24 Jan
1999
24 Jan
'99
12:38 p.m.
How about no IBM PC's above the 5170?
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug <doug(a)blinkenlights.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Bill Yakowenko wrote:
4. Simply having origins in something that is
classic does not make a
thing classic. Otherwise *everything* would be classic.
Here's the dictionary definition of "classic" that I think most of us mean
when we use the word in the context of this list:
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
The problem is that "significance" and "worth" are personal judgement
calls. I really think it's futile to try to define acceptable criteria.
How about defining it this way:
Discussions related to machines no longer supported by their
manufacturers, with the exception of old IBM PCs, Macs, and their
clones.
-- Doug
23 Jan
23 Jan
11:22 p.m.
On 24 Jan 99 at 18:38, Jason Willgruber wrote:
How about no IBM PC's above the 5170?
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
It would seem that everyone wants to define the ten year rule according to
their own personal predjudices. The rule has worked fine up till now, why
would you want to change it ? This thread seems like an attempt to introduce
"nerds" political-correctness into the mail-list. The list is self-regulating
and anything blatantly non-classic is usually ignored (or flamed). One has the
option of simply skipping past somethings you consider not appropriate to the
list. During the y2k thread I was tempted to post how disgusting it was that
Borlands Sidekick for Win 3.1 made in 94, had a planned obsolescence for
1999, as likely more of these corporate programs do. While this thread
allowed me to sneakily vent ( :^)) ) this as an example, I felt it was
inappropriate to the list at the time.
I do, however see the PS2 8580 as a "classic". It introduced VGA and the MCA
architecture, and of course MCA is no longer supported by IBM. Among my many
machines I have a number of PS2s which > I < consider as collectables and yes,
also a 5150, 5160, 5170. I go to the PS2 news-group for info about these
machines since they are more knowledgeable about them. I similarly do the same
regarding my Ataris, Commodores, and A2s. Also for the most part with the CPM
newsgroup and many on the list take part in discussions there. That doesn't
mean that I consider them OT, especially considering some of the totally OT
threads that appear here regularly. There are several other newsgroups which
now have no traffic such as the Zenith 100 one. For such as these I will turn
to the list for info as well as other more obscure micros.
If any changes are to be made the most obvious one would be to split the list
into micro(home) computers and mini-mainframe sections in order to cut down the
volume of mail. I'm sure many on the list are impatient with the micro
discussions and while I find some of the PDP, Vax discussions interesting at
times, many are incomprehensible to me, and I usually skip over them. My
$.02(Can) worth-devalued of course ,like the canadian dollar.
ciao larry
lwalker(a)interlog.com
9465
days inactive
9465
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
lwalker＠mail.interlog.com -
roblwill＠usaor.net