2 Oct
2002
2 Oct
'02
4:18 p.m.
Would anyone object to adding an official 'cool
factor clause' to the
10-year rule? We already sorta have that now, where a newer computer (e.g.
mid-90s SGI MIPS) has sufficient cool factor that we're ok with it. All we
need is a concept of negative cool factor, so that some computers (e.g.
Packard Bell PC) might never be on-topic.
In reality, this isn't any more ambiguous than what we already have. The
other option would be to develop some sort of unit for classicity and set a
threshold above which a machine is on-topic.
Jeffrey Sharp
I for one obviously don't have a problem with having an official 'cool
factor clause'. After all, then my DEC PWS 433au running OpenVMS would be
ontopic, as would systems such as BeBox's and the like.
I think as a whole, systems that aren't x86 based, or Mac's that are less
than 10 years old have been considered to have suffecient 'coolness factor'.
Besides, about all that seems to cover is UNIX workstations, and OpenVMS
systems.
Also, I think 'custom built' x86 systems that have been specifically built
to emulate older hardware, such as a PDP-10 are almost ontopic.
Zane
2 Oct
2 Oct
5:50 p.m.
I for one obviously don't have a problem with
having an official 'cool
factor clause'. After all, then my DEC PWS 433au running OpenVMS would be
ontopic, as would systems such as BeBox's and the like.
I do not see the point of anything official, as most of the posts are to the
lawless CCTALK list anyway.
I would actually like to see the "official" cutoff pushed out to 20
years, as 10 years just does not seem that long ago...
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
6:43 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
I do not see the point of anything official, as most
of the posts are to the
lawless CCTALK list anyway.
I would actually like to see the "official" cutoff pushed out to 20
years, as 10 years just does not seem that long ago...
The whole point of the 10 year limit was to to prevent the
"Latest Golly-Gee Wizzbang computer from Netsoft-3456 cpu"
from taking up readers bandwith with topics like
"Why autostart
programs don't work, if the powerbar is in the OFF
position."
A classic computer is a CLASSIC computer regardless of age
as all computers were new sometime. While I like "front panel"
beasts I like to know what is out there rather than the classic
PC clone of today that may be worth keeping in the future.
6:56 p.m.
The whole point of the 10 year limit was to to prevent
the
"Latest Golly-Gee Wizzbang computer from Netsoft-3456 cpu"
from taking up readers bandwith with topics like "Why autostart
programs don't work, if the powerbar is in the OFF position."
A classic computer is a CLASSIC computer regardless of age
as all computers were new sometime. While I like "front panel"
beasts I like to know what is out there rather than the classic
PC clone of today that may be worth keeping in the future.
It was a reference to the whole "gettin' old" phase one
goes thru from time to time. Sometimes 1992 seems like yesterday.
To add to my thoughts, it certainly does not seem like the list has been
around for so long. It feels like I jumped on just a little bit ago. What
has it been? Three years? Four years? Five? Maybe I ought to go chill out
with a beverage. I am getting old.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
7:05 p.m.
To add to my thoughts, it certainly does not seem like
the list has been
around for so long. It feels like I jumped on just a little bit ago. What
has it been? Three years? Four years? Five? Maybe I ought to go chill out
with a beverage. I am getting old.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
I hate to tell you, but I think you're right, you're getting old, but then
so are the rest of us :^/ Pondering the age of the list is definitly scarry
though. Come to think of it, I suspect I've been on here since mid '97. At
least I no longer haul stuff home by the truckload (normally).
Zane
3 Oct
3 Oct
3:26 a.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
It was a reference to the whole "gettin'
old" phase one
goes thru from time to time. Sometimes 1992 seems like yesterday.
For me 1982 seems
like yesterday ( I got to use a real computer with
punch cards and even a printer ).
To add to my thoughts, it certainly does not seem like
the list has been
around for so long. It feels like I jumped on just a little bit ago. What
has it been? Three years? Four years? Five? Maybe I ought to go chill out
with a beverage. I am getting old.
Maybie a better rule would be -- no computers advertised on e-bay unless
known to classic.
6:02 a.m.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, William Donzelli wrote:
To add to my thoughts, it certainly does not seem like
the list has been
around for so long. It feels like I jumped on just a little bit ago. What
has it been? Three years? Four years? Five? Maybe I ought to go chill out
with a beverage. I am getting old.
The list is about 5.5 years old now.
(Amazing, isn't it?)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
2 Oct
2 Oct
6:05 p.m.
on 10/2/02 8:19 PM, Zane H. Healy at healyzh(a)aracnet.com wrote:
I think as a whole, systems that aren't x86 based,
or Mac's that are less
than 10 years old have been considered to have suffecient 'coolness factor'.
Well, think about it this way. Five years ago, wasn't NeXT hardware
considered classic or collectable or at least cool? Because five years ago,
it didn't meet the 10 year rule. Am I right on that one? Didn't the '030
NeXT Cube come out in 1988?
--
Owen Robertson
6:15 p.m.
The same with SGI Indy's. They have been discussed under the "not 10
years old but sufficently "geek cool" enough rule." I think the same
would be true of other limited production machines, like Canon
object.stations, Daystar Genesis MP's.
James
Well, think about it this way. Five years ago,
wasn't NeXT hardware
considered classic or collectable or at least cool? Because five years ago,
it didn't meet the 10 year rule. Am I right on that one? Didn't the '030
NeXT Cube come out in 1988?
http://webpages.charter.net/jrice54/classiccomp2.html
3 Oct
3 Oct
5:59 a.m.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I for one obviously don't have a problem with
having an official 'cool
factor clause'. After all, then my DEC PWS 433au running OpenVMS would be
ontopic, as would systems such as BeBox's and the like.
I think as a whole, systems that aren't x86 based, or Mac's that are less
than 10 years old have been considered to have suffecient 'coolness factor'.
Besides, about all that seems to cover is UNIX workstations, and OpenVMS
systems.
Also, I think 'custom built' x86 systems that have been specifically built
to emulate older hardware, such as a PDP-10 are almost ontopic.
I think as long as this doesn't become a Windows technical support forum
then we're fine.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
9:02 a.m.
Sellam wrote:
I think as long as this doesn't become a Windows
technical support forum
then we're fine.
Actually, whenever such questions arise we could simply put
our BOFH hat before answering :-) .
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
8 Oct
8 Oct
5:57 p.m.
By the strict 10 year rule, Tandy 1000's are on-topic. I bought the
first one the day before Thanksgiving 1985 on a Tandy Business lease for
$2700. Included a second floppy drive, CM-4 monitor, a DMP-130 printer,
Star Accounting Partner software and Friday, a simple data base program
by Ashton-Tate. Friday was a menu driven program that generated
dBase-II code. I still have the disks. I ran a company off the two
floppies until late 1986, when the price of a 10mb hard drive dropped to
about $800.
My 2000 is even older.
James
http://webpages.charter.net/jrice54/classiccomp2.html
Zane H. Healy wrote:
--
Would anyone
object to adding an official 'cool factor clause' to the
10-year rule? We already sorta have that now, where a newer computer (e.g.
mid-90s SGI MIPS) has sufficient cool factor that we're ok with it. All we
need is a concept of negative cool factor, so that some computers (e.g.
Packard Bell PC) might never be on-topic.
In reality, this isn't any more ambiguous than what we already have. The
other option would be to develop some sort of unit for classicity and set a
threshold above which a machine is on-topic.
Jeffrey Sharp
I for one obviously don't have a problem with having an official 'cool
factor clause'. After all, then my DEC PWS 433au running OpenVMS would be
ontopic, as would systems such as BeBox's and the like.
I think as a whole, systems that aren't x86 based, or Mac's that are less
than 10 years old have been considered to have suffecient 'coolness factor'.
Besides, about all that seems to cover is UNIX workstations, and OpenVMS
systems.
Also, I think 'custom built' x86 systems that have been specifically built
to emulate older hardware, such as a PDP-10 are almost ontopic.
Zane
6:58 p.m.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, James Rice wrote:
By the strict 10 year rule, Tandy 1000's are
on-topic. I bought the
My 2000 is even older.
Both the 2000 and 1000 had interesting deviations from the PC "standard".
The 2000 was a "720K" 5.25" disk format.
IIRC,
The 1000 did not use DMA for disk I/O, somewhat like the PCJr.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
7:06 p.m.
on 10/8/02 10:59 PM, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) at cisin(a)xenosoft.com wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, James Rice wrote:
The 1000 was designed by Tandy as a PCjr clone, but when the PCjr failed
commercially, Tandy marketed it as a PC clone. So the 1000 has several
similarities to the PCjr.
--
Owen Robertson
By the strict 10 year rule, Tandy 1000's are
on-topic. I bought the
My 2000 is even older.
Both the 2000 and 1000 had interesting deviations from the PC "standard".
The 2000 was a "720K" 5.25" disk format.
IIRC,
The 1000 did not use DMA for disk I/O, somewhat like the PCJr. 
9 Oct
9 Oct
11:17 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 208 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20021009/a39eb611/at…
7952
days inactive
7959
days old
16 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
aw288＠osfn.org -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
carlos_murillo＠epm.net.co -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jrice54＠charter.net -
univac2＠earthlink.net -
vaxzilla＠jarai.org