OK, this is why discussions such as this one are *GOOD*! I've never heard of the V2_OS, and now am going to have to spend some time learning about it. Any hardware recommendations for it? Zane

anything that runs on an older CPU will probably run on a newer CPU of the same family, so one might as well include the newer ones. I don't know what the answer is. <<<< I do. The answer is to define what's on-topic using carefully chosen words, not dumbed-down years. LOL, I'm not saying I know what those words might be. But in general I think there should be healthy debate and discussion (not necessarily here and now) rather than the usual "you're an idiot" vs. "no you are" that spawns here every six months.

to the list about online plagiarism You're correct in relative terms, but as many people noted, we're all here because we chose to be on the on- and off-topic list. So I wasn't saying that I mind the off-topicness, I was just replying to Choctaw Bob's original comment that "I think that this just squeaks in as being on topic."

----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Koblentz" <evan at snarc.net> To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:50 PM Subject: RE: Age cutoff, was: Recommendations for operating system words, The way I see things you need a bridge between the present and the distant past to get younger people interested in the hobby. Having a drop dead cutoff at the first Intel 80x86 is only going to kill new blood from joining because that is all they have ever used at this point. If you start collecting 286/386 machines and join this list to talk about them the older topics will sooner or later spark interest in something older and different. Keeping 286/386 topics off the list will just keep people away who eventually might have started collecting the older items they knew nothing about at the time they joined. Why bother preserving anything when this list and the knowledge contained here is just going to vanish after the last pre Intel collector dies.

Quoting Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net>: The audience at vintage-computer.com seems to be a bit different than the audience of this list. This list is far more 'hardcore.' There is a much wider variety of hardware being discussed and there is a lot more big iron represented. That being said, the less 'hardcore' forums are more accessible to the rest of the population. Both places have noise problems. On the web forums it is generally a 'less professional' audience and the level of knowledge is not as deep. They also tend to go off into the tulips quite a bit, and I'm not talking about DEC Ethernet cards. Here on the cctalk list the off-topic discussion seems to arise from people trying to be overly pedantic and showing off their hardcore eliteness. Yes, I feel inferior because I'm interested in old 8/16 bitters and I don't build my own CPUs from raw sand. ;-) Btw, I like the email/text nature of this list better. It serves as a higher barrier to entry.

I *only* participate in web forums where a equivalent email list, or USENET newsgroup is unavailable. I find them to be far more trouble than they are worth otherwise. Anything other than *plain text email* actually serves as a barrier. Simply put everyone can handle *plain text email*. Not everyone can handle the various "rich text" email formats, or the requirements of running a web browser capable of accessing the various web-forums. I still maintain that the WWW is one of the key reasons for most people to upgrade thier systems. Zane

At 03:25 PM 8/28/2006, Cameron Kaiser wrote: Certainly there are packages that web-ify mailing lists. You'd think there would be a plain-jane web forum package that let people participate only in the web version if they wanted, and posts would be gateway'd both ways in a transparent fashion. - John

That is an interesting use of the word "professional". I find the members of this list extremely non-professional in their list conduct, and yes, it all comes down to the noise level. There are way too many people here that like to post off topic threads, or steer threads very off topic. Sure, a little happens - even I have done my bit - but not stretching out OT threads for days at a time, with dozens of messages. I am, or have been on a great deal of lists, ranging from old and new computers, old radios, military surplus, mushrooms, forts, mining, railroad junk, history, and loads of others. The people on this list are by far the worst offenders for disregarding list charters and rules. Very little self control, and too lazy to post off topic questions on the myriad of other lists that are online. Why is this? Did their mother's not teach them any manners? Do they think it is OK to bring up topics in the real world at inappropriate times? Perhaps talking politics during a football game? Or maybe talking about one's ex on a date? Or reminiscing about aged beef in a vegetarian restaurant? Also, does it not bother these people that obviously the whole OT issue has been brought up before, and generates flames and anger for many list members? Do these people not think the perhaps many folks just do not want to hear another talk about Linux or Pentiums? Do these people think they are special or clever by exploiting a loophole in the charter so they can ask about some machine that 90 percent of us find extremely boring? It is no wonder non-computer people view us as a bunch of arrogant, pasty skinned, social wastoid trogs. Because too many of us ARE. Apparently too smart and clever to have actually listened to our mother's when it came to manners. I hope this does not sound like a slam to Jay - I think he is doing a job that most of us would not (or could not) do. It is, however, a slam to more than a few lists members... -- Will

Jim wrote.... This, absolutely - clearly - and unequivocally, should have been sent off-list. Jay

Yes, of course. This is the reason for topic drift, even if off topic. I really do not have a problem with a thread taking a short journey into OT-land. Many times, however, these trips go far too long, and many people just do not know how to limit themselves. There have been some that have lasted for days and days. If I were to make a rule, I would say that any OT drift should only last a few messages - then it is time to kill it, take it offlist, or bring it back on topic. The larger problem of people that start OT threads, however, is something that many humans have figured out how to handle properly. Not here. -- Will

And thusly were the wise words spake by Evan Koblentz Speaking of the Vintage Computer Forums, it got some new blood (teenagers!) recently who also attended the past VCF east. :) I didn't know about that one... I will check it out! Cheers, Bryan

On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Evan Koblentz wrote: There is no way I'd ever believe that. More people are becoming email-enabled every day. Sure, most people are (stupidly) doing it with a web browser, but email is certainly not going to be replaced with web forums anytime soon. They serve completely different purposes and one cannot replace the other. Because, being web pages, they're easier to "stumble onto" whilst idly surfing with a browser. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Cape Coral, FL

No no no no no no no no no no no no no nooooooooooooooooooooo. We need Sellam back on the list. He'll slap some sense back into you. :)

Rumor has it that Hans Franke may have mentioned these words: I now keep a box of 8" disks on my desk just for that purpose - even though I've never owned a computer that actually used 'em. ;-) Yes, but what if that freedom *is* the problem? One of the things that have been stated by not only the original creator of the list (anyone remember his name? Sellam; Tony; Me (yes, me - this is a trivia question after all... ;-) a handful of others, but many folks on the list only know Jay as the list-marm) and Jay both have stated that this list should never degenerate to a "WinTel support list." And also, *IMHO* any Linux kernel version newer than... say... 1.3.x is also too new to be considered "classic." If this is truly what's happening now, then I think the list won't be nearly as active (or subsequently, interesting) WRT the older machines. Ah, but only Jay has the power to set policy - if he states that Pentiums are off-topic for the list, then "so geht es Ihnen."[1] [1] Auf English: "That's the way it goes." See? I still remember a [very] little of my Deutsch... :-) IMHO, what I'd like to see is a ballpark rule (15 years would be my "sweet spot") but allow/disallow families of computers if they're deemed "odd" enough to be instant classics. My Amiga (by the 10-year-rule) is still off-topic, having been built in '98. Jay? Is it time to rethink the list charter, or should we all STFU? ;-) Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers zmerch at 30below.com Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!

Am 28 Aug 2006 9:38 meinte Chuck Guzis: Yeah, we should have done this 20 years ago - Microprocessors are just off topic at all :)) To some extend. Then again, you just might have to have a closer look. There have been plenty of differences between the CPUs and it continues. Also, the extreme similarity is only if you look at the desktop market. All arround there's still quite some neat stuff to play with - and not long ago I rediscovered that it is fun to play with the newest toys - SSE 1/2/3/4 offers quite some new ways to use (and enhance) some old knowledge about streaming. I found that knowing about how a /370 statezising works and how a CDC 6600 internaly handels the PP vs CPU workflow - and how vector processing in general works gives a great advantage over the young ones :) Agreed, you've seen one, you've seen all, but that would already be true if one would have just learned the /360 and the PDP-11. All thereafter was just variations - and it doesn't matter if they are binary compatible or not - who realy cares about the code reprensentation (Remembers me of an Israel based company that did a one on one clone of some VAX, except that they swaped high and low nibble of the opcodes :) Not not realy. While it's true that a DOS based 8088-Programm could probably work on an Athlon64, chachances are good that it also might require some work ... like running a PET programm on a C65. To me, whenever a certain Machine/Idea is either no longer of _average_ daily use (for whatever reason) or old enough that it will be viewe as 'good old thingy' it becomes an acceptable topic for the list. Beside that, I'll go with the old idea, that it needs two (or more) for a working communication. No Interest - No Response - No Communication That simple, and noone needed to govern it. H. -- VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

Quality beats quantity every time... -- Will

Am 28 Aug 2006 18:23 meinte Jules Richardson: Thanks. Case settled. H. -- VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

I think this is probably the most logical of the rules that have been discussed, and covers many "neat" devices as well that wouldn't slide under the 10-year rule. I vote for this one. Right. I'm not a PC lover by any means, but the recent discussion on a great OS for an older PC turned up many interesting tidbits. I have some 486s around here that might benefit from that. Of course, it also means that the Power Mac G5 is on topic now, since Apple doesn't make it anymore :) but that's not a bad thing IMHO. *grins* -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- BOND THEME NOW PLAYING: "For Your Eyes Only" -------------------------------

should be on topic. That's preposterous. People may be sick of my favorite analogy (cars), but you're suggesting that we allow, say, discussion of a 2005 Dodge Neon onto an antique cars list simply because it's been discontinued for 2006. plenty of old PC's out there that could be put to good use. You have lots of old Pentiums? Please take them somewhere to be recycled. Bring your 386s and 486s too.

Cameron Kaiser wrote: Dump it!!! I started with a CoCo! Used a Pee-cee at work and at home now for games and used a PDP-8 and a IBM 1130 in collage about 1980. Still thanks to on-line stuff I get to learn more about *classic* computers. PS. I like C64's but as a games console.

That would still exclude many 386s, for one. Even 2K could theoretically run on a P133, although that would be clinical evidence of masochism, I think. XP wants a 233MHz Pentium-type CPU minimum. I think that would be a more reasonable cutoff, if we want a particular Windows version to be the cutoff. -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Time makes more converts than reason. -- Thomas Payne ----------------------

It was thus said that the Great Cameron Kaiser once stated: I said "capable," not "theoretically possible." 8-P I waivered a bit about adding a year-based clause to the commercial support ("... nor is there any commercial support to be had for it, or it's older than 10-15 years old") but thought simpler would be better. But on the other hand, do the tech notes and software cost anything to download? I agree, and that seems to be the most contentious part of this whole definition of a "classic computer." -spc

ambiguous. definition of a "classic computer." Speaking of which, that gave me an idea .... How about we in the anti-10-year camp compromise by adding this clause to the definition of what's classic: "IF it's post-1981 (when IBM launched the PC), THEN it must have been unique when it was new." That way you include all the first-of-breed stuff (i.e., the PS/2), you include all the exceptions to the mainstream (i.e., the iMac), and you exclude all the same old PC crap.

On 9/1/2006 at 2:00 PM Cameron Kaiser wrote: It means that when we talk about VAXen, we shall speak only of the 11/780. My gosh, Windows was around ages ago in a real-mode version to compete with IBM Topview. What I can't remember is if Windows 1.0 would run on an 8088 or if it required a 286. Why disqualify anything that can run Windows, but include things that will run Gem? I cast my vote for being very flexible without rigidly defining what's "classic". "I know it when I see it." --Justice Potter Stewart Cheers, Chuck

----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Conner" <spc at conman.org> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Age cutoff, was: Recommendations for operating system I think Win 3.x is much different then anything after it, might as well be another OS.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 7:24 PM Subject: Re: Age cutoff, was: Recommendations for operating system and be Depends if you are talking about look and feel or just the kernel/driver/GUI model. Either way Windows 95 is quite a bit different then Windows 3.x or anything before it.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Shoppa" <shoppa_classiccmp at trailing-edge.com> To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Age cutoff, was: Recommendations for operating system 2.x and well be To be truthful I don't get into the OS much at all (any of them). I view the OS as just the interface between my machine, its hardware, and the software I want to use. I have no love for init strings, memory managers, and stuff like that for DOS, but since I love quite a few games from the DOS era (and like to use original hardware instead of emulating) I put up with it (and since I lived through it in the 80's I am used to it anyway). The same goes for classic Mac OS for 68K machines plus Amiga OS and everything else. Sure some OS were better then others of their era for different tasks, they are ok to explore but that gets boring fast to me unless I need them to get something done.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Chuck Guzis wrote: 3.10 was the first Windoze to require more than an 8088. 3.10 even required a token amount of extended memory! There are a FEW machines that run "non-intel" Windoze NT that are interesting. It has to be flexible. Nobody can come up with a rigid definition that doesn't have exceptions. For any rigid definition, somebody can come up with an example of a machine excluded unreasonably, and a machine included that shouldn't have been.

I just happen to have a sealed box of Windows 1.03 sitting here. Minimum System Requirments: 320k memory DOS 2.0 or higher two double-sided disk drives graphics adapter card Recommended System Requirements: 512k memory one double sided disk drive and a hard disk Zane

So here's an oddball question: I've seen some backplane based 8088-80486 PC machines available on the web, and they are newly produced, not NOS. Are those classiccmp? I can't remember where on the web I saw this but they weren't real expensive either, and they had a webstore and everything where you could buy the stuff. It was about a year ago when I was searching for parts for my 5155.

anymore, nor is there any commercial support to be had for it. Oh, and if the computing device is capable of running Windows 95 or better, it's still off topic." Perfect! It shall be known as Conner's Law and supplants the 10-year-rule. Oops, that is for Jay to say. But I like it. :)

On Sep 1, 2006, at 4:19 PM, woodelf wrote: I like it!! -- Dave McGuire Cape Coral, FL

Sean Conner <spc at conman.org> wrote: I would like to add the caveat that if, say, someone is using a hyper-super modern number-crunching x86 PC to do DSP-stuff for the express purpose of doing data recovery from DECtapes or 7-track magtape from 40 years ago, that IS INTERESTING and probably on-topic. Not so much for exactly what the modern computer is, but more for what it does and how it gives a window into the old media. OTOH everybody's favorite hardware engine for SIMH or Charon-11 and how they've modded it with neon lights is probably NOT interesting (unless they're Nixies!) Tim.

"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote: Actually that's more of a peripheral than a CPU or system. And a little bit of a pet peeve of mine on most 10-year rules: they talk about systems or CPU's and ignore that peripherals are of GREAT interest, especially when the peripheral is useful on multiple platforms. There are some peripherals (e.g. open reel tape drives, paper tape, punched cards) which span and bridge multiple generations (even multiple decades) of CPU's. Often I find the peripherals (and how to hook old peripherals to modern systems) to be of VASTLY greater personal interest. Because that's how you get to the media! Tim.

On 9/1/06 7:37 PM, Sean Conner wrote: VMS, UNIX, BSD, Linux, AIX, OS/390, zOS, CP/M, A/UX, Mac OS, OS-9, QNX, Solaris, IRIX, ... All off-topic, now? They're all better than Win95, aren't they? ,xtG .tsooJ -- Why do people point to their wrist when asking for the time, but not to their crotch when asking where the bathroom is? -- Joost van de Griek <http://www.jvdg.net/>

Evan Koblentz wrote: The age cut off is about 1985 for most of the computers talked about on the list from my view point. The only new computer I have seen that fits my classic view-point of having a front-panel or not a consumer market computer( read PeeCees) is the SBC1620.

Ray's) which has been proposed so far -- everyone has their hard rule, but their own "cool" exceptions. And "cool" is strictly in the eye of the beholder. to be a discussion of pissant PC issues." True, and anyone coming here trying to get Win98 to run on a Core Duo might get some opposition. But we do get that level of question here, just on more obscure systems. I find big iron conceptually interesting, but not to the point of others, and I usually delete mail about it after glancing at it. Some of those questions are at the same technical level, but those of us who aren't into those systems certainly aren't complaining about it. If someone has a 486DX2 they want to run QNX on, why is this such a pain to have around? You're right, but what good is an "easy" rule if it's also totally inaccurate? This all started (this time at least) with Choctaw Bob's comments*: I am looking for suggestions for an operating system for a PC, specs 75 MHZ Pentium, 16 MB Ram, 4 GB HD,<<< We didn't really mind his comments too much because he did talk about CPM, GEM, GEOS, etc. .... But he began by asking "I think that this just squeaks in as being on topic" to which I took a little bit of exception ... I didn't see a Pentium with a 4GB hard drive as on-topic no matter what OS it runs. So my point is, that's an example where it DID become "a discussion of pissant PC issues" and many people here seemed to * encourage * it by joining the discussion rather than saying, "whoa, Pentium, get outta here buddy." - Evan K * (Nothing against Choctaw, and hey, as I noted in my original reply to his message, this IS the on- and OFF-topic list so it's acceptable.)

And thusly were the wise words spake by Cameron Kaiser Maybe the list could eventually follow the user group format - have a main area but also have the more focused SIGs. Cheers, Bryan

It does, however, show off that the topic of topicness is rather heated. It does its job. -- Will

At 9:14 PM -0500 8/28/06, Jay West wrote: When was the 10 year rule revoked? The following has had the unrelated portions removed. It is from 9 months after the list was formed, I don't appear to have an older copy of the FAQ, but I'm not sure how complete my '97 archives are. I'm pretty sure the 10 year definition dates back to the beginning, I know it was in place 3 months after the list was formed. If people are interested, I can post the entire 12/10/97 version of the FAQ. And yes, by posting this, I can probably be considered to be breaking 2.8 below. As I've said on numerous occasions, I feel very strongly that the 10 year rule is a good idea. Sure things certain people get all huffy about and feel sully the "purity" of the list become "on-topic", but so to do many cool things. There are most definitely some *very* cool systems that are less than 10 years old. Are people trying to say that they should never be technically "on-topic"? Zane ============================================================================= ClassicCmp - The Classic Computers Discussion List Part 2 in the ClassicCmp FAQ Trilogy List Specific FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) v1.6.3 Last Update: 12/10/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.1 What is ClassicCmp? It's a mailing list for the discussion of classic computers. Topics center on collection, restoration, and operation. It is also an appropriate place for stories and reminiscences of classic computers. Lofty discussions dealing with the philosophical and/or metaphysical aspects of computers are often better handled in private e-mail ;) 1.2 Why is ClassicCmp? Uh, why not? There are lots of people who love these old machines and it seems like a fun idea to get together and talk about them. 1.3 What is a Classic Computer? _Any computer_ that has not been manufactured for 10 years is a classic. This definition is one I made up and it's entirely arbitrary. It seems to work OK, so I've kept it. This definition has come under fire recently but remains the guideline. Remember that it is certainly flexible. The idea is to keep conversation on track, not to restrict what you can talk about. 2.1 What can I talk about? Anything related to classic computers as defined above. There are many people on this list that really know what they're talking about, so you might want to check facts before you start shooting off messages. It's also a good idea to actually read the FAQs and check the archives a little before posting. 2.2 Can I talk about PCs? Yes. PCs which haven't been manufactured for 10 years. Even then, be aware that in many cases you would get a better response posting to PC newsgroups. 2.8 Can I type obscenities about Microsoft in ALL CAPS!?! (Or, in general, be unreasonable with reagard to advocacy posts?) Check your anti-MS baggage at the door, please. For that matter, drop any posts that serve only to perpetuate the holy wars. -- | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator | | healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast | | MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | 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/ |

I think that's completely unworkable. In the next room I have a machine. It has a GUI, a mouse, bitmapped display, networking, and so on. Sounds like something close to the modern mainstram, yes? Well, I think it's a classic computer by any reasonable standard. Or do people object to PERQs now ;-). Most modern computers have winchester hard disks. Does that mean that discussions of the SA4000 series are now off-topic? Most machines discusser here (and most machines that I own [1]) have a von Neuman architecture. So do most modern machines. Does that make almost all of what we talk about off-topic? [1] The main exceptions being calculators like my trusty HP41, which have separate program and data storage spaces, with separate connections back to the CPU. You can argue that's not a computer if you like, but a machine with alphanumeric I/O, a disk drive, RS232 port, HPIB port, that is user-progammable, and which I've been known to program in machine code [2] sure sounds like a computer to me. And yes, it's way over 10 years old. [2] Because of the separate program and data areas (user language programs count as data, to be interpreted by the machine code progam in ROM), doing this is a pain. You need a special RAM box, normally called an MLDL (machine language development lab) which appears as ROM to the HP41's processor, but which can be loaded as data RAM. -tony

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 19:45, Tony Duell wrote: Every computer that I own is made out of the same silicon-based semiconductors that common machines are. Does that mean that all computers are thus off-topic? OF COURSE NOT! You do have some common sense I hope? You can't be serious. If you think so, then sure. C'MON people, this isn't a HARD concept. Jay is trying to weed out the people who want to post obviously off-topic stuff (like 32/64 bit Windows, modern Linux/BSD/UNIX, and MacOS X) which is handled better other places. I honestly don't see what's so hard about this idea. Jay abolished the strict 10-year rule in favor of people being "smart" and using their own common sense to figure out what's classic. It should be obvious to anyone who's been on this list for more than a month or so that a Dell Optiplex running Windows 95 ISNT a classic machine, but that something like a DEC AlphaStation 500 running VMS and DECwindows IS on topic, despite the fact that the Dell Optiplex may well be older than the Alpha, and that they both have a GUI, and use very much the same peripherals. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing -- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcac

Zane wrote.... Apparently my many posts on this over the past few years were missed. Ok, for your benefit, consider the revocation date 8/29/06. When it was created has little bearing on when it was retired or it's relevance today. Sure there is. "Cool" doesn't necessarily mean on-topic though. There's probably lists on the internet somewhere that they can be discussed. Jay

8/29/06. Yeah, I believe I missed that one too - I thought that the 10 year rule was one of the most basic parts of the list. What, are we just changing it now because some people get all huffy just because the Pentium 166 is technically on-topic based on that philosophy? What happened to the whole "having fun with old technology" part of this list? I am beginning to remember why I wasn't subscribed for a couple years. I've been lurking now, but haven't really wanted to "step up" and say anything - it's not the fun, friendly atmosphere I remember from way back when. That, and I don't think anyone particularly cares to hear about me and my Prime computers... They're not DEC, you see. I thought so. systems that are less than 10 years old. Agreed, but they still woudn't/shouldn't be on-topic for a classic computer list. Not that it stops anyone - but still, even so, I thought the whole point of this list was to unite people with similar interests and mindsets. If someone finds a Sun Ultra 10 and wants to ask a question, this should still be a friendly environment - I mean, a lot of us work with or on hardware that is considerably newer than 10 years old. Just flagging the message in the header as OT should be enough to keep the flames down, provided that the OT posts don't overrun the list *cough*. Come on - what ever happened to fun with old computers, fixing stuff, and using enough juice to power a city block just to play Hunt the Wumpus? Have fun - lighten up, and never post when you're ticked off - I'm in a good mood, and you should be too. :) -Ian

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:42 -0400, Patrick Finnegan wrote: <bender> Fine, I'll create my own list. With blackjack. And hookers. In fact, screw the list. </bender> Brian

At 9:51 AM -0500 8/29/06, Jay West wrote: This didn't even have an appropriate subject line, a lot (most?) of us never saw it. This sounds like an attempt to define a totally different list than this has *EVER* been. If I read this correctly we should avoid speaking of Unix, OpenVMS, Mac OS, and even Amiga OS, and maybe even TOS. That leaves a pretty narrow field. Even I can recognize that older And yes, as you've no doubt figured I feel quite strongly about this subject as do several other members who have been here a very long time. Just because something a fair number of us are either disinterested in, or actively dislike becomes on topic is not a reason to change one of the founding principles of this list. In fact it goes against another founding principle of the list. Zane -- | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator | | healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast | | MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | 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/ |

On 8/29/2006 at 12:20 PM Evan Koblentz wrote: an It all depends on one's perspective. As when I encounter someone on my daily walk who realizes that the T shirt I'm wearing is older than they are. From my viewpoint, an Atari 520ST is neither antique nor vintage, but to a younger person, it may well be. We need to be flexible here. Cheers, Chuck

I think, alas, what is much more likely to happen is that people will leave and not re-meet anywhere else :-( -tony

Wrong. The 10 year rule still makes sense. What you are saying is that no new systems will be added, and that this is a dying hobby. Just because the majority of us have no interest in a 10 year old PC, or Windows 95/NT4 is no reason to change one of the founding principles of this list. Just because a large number of people here don't want to view a 60Mhz Pentium running Windows 95 as a classic doesn't make it any less of a fact. To many people that is a classic. To many of us (myself included) it's a nightmare, but that doesn't mean that I will deny the fact that it is now a Classic Computer. It is wrong to change a definition because you it suddenly includes hardware that you don't like. This group is *SUPPOSED* to platform neutral, but what I'm seeing here amounts to bigotry. I'm not saying he isn't. I'm saying he's wrong with regards to the 10 year rule. Zane

It appears to me that as time marches on, the setup and configuration of this list may have to change. I say this because the field that our hobby is covering is growing, not shrinking. There's a finite date as to when computers came on the scene, but this date never moves; therefore, the field of study and possibilities is always growing. I think much of the resentment against talking about "less classic" machines comes from the fact that the traffic on the list is growing and the possible subject matter is getting thicker, not thinner, all the time, simply because technology keeps developing. I agree with Jay's assessment that "classic" does not necessarily mean "old" or vice versa, and I agree with Zane's admonition that we cannot limit the field to what a 40-year-old would consider "classic". There's a balance to be struck and it will probably come with consensus, tempered with spice from the listowner. I would eventually look for this list to be split into "eras" for those more interested in specific time periods and/or technologies. Many car lists have done similar -- broken into generations, particular makes, etc. I don't think segmenting the list into a million shards is in anyone's interest, given how much crossover us collectors have in this field (I'll collect an Apple just as quick as I'll collect a DEC), but I could easily see a "pre-1984" list and a "post-1984" list for those who would rather glean only that subject matter that pertains to their particular hobby interests. Nathan -- ------------------------------------- www.nathanpralle.com -------------------------------------

Teo wrote... Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes This is too wide of a specification you give, but in general, the answer is Yes Yes, of course. I'd say discussion of Desqview on older machines is OK. Exotic does not equal classic. Uncommon does not equal classic. So the answer is "I don't know because there isn't enough information". This is not a yes, nor is it to be taken as a no. Good god, the sky is not falling. Just because not everyone seems to "get it", let me be clear. This is NOT an attempt to keep out non-DEC or non-MINI computers. Geeze! C64 is welcome. Sinclair is welcome. SWTPC is welcome. Some calculators are welcome. As everyone knows, DEC mini's aren't exactly my #1 favorite machine. I have a failed 11/45 restoration I'd just as soon throw out in the trash at this point. Guess what, I also have a lot of Heathkit and Apple.... it's a question of "classic", not size, age, weight, or list owners preference. Many people seem to assume this is an attempt to keep out Windows & Intel. It isn't. It is an attempt to keep out non-classic systems. I just don't find Windows (in general, there are exceptions) as "classic" yet. Someday maybe it will be. I don't have a crystal ball to fortell the future. But I do know it isn't classic today. Hope that helps.

And thusly were the wise words spake by Teo Zenios Speaking of software and hardware for those machines, what about *new* software and hardware programmed / created for vintage systems? For instance, Mike Loewen had a card reader interfaced to his laptop via USB port at the last VCF east. That demonstation did a great job of showing me how punch cards were used. Cheers, Bryan

Brian wrote... Absolutely completely on-topic. Sure, it involves a modern USB sporting laptop. But obviously the focus is classic computer related (punched cards are obviously classic, and there was likely a mediapreservation/educational component as well). Also on-topic is software and/or hardware emulators of classic computers, interfacing modern peripherals to old systems, interfacing old peripherals to modern systems, etc. Also on-topic is electronics discussion directly related to repair and/or theory/understanding, cleaning methods, procurement, etc. etc. Jay

Zane H. Healy wrote: [my *sole* comment to this thread] I think the 386 is where the "classic" line makes sense to be drawn. It marked the point at which more modern *and* more "classic" software/OS's could migrate to the consumer market (the 8086/8 was too crippled -- though I would consider early PC/AT's classic as well -- and, the 286 didn't have real VM support). The 386 marked a quantum step "up" (whether that step was FORWARD or BACKWARD can be argued by others)

An excellent point. -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Wherever I go, there's I AM. -----------------------------------------------

Evan Koblentz wrote: "classic" is one of those things that's really hard to define, plus it means different things to different people. Heck, I can't get at all enthusiastic about Apple ][ machines as to me they're not a lot different to the PCs of today. They ticked all the right boxes, had a slightly odd design, sold in huge numbers, but I find them utterly dull - possibly simply *because* they were so popular and "middle of the road". I'm not going to object to anyone else talking about them, though! We get only a handful of "modern IBM PC compatible" type posts a year it would seem, which *when it doesn't descend into an argument* typically attract a few replies. Surely it's only a fraction of total list traffic? To me that would indicate that list members are pretty much self-policing, and any attempt to define rules as to what hardware does or doesn't qualify would eventually rule out discussion of some particular hardware that *was* of interest (I'm particularly thinking things like PC cards/coprocessor boards for old non-PC systems might fall foul of any such rules) But, maybe I'm atypical anyway (aren't we all? ;) When I first joined this list way back when my interest was in a select few 8-bit micros. It seemed back then that 90% of list traffic was concerning the big iron - in other words *to me* it could be considered "off topic" as far as my interest went (these days I've broadened my horizons a heck of a lot!). I used to download list messages via a 2400 baud modem and think nothing of skim-reading posts and deleting nearly all of them as not being interesting. Hence the reason that even if I did object to OT posts (which I don't as I like the social dynamics aspect of a group of like-minded people) I'd still be tolerant of them - it wouldn't pain me to just delete anything I wasn't interested in (and these days the messages are still small but the connection speed's a little better than it used to be ;-) cheers Jules -- If you've ever wondered how you get triangles from a cow You need buttermilk and cheese, and an equilateral chainsaw

On Wednesday 30 August 2006 02:44 pm, Bryan Pope wrote: Yes. I'm still looking for cross-assemblers for 8-bit parts, particularly if I can find ones that run under linux. I do have a Kaypro in the room that I could no doubt find an assembler to run on and so forth but I really don't have a place to set it up at the present time. Maybe an emulator or something? I do have some stuff that I think runs under dos, but then I'd need to set up a dos emulator... Suggestions? -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin

On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Tony Duell wrote: FWIW Sequent kept their NUMA-Q series up-to-date through at least the 900 MHz Pentium III Xeon. Boeing still runs a few though IBM dropped support for them and Dynix/ptx a couple years ago. They're on their way out the door; having finally gotten rid of the last of their Apollo DOMAIN systems has accelerated the process, as the NUMA-Qs were mostly back-ending databases for applications running on the Apollos. There's a little bug gnawing at the back of my mind that there were at least one or two other non-PC systems to use the Pentium, but I can't think of what they might've been right offhand. I keep wanting to say "Stratus" although the particular series I'm thinking of is more rightly described as a non-PC platform for Windows NT, along the same lines as the SGI Visual Workstation. ok bear

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 08:42 pm, Tony Duell wrote: Interesting question. I know that the last time I was paying attention to that area, embedded systems were starting to use 386 chips. And my Tek scope has an 8088 in it... -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin

I would argue the PC _was_ defined by the IBM Techref. There's a lot more to a machine than the CPU. Go back to the time of the IBM PC. There were several other 8088 boxes around that were not compatible. Sure they might have run MS-DOS or CP/M 86. But you couldn't take a bootable disk from one machine and boot it on another. In many cases applications programs from one machine wouldn't run on another, I seem to rememebr at least 3 levels of compatibiliy : OS compatible -- the MS-DOS calls were the same, any program that used those and those alone would run on both machines BIOS compatible -- the BIOS calls were the same. You could use those (and MS-DOS calls) and have no compatibility problems Hardware compatible. The memory map was much the same, I/O devices had the same registers at the same port addresses, the video system was the same, and so on. You could 'hit the bare metal' with no compatability problems. It is the last level that we normally consider when we talk about 'PC compatible' I think, By that defitinion _any_ computer is PC-Compatible. My HP71 could run an interpreter written in BASIC that treats a couple of 9114 floppies as the main memory of an emulated PC, and boots MS-DOS from a third one. Accesss to video RAM could be sent to the HPIL video interface, and so on. The fact that it would take years to even get to an MS-DOS prompt is irrelevant :-) But OK, I'll rephrase the question. Are there Pentium-based machines that can't run the standard Windows we all know and hate, or a slightly modified version of said software (and for reasons other than the trivial ones of insufficient memory or disk space etc). That is, I am thinking of machines with very different I/O devices, etc. It appears such machines do exist. And I would argue that once they reach sufficient age they should be considered as 'classics'. -tony

----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Conner" <spc at conman.org> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:18 PM Subject: Re: Pentium for Non-PC (Was Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule)) that trivial of Pentium Pro's maybe? Always did like those.

It was thus said that the Great Jay West once stated: Nope. Made by Thinking Machine Inc out of Boston. The first model used a custom 1-bit CPU for each node (of which there were 65,536). Later models used SPARCs for each node. It's a pretty cool machine and operations that are O(n**2) on normal computers are O(nlog n) on this machine. -spc (Even from a software perspective it's pretty cool)

It was thus said that the Great Cameron Kaiser once stated: _The Connection Machine_ by W. Daniel Hillis contains quite a bit of infomration on the machine: The host talks to the processor/memory cells through a microcontroller. The purpose of the microcontroller is to act as a bandwidth amplifier between the host and the processors. Because the processors execute an extremely simple bit-at-a-time instruction set, they are able to execute instructions at a higher rate than the host is able to specify. Instead, the host specifies higher-level _macroinstructions_, which are interpreted by the microcontroller to produce _nanoinstructions._ It is the nanoinstructions that are executed directly by the processors. The instructions executed by the microcontroller that specify how this interpretation is to take place are called _microinstructions._ Thus there are four instruction sets to be kept straight: host-instructions (executed by the host), macroinstructions (interpreted by the microcontroller), microinstructions (executed by the microcontroller), and nanoinstructions (executed by the individual processor memory cells) ... Only the nanoinstruction set is described in this document. He gives an example though, of the macroinstruction: ADD 2000,1000, 8 ; add the eight bits stored in ; locations 2000-2007 to the eight ; bits stored in locations ; 1000-1007. generates the following sequence of nanoinstructions A-addr B-addr Readflag Writeflag MEM-ALU [1] Flag-ALU CC-flag Condition-sense ---- ----- -------- ------- --------- ------- ------ ---------------- 2000 1000 ZF [2] 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 2001 1001 1 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 2002 1002 1 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 2003 1003 1 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 2004 1004 1 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 2005 1005 1 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 2006 1006 1 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 2007 1007 1 1 A x B x F AB+BC+AC ZF 0 [1] this is A xor B xor F [2] ZF = Zero Flag Each bit in the source and destination is addressed in sequene, starting with the least significant bit. These two bits are added together with the flag bit taken from flag 1, where it was stored on the previous cycle. On the first cycle there is no incoming flag, so it is taken from the zero flag, which is always 0. The zero flag is also used for conditionalization, which a COND-sense of 0, because this operation is to be performed by all the processing elements. The function for the memory is the exclusive-or function of the three inputs ... The flag is the majority function of the three inputs and is 1 whenever two or more of the inputs are 1. This sequence of nanoinstructions can be generated by the microcontroller by means of a simple macrocoded loop that increments the address of the memory locations. The machine as a whole is SIMD, and the programming examples in the book are in a form of LISP. He give the following path length algorithm: 1. Label all vertices with +inf 2. Label vertex A with 0. 3. Label every vectex, except A, with 1 plus the minimum of its neightbor's labels. Repeat this step until the label of vertex B is finite (This step takes one cycle, and the loop itself takes N cycles, where N is the path length between A and B). 4. Terminate. The label of B is the answer. And the code: ; find the path length between nodes A and B in graph G (DEFUN PATH-LENGTH (A B G) a(SETF (LABEL *G) +INF) (SETF (LABEL A) 0) (LOOP UNTIL (< (LABEL B) +INF) DO a(SETF (LABEL *(REMOVE A G)) (1+ (bMIN a(LABEL *(NEIGHBORS *G)))))) (LABEL B)) The "a" represents the "alpha" expansion, and "b" represents "beta reduction" (which can be loosely translated as MAP and REDUCE respectively). Hillis describes "a" as "Give me a zillion of these". The "*" represents an escape mechanism where by the alpha expansion is avoided if you already have a zillion of something. Some examples: a(+ *x 1) == (a+ x a1) a(+ (* *x 2) 1) == (a+ (a* x a2) a1) A = [A B C] X = [X Y Z] (CONS A X) => ([A B C ] . [X Y Z]) a(CONS *A *X) => [(A . X) (B . Y) (C . Z)] a(CONS A *X) => [([A B C] . X) ([A B C] . Y) ([A B C] . Z)] (b+ '{A->1 B->2 C->3}) => 6 (bAND '[T T NIL T]) => NIL (bMAX {1 3 5 7}) => 7 -spc(I do recomend the book---it's very informative)

It was thus said that the Great Hans Franke once stated: Nope, that was me typing that in. -spc (Sorry ... )

Am 30 Aug 2006 18:58 meinte Jay West: Nop, for one it was way before the Pentium, second it wasn't realy big at all. The First one was based on a custom CPUs - often you'll find a reference that this have been 6502s, but that's not true. Most of the computation was done by the 65k of 1 Bit CPUs, but they where not realy independent. In fact, it's hard to call tem CPUs at all, since they where barely more than a specialized ALU wit a function input, two one bit data and a flag input and a flag and a one bit data output. But hey, for a marketing purpose 65536 CPUs sounds way better than just 4k :) While each had it's own memory (4kx1?), always 16 where feed by a microcontroller with the same instructions. Form a more traditional viewpoint such a combination should be called a single CPU, since it still could only execute one instruction at a time, but on up 16 data elements simultanious. It was a bit like an inversion of the 6600 conzept - instead of having 16 PPs shareing one CPU, it had one CPU with 16 ALUs The sixteen single bit ALUs where manufactured into one chip. Only the up to 4096 of microcontrollers where direct addessable in a 12 dimensional hypercube. The original design was ment to run AI programms done in LISP, thus FP wasn't realy important. The CM-2 did fix that problem by changing the structure to one controller operating 2x16 ALUs and having a Weitek FPU, so the microcontroller (called Sprint?) was now feeding 32 binary ALUs and one FPU - resulting in the quite common mis- interpretation that each 32 CPUs did share one Weitek and so the FPU was still a bottleneck. Also the memory changed (IIRC) After the CM-2 came the CM-5 which moved away from the high performance specific design toward standard SPARC (later SuperSPARC) with a fat tree, like todays Infiniband. So, no, no Pentiums inside - the only Intel in here is the fact, that Weitek was founded an run by former Intel people. Gruss H. -- VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

Am 30 Aug 2006 23:01 meinte Tony Duell: Now, that would be the 5150. In that context, already the 5170 AT is no longer compatible. And no Pentium system I can think of ever will be. Jup, but this more has changed several times. Stuff got added and removed - or different reimplemented. Which already was a problem for the AT vs. PC. Not every bootdisk made for the PC could run on an AT - except when willingly (or by not needing) left out functions that differed. Again, then the AT is already not 100% PC compatible. What I want to point out is that the whole concept of PC-compatible is quite blury and it comes down to all and every single application (and person using the programm). Also, your levels are not realy based on each other - as said before, we hat Workstations where the hardware was made from standard PC Main- boards (e.g. Tyan) but the Boot code was different (And no PC-BIOS), so it could not eat a standard boot block - but they could be loaded from a SCSI tape :) To make it fun again, there where boot Disks that loaded a RAM based BIOS, and then went ahead like any other PC. Righto - exactly my argument. The question is, wehn does this start. I mean, You can boot a Windows XP CD from almost any Pentum (alike) based Machine that supports BIOS compatibility - all you need is having a disk with all needed drivers ready. Beside all the Windows-bashing we do (And I enjoy it too), it is a rather hardware independent OS Everything is covered in loadable driver layers. In cat, it bears less of a problems to get Windows running on weired machines than to get Linux running. Now, we have her machines with no IDE ports, no Floppy drives, all Disk-I/O is done via SCSI - still, I can boot and install a Windows. No doubt, SCSI was not part of the PC definition as done in the TechRef. As I said, there have been several Workstations with PC-Hardware, but different Boot/BIOS-Code (e.g. Siemens WS 200). We had Pentium based Unix machines, thet definitly where different from PCs (Multibus based Boards) but still where using the same cheap support chips - so port addresses have been mostly the same. is it now a PC or not ? Gruss H. -- VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

At 11:37 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: I think there are moments in this endless debate where some argue for a definition that actually means "sufficiently obscure." It's always the Windows machine that centers the debate. Never, say, the Newton. Yet many details of pre-1995 computers will seem obscure to many other people, people who don't own troubleshooting manuals from that era, who didn't ever learn how to set up Kermit or TCP/IP or NFS on old DOS or Windows machines, or Windows for Workgroups, or Win32s, etc. Those people will find this list and ask questions, even without understanding any list rule (that doesn't exist.) - John

Roy J. Tellason wrote: After all, it doesn't doesn't realy matter what CPU is used, as long as it does it's job as a black box controll system. But yeah, Pentiums (and alikes) are already the base for most new embedded developments. In fact, the classic 186 core that has been ruling the landscape for a long time gets as rare as Z80-based cores. Beside Intels Marketing Mumbo, there's no real difference between Pentium alike, 486 or 386 cores - especialy since manufaturing cost for all of those, now 'low' desity structures have levelt. Gruss H. -- VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

I also have a hard time regarding a Pentium-based PC, or Windows 95, as 'clasisc'. BUT I don't actually know what 'classic' means when applied to a computer. I've got plenty of machines that I consider to be classics, other may not. Equally, I've got some old machines that I _don't_ think are particularly classic or interesting (and no, I am not talking about old PC clones only). Can you please, therefore, give an explicit definition of what you mean by a 'classic conputer' -tony

I would agree. Sounds like it's time to found another list which goes back to the original 10 year rule. Probably CP/M is off-topic too... After all CP/M -> MS-DOS -> Windows. There have been machines that I actively dislike that were on-topic from the day this list was founded. Doesn't bother me, I just ignore messages about them (I learnt that lesson in my first week of membership, OK...) -tony

No I don't. Before the rule change last year, it was clear what a 'classic computer' was. It was one that was more than 10 years old. And also on-topic were things like software for such machines, emulators of such machines (no matter what they ran on), repair techniques, sources of spare parts, data preservation methods, interfacing relating to such machines and their peripherals (e.g. connecting a paper tape reader to a PC) and so on. I'll assume the second part of this is unchanged. But I do _NOT_ know what is now considered to be a classic computer. I am deadly serious here. All the definitions given so far could be taken to exclude things that darn well ought to be considered to be classics. Yes, my examples are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I don't for a picosecond actually believe that anyone wants to exclude CP/M or the PERQ, or HP9000s or .... but none-the-less they _could_ be taken to be excluded by the definitions. So, can I please have (either posted to the list, or by private e-mail, whatever you think is more appropriate) an explicit definition of what is now considered to be a classic computer. -tony

On Wednesday 30 August 2006 14:27, Hans Franke wrote: Hans, I wish that I had as much time as you do to spend on topics that are as TRIVIAL as this. Can't we all just MOVE ON??? Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

You wrote.... I would ask that you consider my view - your statements (before mine) asserting that I didn't have the right to make that decision were considered arrogant by me. That would most understandably cause my response to be a tad bit bristling (especially given the private complaints I was getting), whether you agree with my position or not. This is revisionist history (or at least incomplete). Where have you been? There's been lots of fierce discussion about weapons and cars (and other things) since Bill left. Remember M. Sokolov? And they didn't come back on-topic in any natural way I can assure you. I generally was taking people to task off-list (or getting yelled at privately for not doing so) to bring it back on-topic. Sometimes I had to yell publicly. As you aren't the list admin, you don't see the whole picture. You don't see the almost daily complaints I get about people talking about those weapons or cars to an extensive degree. You get the pleasure of being blissfully unaware. I get rather frequent emails from people saying they will unsub if those types of discussions don't stop (and some of those are long term members who contribute frequently with quality posts). This has been a problem for a long time, so much so that the list had to be split because of it. I fought this, but grudgingly agreed. I would not have agreed if I had any idea how much work on my end that would create on an on-going basis. And even after the list was split, right up to today, I have received constant complaints about the off-topicness of cctalk. Sooner or later, I need to do the right thing, and that will invariably upset some people. You obviously have no clue how much heat I get on a regular basis about this. Must be nice to just sit back and enjoy the environment here and assume it's just wonderful naturally. You're welcome. Originally, the ten year rule was "an arbitrary thing". It was not picked with precision nor with real specific reason. With regards to the revocation of same, I honestly don't know where you were when this was discussed at GREAT length, MORE THAN ONCE on the list. Every time it was brought up - after discussion on the list - I went with the idea that the 10 year rule wasn't appropriate anymore. Most people on the list agreed. And when a few people keep bringing up an issue that was already beat to death so badly the horse was unrecognizable... sooner or later I'm going to say "enough". I totally disagree with your characterization that I am being dictatorial or setting up oppressive rules. And in all honestly, I think a majority of the list wouldn't characterize my past (nor present) behaviour that way. I think I've earned the benefit of the doubt that you seem to reserve. Dare I say, this 'freedom' you speak of tore the list apart, vis-a-vis cctalk vs. cctech. I like to think that in some *small* way it was *partly* my leadership and accomodation to all parties that got us through that (as well as a few other "crisis"). In addition, over the past roughly decade here... I can only think of one time I went against the lists wishes, and that was when a majority of the list wanted Sellam banned. I overruled the list on that. Other than that one example, I have always built consensus. So you'll hopefully pardon me if I get a little non-plussed when someone approaches me with a "who died and made you god" attitude for one of the very rare times I get pushed to the point of finally putting my foot down in the best interests of the list. I have been operating under the concept that I own the list for what, almost 10 years now. So are you telling me that just now I'm attempting to rule and place restrictions? Nothing has changed other than your perception. And my "rule" has gone on for years now and the list has done well despite some serious issues. In addition, I'm taking away one rule and replacing it with a different definition. So I've got a problem with your assertion that I'm placing all kinds of restrictions and "ruling". Your characterization doesn't hold water. ... snip ... Hans, much of what you say of the past history of the list is completely correct and great concepts. But you have to realize that the small like-minded group of friends that started the list is not the same group as the 1500+ members now here. I do try to maintain that sense of community and libertarian ethos, but it's just not always 100% possible 100% of the time. As to ownership of the list... I believe you were around for all of this but apparently not. When I first started administering the list because it had actually been yanked off Bill's server and was down completely... in the normal course of events listmember issues came up every so often the first year. Things like so and so should be banned, the list has gone too far off-topic, yada yada yada. I would receive lots of private emails saying "please make a decision!". I would refuse, saying "hey, it's not my list. I'm just adminning it - I don't want to make the call - let the list decide". Many people replied "no, it is your list now, it belongs to you, step up to the plate and make the decision". I did, but felt uncomfortable with it. Then a few weeks or months later another issue would come up and I would not address it because I didn't want to be dictatorial (surely some here remember me using that word to convey the sentiment!) - I wanted the list membership to decide. Same thing would happen, I'd get a flood of email - some on the list - some privately - specifically saying "Jay, you own the list now, do whatever you want and make the decisions". This cycle repeated quite a few times for subsequent issues. Finally, it was patently obvious to me that a majority of the list considered it my list as in ownership. I have thus been operating with that capacity for years now. And guess what... I still go to the list to build consensus for virtually everything. Often, but not always, it's hard to get real consensus on the list (believe it or not). Often, somethings really come down to a single quick decision being made. I'm not going to shy away from that. In the final analysis... your complaint seems to center around the apparent conviction that I will make excessive rules. I think that has been quite thoroughly proven over the past 10 years or so to be incorrect. As far as the list just totally "flowing freely", that will not work once you get past a small group of friends. The history of the list has more than proven that. Jay PS - I don't know for sure exactly how long I've been running the list. I am guessing just under 10 years. I may be off a few years. I'm not going to take the time to pick up the exact date.

Why not just merge the 2 lists into one. People can post a message which most likely gets checked for spam or filtered for swearing (I would think a group with a billion years of computer knowledge could automate this part). Some human being with a sense of humor can decide if the topic is remotely on topic and let it pass, or fail it (send a note back to the sender with a reason why it is off topic) Once the thread gets going there should be a simple email address where people who have issues with the thread can forward it and the moderators can decide if it is Off Topic and change the header to reflect it (so people can just filter out completely) and hope it dies out on its own, or if enough people complain it gets killed then and there (subsequent replies to the OT post get a return message stating the thread is dead, reply directly to the poster, have a nice day). People who have to many off topic threads get put on probation (everything they send gets reviewed). Unless I am mistaken this is pretty much the way the list has been run, the majority of users decide what is offtopic by their bitching, and the guy paying the bandwidth has the final say. So lets grow up (as in a tree to be on topic for an off topic thread) and get back to whatever we have been doing before I got bored reading these emails. It just seems we are talking about the fine details that can never be 100% defined without making a 600 page book that gets edited every few years. All we realy need to iron out is what the offtopic thread designation looks like to set our filters (if needed).

Zane wrote.... A "small thread of no interest" that was titled "The Definition of On-Topic"??? You might want to re-read that statement a few times so that the complete (something)ness of it sinks in to you. And that wasn't the only thread where it was brought up. I guess from now on when I solicit list input I shouldn't just make a clear concise subject like "The Definition of On-Topic", I should instead send out personal invitations to remind folks to participate. You know, anytime there is an "issue" on the list, people are awfully quick to suggest solutions which require more time responsible. Well, if you don't vote, don't complain. To put it more succinctly - Failure on your part to read a thread with such an important subject does not translate into an obligation on my part to retroactively care. Why not, you and others obviously expect ME to read every post. Ya know what, I just don't need the grief. J

At last! Somebody has got the point. To be honest, I didn't much care for the 10 year rule, but it had the great advantage it was unambiguous. A computing machine over 10 years old was on-topic, one younger than that was off topic. Simple. Now I have no idea what a classic computer is now defined as. It may well mean different things to different people. I am sure there are machines that everyone here will think of as classics (let's say the original straight-8). There are others that are more boderline. I am seriously considering unsubscribing over this. Not because of the noise on the list. Not because I have any particular love of the 10-year-rule (or any other date-related rule). But because I now have no idea what this list is actually supposed to be talking about. And there seems little point in remaining on such a list. -tony

Tony wrote.... In that case, I sure would have appreciated more input from you when the definition was being discussed. Was there any reason you didn't provide some help to come up with something better than the 10 year rule if you didn't care that much for it? Help from you would have been awesome! But I am glad to hear that yet another person finds the 10 year rule problematic. So your reason for unsubbing would be because you don't understand what this list is talking about? Sure, there's some argument about the finer details and probably the definition needs tweaking. But I seriously doubt that people (and you) honestly don't know what this list is about. I'm sure I and others on the list would like to get your help in the definition instead of you just saying "I don't understand it, so I'm leaving". Jay

What pisses me off is when stuff like 120v mains hotdog cookers get mentioned in one topic and it turns into its own. Everyone on this list should know better than to turn that into a thread.

Julian Wolfe wrote: Well hold on, I *like* the discussions about 120v mains hotdog cookers and things like that. There are people on this list who are twice my age and more who have seen and done many very cool things. Personally I find the discussion of 120v mains hotdog cookers far more interesting and entertaining than yet another endless thread about sticky belts in HP tapes. Let's be honest, most of us wouldn't be that interested in big old computers if we weren't also interested in Geissler tubes, old radios, delicate little mechanisms and stuff that goes bang or zap. It's what the hacker nature is about. I agree that it is offtopic, but there is so little of it compared to the on-topic posts - just the odd flurry now and again. The context that it brings to other discussions is worth a lot, I feel. Gordon.

this what "Classic" Is this really necessary? Personally, I don't need anyone to define what a classic computer is, I know damn well. Especially given examples; PDPs are on topic, early programmable calculators are on topic, 80s non-x86 home computers are on topic etc. I doubt that common early-90s programmable calculators should be on-topic. And late model Dells running Windows 98 or later is off topic. Really, honestly, it should just be a matter of COMMON SENSE. Caps because it's worth shouting. OK, we might not all agree on every machine's on-topicness, but in 95% of cases it's obvious, and a bit of flexibility, tolerance and above all common sense should be able to deal with the other 5%. Really, I find it hard to believe that anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't be able to apply common sense to figure out whether a post should be made or not, given the topic of 'classic computers'. But if people absolutely must be guided to that extent, fine - may I suggest a list of what's on topic and what's not? Here's an example (not suggesting this as gospel, by the way, it's just an example): On topic: - Any computer or programmable calculator made before 1985 - CP/M or other classic OS running on ANY hardware (yes, this includes boring late model Dells) so long as discussion centres on the OS, not late-model hardware - Tools (OEM service tools, oscilloscopes etc) and their use related to on-topic hardware - Troubleshooting advice/requests where applicable to on-topic hardware/software Off topic: - Windows 95 or later - x86, post-68k Mac hardware - Bicycles, guns, cars, needlepoint, oceanography etc. ad inifinitum I stress again, I wouldn't have thought this is necessary. But if people MUST have rules defining on/off-topicness, I think it could work. It can be updated easily as conditions change. For instance, I'm sure Win95 will become on-topic sometime, like it or not. I have to say that I've been on this list (admittedly lurking) for a very long time now, five to six years perhaps, and the fact that the ten-year rule is no longer current has been brought up repeatedly since then. Why it's suddenly become an issue now I fail to comprehend; I believe that it's completely useless as a yardstick anyway. One of my servers is a Pentium 133 from c. 1995, currently running Windows 2000 Server. I don't think I should be given even a tiny excuse to discuss that machine on this list. But I also have a Mac from about 1997 or so, with an interesting owner history, and running Linux. Perhaps that ought to be on-topic? I'm sure there are much better examples than that, too. Suggestion number two - if the ten-year rule is that important to some people, perhaps we can strike a compromise and add to our 'off topic' list, something like the following: "All computers less than ten years old are off topic". This is NOT to say that everything older than ten years is automatically on-topic, it just states that to be classic, a computer must be at least ten years old. And just a quick note on the current management of the list - Someone needs to provide the service of list maintenance, guidance, and laying down of the law when required. From my perspective, nothing Jay has said has been unreasonable, and I'm grateful to him for doing what he has. I used to do that sort of thing as well, but exactly this kind of situation made me swear 'never again'. Please, let's see what we can do to make the list work and to help, rather than just complaining about the situation as it stands? Common sense, flexibility, friendliness,... Many apologies for dragging this awful discussion out further, but I think we need to sort the issue out. m.

Rumor has it that Jay West may have mentioned these words: I certainly wouldn't... I don't say "list-marm" without reason - This list has become a 1500-child 1-room schoolhouse with Jay doing his best to keep the peace, and just like teachers nowadays, he doesn't even have a ruler to rap us on the knuckles with. Yet another piece of info that states Jay's not the "evil overlord" here - as the needles should swing closer to [a]*huge* and [b]*mostly* WRT what's stated above... And Jay made the right decision, as the "rest of us" were all emotionally bent on this - Jay used his *brain*. And *maybe* this is against RFCs, but one of my .sigs is quite on point here, so I'll include it before the very end of my message: =-=-=-=-=-=-= Roger "Merch" Merchberger | Anarchy doesn't scale well. -- Me zmerch at 30below.com. | SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | =-=-=-=-=-=-= What do you think my "incentive" was for writing that little missive??? ;-) ===================================================== | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | | | ===================================================== Jay, here's my ASCII ruler. I hereby subscribe to try to never give you reason to use it, but I give you permission to whack my knuckles with it if you deem necessary. ;-) If there's anything I can do to help, just holler! Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger

This current series of threads was the first I heard of this, however, you'll get nothing but understanding from me on this issue. I totally understand your reasoning on the issue of recombining the lists. Zane

Am 30 Aug 2006 18:24 meinte Jay West: I don't realy see where the reasoning is do do this, except to eliminate CC-Talk. After all, the hard disagreement with a governed CC-Talk was the original reaon for creating CC-Tech. To me, there is no real reason to do so. Except, well, the not working and rather fruiless idea to crosspost. As hard as it comes, but we have two incompatible concepts. Instead of now choosing one over the other (or some whish-wash kind of combination), the best would be to keep the orgins as they are. CC-Tech is the 'clean' list, where on topic is handled rather strict, while CC-Talk is the free environment. Two seperate entities. It's up to decide for everyone on his own what's the flavour he likes. No cross posting, no interferences. I'm not shure what kind of plans you have, but if a 'clean' list is what you need or it, then it's up to you to point the difference out in a way to archive that target. And highlight CC-Tech. If you're shure that the original list, and I still see CC-Talk as the legacy, is no longer of interest to you, I would prefer to offer the necersary hosting. To make this clear, I had no inclinations to do so, but there is no need in having a point and then backing off (Me and my bigh mouth:). Somebody already put this question up, so yes, if that's the right way to go, I am willing to take the time and put it on one of my servers. The needed performance should be available to host CC-Talk. Again, my goal was to have the list run as it was intended, NOT to take it over or such. Gruss H. -- VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

Zane H. Healy wrote: What are the other reasons, though? I'm sure they've been discussed in the past on here, I just don't recall them :-) In theory the idea of two lists seems like a really good one to me - both groups (those who like the social side, and those who don't) can be kept happy. The only problem seems to be he workload for moderators, which I can appreciate must be large. (Well, there's the occasional user who cross-posts to both lists when they shouldn't, but they seem to be educated by other list members fairly quickly) So, other than the workload, what are the other disadvantages (I think what I'm getting at is: if the moderation workload could be reduced somehow, would it make sense to keep both lists?) cheers Jules -- If you've ever wondered how you get triangles from a cow You need buttermilk and cheese, and an equilateral chainsaw

Hans Franke wrote: <snip> I've been sort of laying low on this, but I think I need to clarify my *own* perspective. I have definite opinions on all of this, and I'm not often shy about sharing them.[1] But in my never-humble opinion, the cat who pays the freight gets to choose the destination. So, Hans, do I understand that your essay is a roundabout way of offering to host and maintain this mailing list? Or are you just carping cause the free beer isn't chilled to your taste? Doc [1] For what it's worth, this list has grown and diversified a LOT even since I subscribed. The management policies of 6-8 years ago are no longer sufficient. This increased need for "direction" is a normal function of any growing group.

And there are other fora for some machines that _are_ on-topic. I am quite sure that there are still usenet groups (which are accessible via the wrb, of course, if you don't have a newsfeed) for some older machines and OSes. And there are specific web fora for some machines/classes of machines. To take a concrete example, the HP9830 is on-topic here (I hope). It's also on-topic on the forum on the HP calculator mueseum web site. If you want this list to only be for machines that have nowhere else to talk about them, I suspect the number of on-topic messages will be exactly zero. -tony

Am 28 Aug 2006 21:14 meinte Jay West: Well, at the time I signed up to this list - and that's like more than five years ago, there was this rule, and it never got modified - course not, since it's one of the basics of this list. If someone likes a list without this rule, it would be best to open up his own. The 10 year rule is a great concept of benchmarking for easy judgeing. Ans just because we oldtimer see anything after 1980 as modern unworthy stuff, it doesn't mean it realy is. Time is moveing ahead and new stuff becomes old and 'classic' to new people. Just think of 70s and 80s cars. To me, they have no classic apeal at all, but there is already a collector scene. Come on, a 1978 Golf, or similar is just good to be used as scrap metal for new cars - well, they are collectors items! One needs to accept the fact that time moves on. The worst to do is to set fixed dates - that's a shure way to become a sidenote in history. So, let's stay with the great list we have. Gruss H. -- VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

Zane wrote... I'm way beyond the point of discussion on this, thanks to recent comments. Oh great. Why don't you just bring up the "reply to list" address topic too. Oh, and while you're at it, lets dive in to the "blog format" thread again. Or how about the "divide the list by hardware interest" thread. Thanks for the gasoline on the fire. You want to know MY key complaint? It's people who keep bringing up the same volatile threads, again and again and again. I wasn't kidding - I'm 1/2 step away from a server originated mandatory list-wide "time-out". J

I had written.... To which Tony replied... That's just silly. Please scan the archives. Look at just how many times I have posted the above. Don't even attempt to tell me most people haven't seen me post it before. J

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 21:49, Jay West wrote: And to which I add: http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/2005-May/193977.html Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing -- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcac