sense... for handhelds, the "standard"
won't apply probably (for classics) until around 2010 or so, so they'll remain
in for some time... but anyway, we need to think, or just keep it as it is...
but the "386 problem" is going to be something that we'll have to conquer...
and
the days are a commin...
Tim D. Hotze
12:32 a.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definiton REQUIRED
Snipped
IBM/PC, then the IBM XT, then the AT, and pretty soon,
we'll be getting in to a
time where the words "IBM Compatible" are going to get replaced with
"PC." The
fact is, there are just to darn many 386s to contemplate... we have a few
options... (1) Allow only the first/last (IE Deskpro 386 first, I don't know
about last) or there are many others.... but it seems that the correction that I
Snipped
won't apply probably (for classics) until around
2010 or so, so they'll remain
in for some time... but anyway, we need to think, or just keep it as it is...
but the "386 problem" is going to be something that we'll have to
conquer... and
the days are a commin...
Tim D. Hotze
Truth. Problem is you have to see that IBM did not get there first
on that 386 because in past, especially 8088 and 8086 when IBM
developed either PC or XT the lead time was about 2 or 3 years apart
between first introduced chips and the actual IBM machines, same
thing with AT machine until Compaq started off with under 1 year lead
time after Intel started cranking out those '386. Since then,
introduced chips and actual computers have shortened to nothing.
Therefore we give the award of having old computer status to that
compaq Deskpro 386?
Troll
1:27 a.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definiton REQUIRED
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, HOTZE wrote:
(2) The definition is pretty much fine as it is, but
(3) (The BIG one) Many
computers will NOT be significant classics... origionally, as has been pointed
out, the "10 year" rule was to make sure that IBMs weren't included...
first the
IBM/PC, then the IBM XT, then the AT, and pretty soon, we'll be getting in to a
time where the words "IBM Compatible" are going to get replaced with
"PC." The
The rule was not meant to exclude the IBM PC or its descendants. It was
meant to discourage discussion of contemporary computing as there are
hundreds of news and discussion groups already existing to cover those
issues. If you read the FAQ, Bill clearly explains the purpose of the
"ten year rule" in this light (at least I think he does).
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
Coming Soon...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
2:20 a.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definiton REQUIRED
Tim Hotze Wrote:
Okay... it seems that after several days of discussion
of this topic, we have
the following info: (1) The definition is bendable, as circimsances dicatate,
(2) The definition is pretty much fine as it is, but (3) (The BIG one) Many
computers will NOT be significant classics... origionally, as has been pointed
out, the "10 year" rule was to make sure that IBMs weren't included...
first the
IBM/PC, then the IBM XT, then the AT, and pretty soon, we'll be getting in to a
time where the words "IBM Compatible" are going to get replaced with
"PC." The
fact is, there are just to darn many 386s to contemplate... we have a few
options... (1) Allow only the first/last (IE Deskpro 386 first, I don't know
about last) or there are many others.... but it seems that the correction that I
was trying to push to allow MORE was wrong: It seems that you want LESS... and
when I think about it, it might make sense... for handhelds, the "standard"
won't apply probably (for classics) until around 2010 or so, so they'll remain
in for some time... but anyway, we need to think, or just keep it as it is...
but the "386 problem" is going to be something that we'll have to
conquer... and
the days are a commin...
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.
What I'm getting at is that age shouldn't matter. It the heart that
matters. It's hard to become emotionally attached to a PeeCee
because one is just like all the others. The heart is attracted to
what's different. It revels in uniqueness. It is that uniqueness
that has brought us together.
Jeff
10:50 a.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definiton REQUIRED
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
11:39 a.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definition REQUIRED
Due to massive amounts of caffeine & sleep deprivation, Bill Richman said:
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?
Worse than just complicated... I own 15 classic machines, and I seriously
doubt any of them would fall under that rule...
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.
Since when would a CoCo 1/2/3 be a clone??? They're rather unique (uses the
MC6809, had a realtime, multiprocessing, multiprogramming OS available for
it... etc.)
How about the MC-10? Only computer on the market (that I know of) to use
the MC6803 processor, etc.
The Tandy 600 -- first laptop with a built-in floppy...
Atari ST series-- first computer (again, that I know of) that came with
MIDI ports as standard equipment...
Amiga series -- first computer to come with a voice generator as standard
equipment...
What's _your_ definition of unique? Even with all my systems, I would have
to sorrowfully say goodbye to the list... <sniff> :-(
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.
Yea, but 10-15 years ago, anyone could go down to their local Radio Shack
store (and no, we don't have a BB/CC/Sears, but we *had* a RS), buy a CoCo,
plug it in, and use it. Should those of us with CoCo's (which, again, are
unique machines) be excluded from the list just because they were
mass-produced and/or they were the longest-running 8-bit home computer?
I'm in wholehearted agreement that this list shouldn't become a PeeCee
wannabe list... However, if it became a DG-centric list, or a Vax-only
list, or.... well, I'd have to go, and the list would lose a lot of flavor
in my eyes, and I'd move on.
Anyway, there's my opinion of your rule modification...... As far as I'm
concerned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
See ya,
"Merch"
--
Roger Merchberger | Why does Hershey's put nutritional
Programmer, NorthernWay | information on their candy bar wrappers
zmerch(a)northernway.net | when there's no nutritional value within?
4:42 p.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definition REQUIRED
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:39:02 -0500, Roger Merchberger
<zmerch(a)northernway.net> wrote:
Due to massive amounts of caffeine & sleep
deprivation, Bill Richman said:
Did I say they would? I said "If they were made for more than 2
years... there'd be lots of them, and probably clones". How long was
each of those models manufactured? More than 2 years?
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?
Worse than just complicated... I own 15 classic machines, and I seriously
doubt any of them would fall under that rule...
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.
Since when would a CoCo 1/2/3 be a clone??? They're rather unique (uses the
MC6809, had a realtime, multiprocessing, multiprogramming OS available for
it... etc.)
How about the MC-10? Only computer on the market (that I know of) to use
the MC6803 processor, etc.
The Tandy 600 -- first laptop with a built-in floppy...
Atari ST series-- first computer (again, that I know of) that came with
MIDI ports as standard equipment...
Amiga series -- first computer to come with a voice generator as standard
equipment...
What's _your_ definition of unique? Even with all my systems, I would have
to sorrowfully say goodbye to the list... <sniff> :-(
I guess it depends on your point of view. My collection includes:
IMSAI 8080 (which I built when they first came out), NorthStar
Horizon, KIM-1, MC-10, Compaq luggable, H-89s, Timex-Sinclair 1000s,
CoCos, PC-Juniors, C-64s, VIC-20s, Panasonic Pocket Computers, many
varieties of PC and XT, Tandy 1000, TRS-80 Model 1's (with the voice
synthesizer in the silver particle-board box!), some Zenith laptops,
Mac 128, Mac Plus, and a bunch of mechanical and discrete-transistor
calculators from Friden, Victor, HP, TI, etc. I'm not here to argue
over the validity of the technology - just to enjoy the company of
others who love the stuff as much as I do. I suppose now that they're
no longer produced, my Virtual Boy, i-glasses, and Power Glove will be
"classics" someday too. Most of the things in my collection are
"unique" in some way; I thought the discussion was about how to
verbally define what it is we talk about here in 10 words or less.
(By the way - does anyone remember the Tandy Computers 1978 catalog
with the Z-80 chip picture on the front? The one with the Vector 1,
IMSAI, Xitan, Equinox, Poly 88, Sol, SWTPC, Intecolor, and other S-100
goodies in it? I found the one I've been saving for the last 19 years
just the other day - I'd forgotten about it. And does anyone have an
Intecolor in their collection?)
-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
10:36 p.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definition REQUIRED
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Bill Richman wrote:
The CoCo line was produced for over 10 years. Since there were only 3
models, one of them had to have been produced for > 2 years.
Since when
would a CoCo 1/2/3 be a clone??? They're rather unique (uses the
MC6809, had a realtime, multiprocessing, multiprogramming OS available for
it... etc.)
Did I say they would? I said "If they were made for more than 2
years... there'd be lots of them, and probably clones". How long was
each of those models manufactured? More than 2 years? >What's _your_ definition of unique? Even with
all my systems, I would have
>to sorrowfully say goodbye to the list... <sniff> :-(
Problem with the 20years definition is that it excludes a heck of a lot of
machines that most people call 'classics'. Can you honestly say that the
first commercial graphics workstation (the PERQ), which came out in 1979
and was built until 1985 is not a classic. What about all the VAXen
(11/780 was 1978-ish).
Using the new definition (older than 20 years or produced for < 2 years)
would (a) cut out 90% of _my_ collection (about the only thing left would
be minicomputers) and (b) would include a lot of PC-clones (which seem to
change every other month). I mean, how long is the average name-brand
PC-clone sold for before it gets a new spec. A lot less than 2 years, I'd
bet.
I don't think you can justify lumping all PC-clones together under the
common title '486-based PC-clone boxen' or whatever unless you also lump
all (say) S100 boxes together as well. And that would be plain stupid.
-Bill Richman
-tony
4:58 p.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definiton REQUIRED
Yeah, but you've gotta think that if you took the Mac line as one computer, in my
opinion, that would get rid of what I think is about what the industry's about:
Invention. You know, that if Apple had put the cameras in their computers a few
years ago like they were soupossed to, we wouldn't have to be dealing with that
problem now? (It would have gone like this: Apple puts a mouse in.... the computer
industy calls it a "childs toy" type computer... claims to hate it... behind
the
scenes, PC makers start to say "Anyone here have a mouse design?", well, this
would
be "Hey, anyone here know where we can get a good camera?"... they hate it,
then
love it.)
Tim D. Hotze
Bill Richman wrote:
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 
12:50 p.m.
New subject: Wrong Way:New Definiton REQUIRED
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).
Well, yes, the last point there is very true. One should, however, look at
something more that just what is available at CompUSA. The worlds of the
Unix (or whatever) workstation and the PeeCee are really not very far
apart, yet the workstation market thrives on innovation.
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.
Maybe this should be the dead architecture list. That would still block
out the PeeCee and Mac.
I do have one thought about the PeeCee and how collectable it may or may
not be in the future. I am not counting historic significance, as it
probably is one the top of the list. The desktop systems, made by the big
names or the small names, may never be collectable or classic, but I
certainly can see laptops being very collectable. Transistor radios of the
late 1950s and early 1960s, like the PeeCee, are mostly all of the same,
full of crummy engineering and little innovation, yet there is a huge
market for the things. Why? They were small, often kitchy, and "all the
rage", just as laptops are now.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
9856
days inactive
9858
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
ard＠odin.phy.bris.ac.uk -
bill_r＠inetnebr.com -
dastar＠wco.com -
Jeff.Kaneko＠ifrsys.com -
jpero＠cgo.wave.ca -
photze＠batelco.com.bh -
sinasohn＠ricochet.net -
william＠ans.net -
zmerch＠northernway.net