The Series Two seems to be a combination of old and new design; I wouldn't call it a classic. Value is in the eye of the beholder, but I don't think you can compare the cost of the System Two to a similarly equipped PC. It is a low-volume product, which means high component costs for Fischer-Freitas. Did anyone else see the "new" Mark-8 kit sell on eBay recently? I think it went for $1,600. --Mike Michael Nadeau Editorial Services 603-893-2379 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lanny Cox" <chronic(a)nf.sympatico.ca> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Serious Request For Moderation (On Topic) and IMSAIs........ list now. "classic

Yes, I had to read the copy twice before I realized it wasn't an original kit. --Mike Michael Nadeau Editorial Services 603-893-2379 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 4:29 PM Subject: Re: Serious Request For Moderation (On Topic) and IMSAIs........ it

Jeff Hellige wrote: An endless supply of "vintage" anything really doesn't make it vintage any longer. Eric

Chad Fernandez wrote: Ah, but did it fetch a rare price or a common price? Eric

Sheesh! There oughtta be a law ... Haven't you heard of PS/2 pollution? Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Blakeman" <rhblake(a)bigfoot.com> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:13 PM Subject: RE: Vintage

Not from the description. It didn't even have SCSI in it if I remember correctly, had and ESDI drive and controller.

My thoughts on that particular item is that he should've been up front about it's origin instead of hiding behind vagueness. Reproduction parts have their place but they should be clearly identified as such when buying/selling them. Jeff -- Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems: Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Chuck McManis wrote: I would disagree with this thinking. The era is completely different. As I said in a previous message, it is an important distinction, since you really are assembling something from scratch (new old stock) vs. just putting together existing pieces (used old stock). In the case of a car or a VAX, you are mostly swapping various parts (engines, doors, emblems or boards, power supplies, hard drives respectively). In the case of a Mark-8, you are going down to the component level using whatever parts you can scrounge up that just happen to have the appropriate date codes. Is this a valid distinction? I think so. If you were able to get, say, the original manifold dyes and smelt your own manifolds that are basically the same as the original, are they truly original? Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jeff Hellige wrote: Hmmm... As long as they're useful, does the aforementioned matter? -- Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

Tony Duell skrev: But that is only because others invest a particular value in it. Granted, if I find a book which I'd like to read, I would expect to pay more if it was the first edition as opposed to a reprint. OTOH, the reaosn I expect that is because I know that some people find particular (intangible) value in the first edition, value which I myself wouldn't recognise. But then again, I don't set the prices. The reason for which I'd expect to pay more would be the price tag, not the perceived value. Given a choice between a new edition and an old, I'd choose whicever would be in better connection and/or cheaper. IOW, in a perfect world, there would be no need to state whether it's a reprint or an original edition, because they would be equal. Agreed, stating that a replica is the original is dishonest, but the question is why we even bother. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 1890 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010509/4c36d63a/at…

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jeff Hellige wrote: But what was an "original Mark-8" besides just parts cobbled together? And if the solder masks could be made from the prints in the magazine then what he's doing is not necessarily devious, though it could be considered deceptive if indeed he is not saying outright that these are kits pieced together contemporarily as opposed to the 1970s era. That is the key distinction. Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org

Tony Duell skrev: I don't really understand why people care about originality. Isn't that mainly a metaphysical matter? Or am I being too post-modern? Really, asd long as the reproduction is identical in every sense, why would it matter when it was built? I wouldn't really mind replacing my 1992 Amiga 4000 with a freshly built replica. As long as it looked and behaved like my current A4000, but didn't consist of eight-year-old hardware, the new model would be superior. Likewise, why would it matter whether your issue of X-men was printed in 1996 instead of 1963? Is it the actual reading material or 30-year old paper you're looking for? OTOH, packaging is important to me, and so is the condition of the equipment I get. I find aesthetic pleasure in the design of the computer and its packaging. I do, however, not find aesthetic pleasure in the sight of old plastic. New plastic works just as well, and so do new circuits. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. Php/fi: The syntax does a very good job on combining the drawbacks of C with the disadvantages of Perl, in general resulting in a completely unreadable sequence of seemingly random characters. Therefor it became quite popular among Unix-fossils. -- README for the HTML preprocessor "hsc"

Sellam Ismail skrev: Nothing wrong with that. Why should Mona Lisa only be the right of rich people? -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. Eccovi una delle sigle francesi dedicate a questo shojo... come, non e' uno shojo? Andate a spiegarlo ai francesi... questa e' una canzone da shojo, quindi per me Goldrake e' uno shojo :p Tacchan om den franska signaturmelodin till Goldorak (Grendizer)

Sellam Ismail skrev: Da Vinci is famous because he (along with a lot of other works) painted Mona Lisa, not the opposite. If the greatness of Mona Lisa lies in being touched by him, then wouldn't his utensils be works of art as well? Da Vinci's greatness as an artist stemmed IOW from his ability to produce great works of art. A work of art is a work of art even if mass-produced, the last century has taught us as much. But then that is metaphysics, and should we really invest that much money into something which essentially would be a golden calf? But of course it can! It's built from the same plans and offers the same functionality. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, [have] alarmed the more doctrinaire exponents of a revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) modern architecture by specializing in a cosy domesticity which appears to turn its back on many of modern architecture's spectacular achievements; not by reviving period styles, but by preferring traditional building techniques and materials and putting the highest value on charm of character and a close accord between building and landscape. J.M. Richards, Modern Architecture

Sellam Ismail skrev: Of course they would be highly valued, but my point is not whether they are, but whether they should. Are copies less tangible? I'd go for the second. Bastards don't have emotional ties to their relatives. =) It doesn't matter whether it's built in Taiwan or the Czech republic as long as it's according to the plans. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. optimus@dec:foo$ %blow bash: fg: %blow: no such job

On Sat, 12 May 2001, Eric Chomko wrote: I see Iggy's point; he's asking, as I'm wondering, what logical difference does it make whether or not some famous artist actually touched something. Furthermore, I've seen much more attractive paintings than the Mona Lisa sell for much less than the Mona Lisa would sell for. Giving this additional thought, ss not the Mona Lisa a rather unattractive painting of a woman who isn't particularly attractive? Now, to get back on topic, let's apply this to computers. For example, why should an Apple I or an Altair sell for more than. let's say, a Sun 4/330? That makes no sense; the Apple I is much slower and has fewer graphics capabilities, etc. Why did he say that? Was it because the poor chap had a limited vocabulary? ...or because there are enough saps out there willing to pay an overinflated price. :-) -- Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

On Sat, 12 May 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote: That makes sense. :-) Precisely. One man's treasure is a another man's junk, etc., and different people have different ideas of beauty, worth, etc. Hence, what I said previously was, basically, non-sensical in that I really can't say that the Mona Lisa is unattractive; it may be to me, but not to others, and what I find attractive, others may not. I was playing a little bit of devil's advocate. Yes, just like someone who used one and had, for whatever reason, fond memories of using it, or who had been given one as a gift and lost it, would pay much more for one. I see your point, although historical/popularity reasons alone wouldn't maye me want something more or be willing to pay more for it. Practical or personal interest. However, as you said, to each his own. -- Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

On Sun, 13 May 2001, Eric Chomko wrote: $660 + $6 ($666) was the selling price. 200 was the number made ;) Hey, this makes life so much more simple. Anytime someone asks me a "why" question, I'm just going to answer "Because!" and go on with my day. Brilliant! :) Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org

On Sun, 13 May 2001, Eric Chomko wrote: Some of them can be traced back to original owners (most of them are still owned by the original owners!) The Apple 1 auctioned at VCF 4.0 was owned by Ray Borrill, who bought 15 to sell in his computer store in Indianapolis, Indiana (USA). All of them sold, save for one he used one for a store display. He tucked it away at some point and forgot about it. Last year he decided it was finally time to sell it :) Cool, see you there! If you don't know what Eric is talking about, it's the first VCF East Coast! July 28-29 at the Royal Plaza Trade Center in Marlborough, Massachusetts. The website should be update with complete details within the next day or so. I'll make an announcement when it does. Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org

On Sun, 13 May 2001, Eric Chomko wrote: Surely she must have passed through the 'why because?' stage then. - don

The 'actual' Mon Lisa is rare because there is only one of them. Images of the painting are not rare and these reproductions, regardless of how well done, lack all the various things that make it a DaVinci, such as the way he did the brushstrokes. In much the same way a reproduction of a computer system will fall short of the original since there are likely miniscule things that were left out that were in the original. Sometimes though it is these minor things that mean the difference. If one wants to look at the Mona Lisa as a whole, any image or reproduction of it will suffice. If one wants to actually study how DaVinci painted and what made his style unique then you must seek out an original. In the end, it all boils down to what level one looks at and appreciates the item as to how important the vintage or original is. For most people, a copy is all well and good but there are those whose appreciation goes deepter, for reasons no less valid. One could likely replicate early designs of Steve Wozniak without too much trouble but would that same replica convey his sense of style in the board layout, unless it was just an outright copy? Jeff -- Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems: Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

The nearly intangible stuff that gives something it's character. I have a 200 year old grandfather clock and while you can certainly buy a new one whose parts are more consistent and fit together better, they certainly won't have the character of this one with all it's handmade parts. Jeff -- Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems: Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

Jeff Hellige skrev: You're wrong, there are actually millions of Mona Lisas. Assuming they copied the board layout, there would be no difference. Besides, I don't believe that you'd really need the actual painting in order to discern his technique. I don't even believe that his greatness lay in his brush technique, but rather in his choice of motives and composition. And as for computers, which are mass produced, there is even less of such technique to discern. Once a board is exposed, you may just as well do another hundred. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Eric Chomko skrev: >> Eric Chomko skrev: >> >> >> >> >> Sellam Ismail skrev: >> >> >> >> >On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Da Vinci's greatness as an artist stemmed IOW from his ability to >> >> >> produce great works of art. A work of art is a work of art even if >> >> >> mass-produced, the last century has taught us as much. >> >> >> >> >Abstractly, yes. The original is a tangible product of the man, hence >> >> >it's value relative to copies. >> >> >> >> Are copies less tangible? >> >> >No, more tangible, and that is the point! When speaking of rarity and >> >value one deals with supply and demand. The demand for copies of originals >> >can always met, therefore the price is low. The demand for a unique item >> >will drive the price of the item up as long as more than one person wants >> >it. >> >> My point is that Mona Lisa isn't rare since there are reproductions. Anyone >> who'd pay millions more for the "original" is an utter fool. Yes, he is. I really doubt I would, but of course I understand that rare items cost more, it's some capitalist principle. OTOH, if there were a replica available at a lesser price, I would buy that one. Well, at least then it doesn't end up in Bill Gates' home, but they could just as well settle for a replica IMO. Many museums do, in fact. Agreed. A computer replica is equal to the original, a replica of a painting is equal to the original. If that were all we used computers for, we would all just run what's cheap and fast, going by Sellam's argument. But then all computers (except for IBM PC clones) have something which is unique, something which made them sell in the first place. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. - Margo! Vad har h?nt. Du ser ju alldeles f?rst?rd ut. - Dom d?dade mig n?stan f?r att jag misslyckades. - Vilka ?r dom egentligen? - Jag vet inte vad dom heter. Men mannen som jagar dig heter Flinch, och han ?r en sadist. ... - Gud vad jag ?r avundsjuk. Varf?r f?r jag aldrig se n?t s?dant. Lupin III den otrolige (Lupin III vs. fukusei ningen), TMS 1978

Eric Chomko skrev: >> Eric Chomko skrev: >> >> >> >> >> Eric Chomko skrev: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sellam Ismail skrev: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Da Vinci's greatness as an artist stemmed IOW from his ability to >> >> >> >> produce great works of art. A work of art is a work of art even if >> >> >> >> mass-produced, the last century has taught us as much. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Abstractly, yes. The original is a tangible product of the man, >> >> >> >hence it's value relative to copies. >> >> >> >> >> >> Are copies less tangible? >> >> >> >> >No, more tangible, and that is the point! When speaking of rarity and >> >> >value one deals with supply and demand. The demand for copies of >> >> >originals can always met, therefore the price is low. The demand for a >> >> >unique item will drive the price of the item up as long as more than >> >> >one person wants it. >> >> >> >> My point is that Mona Lisa isn't rare since there are reproductions. >> >> Anyone who'd pay millions more for the "original" is an utter fool. >> >> >There are many fools based upon your assessment. Did you know that Gates >> >purchased >> >a painting for $30million a few years ago? Is he an utter fool? This is >> >not directly related to the arguement but is quite on-topic for the group >> >and this particular thread. >> >> Yes, he is. >> >> >Okay, two points... >> >> >Gates is worth what, $50billion? Half that? Maybe more or less? Let's use >> >$30billion to >> >make a point. Ratio $30million to $30billion is 1 to 1000. If someone has >> >a net worth of >> >$300K, then the 1 to 1000 ratio puts their expeniture at $300. Would you >> >spend >> >$300 >> >for a "rare" computer (forget panitings for the moment)? Do you see the >> >point? To Gates spending $30million is not unlike a $300 lay out for us >> >poor slobs. Its obscene I know, but it is what it is. The worst part is >> >that I'd be hard pressed to show I got $300K in personal wealth. :( >> >> I really doubt I would, but of course I understand that rare items cost >> more, it's some capitalist principle. OTOH, if there were a replica >> available at a lesser price, I would buy that one. Haven't I stated time and again that there is no difference? The question is why anyone would even bother to state whether it is original or not. I agree, one should be honest. But then again, they usually wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Granted. I think so, too. What meaning? -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. optimus@dec:foo$ %blow bash: fg: %blow: no such job

BIG snip! Breaking into hubbub for a moment... Please, have a care to trim your replies before editing this got very long to scroll and mind those who pay per minute modem users. Back to your regular emails. Cheers, Wizard

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 616 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010513/96ce987b/at…

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 1059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010514/9e92582d/at…

Sellam Ismail skrev: But they're really just old utensils. Da Vinci's sweat and saliva most likely was no more brilliant than that of any other renaissance Italaian. And I'll argue that the reproduction is equal in every sense. Why would the copy be less tangible to anyone else than the original? Da Vinci painted the original Mona Lisa. Since then, innumerable reproductions have been made, but they're all Mona Lisas. Why? Does historical context lie in the dust and grease? Tacitus is no less Tacitus whether printed in the 90s AD, the 1920s or last year. It still remains his work. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time..." Bill Gates 1988

On Sun, 13 May 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote: Nah... there are no weird people on this list. Right? Some weird people may think us weird, and some of us in moments of disagreement may think one another weird, but we all know that, as Alice discovered, all is not always as it appears. Slightly eccentric perhaps, not sane by the standards set by the common loonies of the world, and perhaps a little mad. However, we're not weird. :-) ...mightn't a computer virus have, possibly, placed subliminal messages on his screen causing that? [...] While we're on this topic, are the souls of clones new or could some of them have been reincarnated? [...] That must have been a wonderful experience! Yes... and somehow I think there's more to it that science can explain... as Iggy's often mentioning the metaphysical, perhaps this example will make more sense to him. -- Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

Sellam Ismail skrev: Don't put this up in the emotion register, this belongs in the sentimentality register. I can't see Da Vinci's fingerprints, you can't see Da Vinci's fingerprints, Da Vinci's fingerprint were not even interesting. He was a renaissance man, but though he did master many trades, making beautiful fingerprints surealy wasn't amongst those. In that case, I'll say we ditch the copy, of course. But since we have the copy, we have our very own Mona Lisas, and THE Mona Lisa is no more unique. IOW MISB machines are useless. In that case, I've got machines teeming with "history" for you. I'll just keep the nice ones. =) And then I would argue that he wouldn't be Iggy at all. If you could copy my mind as well as my body, I would argue that I now had a twin. Yes, it would. Could be used as a pickup line - "Would you like to come home with me to see my collection of 90AD scrolls? I've even got a Tacitus..." We had such books at our school library as well. It was interesting, quaint, but then I got the same sensation when we actually studied texts which had been used throughout centuries in Latin class. Yes, but I think that it lies in the subject matter. IOW, a reprint of the same text or a copy of the same board has the same effect. One can still say that the board was designed in 1978. C64 were produced for 10 years, yet a 1992 model is equally classic, since they didn't touch the design. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. If you consistently take an antagonistic approach, however, people are going to start thinking you're from New York. :-) --Larry Wall to Dan Bernstein in <10187(a)jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>

Sellam Ismail skrev: I'd call it a tainted emotion. No. =) A bad copy is bad. Now we're making progress. Just like every copy is unique. We're all unique, but then uniqueness is not a particularly unique trait. =) But not even a good replica! He'd just be a lump of flesh which looked like me, just like a cardboard mockup of your favourite computer. Not really, that is a fully-fledged clone, like the one below. Oh, you cut that one out... No need to be so tactile. Why? A commy is a commy is a commy. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. [E]xcept in the works of Gunnar Asplund, architect of the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 and the Stockholm crematorium, Sweden has never contributed much to the revolutionary developments through which modern architecture made its initial impact on the world. J.M. Richards, Modern Architecture

I also have had a book experience that relates to this thread. I recently toured the History of Science Collection at the Univ. of OK, and I saw some very cool books there. The highlight of the tour was, when in the vault where the older stuff was kept, I was shown an early printing of Galileo's book. To my surprise, the curator opened the book, and on the first page was the writer's signature! Though that thorougly amazed me, it got even better. The book before me was Galileo's *personal* copy, complete with notes in the margins written by Galileo's hand. If you tell me that that the awe I felt was unfounded, then you must have some screws loose. Honestly, Iggy, it seems like you like to create conflict for the sheer fun of it. -- Jeffrey S. Sharp jss(a)ou.edu

I take generic cold tablets, loath generic root beer, and have a sealed original Apple item, that in used but good condition I have sold to members of this list for $12, on auction with a current bid of about $600 with 3 days left. If its something you want to use, get one that works well, or even works the best, generic is fine. In matters of taste, go for the real thing, Barq's or A&W. Collectibility has its own rules, but sealed original mint etc. mean money. The only thing better is history, which is sort of the partner to uniqueness. The problem I think we are having is the intersection of collectible items that some of us wish to use, and where the cost of the replica is close to the cost of an original. A classic example of this that we can look back on instead of speculation on the future are the Gordon Gow editions of the classic Macintosh MC275 tube amplifier. At a time when the original MC275 amps were selling in very good condition for about $1500, MacIntosh released the Gordon Gow remake at $5000, with the street price dropping to about $3200 after a year or so. The re-release killed the collectible value of the originals, as the average person was a USER not a COLLECTOR, and greatly prefered the new more reliable etc. unit.

On Fri, 11 May 2001, Vance Dereksen wrote: And nitpicking erroneously. Apple, in their infinite wisdom, seems to think that it should be spelled "Macintosh". - don

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 2549 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010509/3783ff81/at…

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 7359 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010510/02330c31/at…

On 11 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote: I think you are referring to the Mark-8 kit being sold on eBay here, not the IMSAI-2. ALso, the kit is being sold with just the boards, and the buyer needs to find the properly date-stamped chips to build it. No, you're collecting something historic, which is what we as collectors have deemed computers from that era. Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org

At 07:01 PM 5/11/01 +0100, Tony Duell wrote: One of my favorites from my teen years. They're not uncommon over here in the States. They were reprinted for years beyond the original, and there are several editions. I've seen first editions as well as old reprints at used book stores. I'll hand down a set to my boys. - John

Snip That and most of C= computers used aucient design on chipsets by MOS company did ran very hot and they are very easy to damage and doesn't age too well with time. At that period, C= should had went on to CMOS technologies and made their circuit boards bit more hardy to rough world but they didn't innovate often enough besides great Amigas and C64's. Everybody else went on to CMOS stuff already long before 90's. The worry is that chipset patents on that Amiga it's not yet released or transferred to suitable user besides Gateway's. Cheers, Wizard

I did a little research and this is the latest item I could come up with: http://www.newsbytes.com/news/98/112009.html Looks like the company was sold off piecemeal. Micropolis was bought by Singapore Technologies (still in business) in 1996, and then ST filed bankruptcy in late 1997. Micropolis was one of the casualties. --Mike Michael Nadeau Editorial Services 603-893-2379 ----- Original Message ----- From: <jpero(a)sympatico.ca> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 4:11 PM Subject: Micropolis corporation aftermath.

All the information you need is on the web site. The price is a ripoff if you don't want what they're selling. It's certainly not an investment. Read the web site details regarding their "series-2" product. There is essentially no compatibility with the old "real" S-100 at all, by design, as they use a regulated power supply rather than the S-100 standard on-board regulation. I've yet to hear from anyone to whom one has been delivered. I'd look long and hard for someone who's bought one and actually had it delivered, then ask the relevant questions of them. I personally wouldn't want one. After all, it's not a classic. When I read that they're using a regulated supply and so on ... I simply decided I didn't want or need one. I still have S-100 hardware from back in the '80's that has yet to be powered up. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lanny Cox" <chronic(a)nf.sympatico.ca> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 12:57 PM Subject: Re: Serious Request For Moderation (On Topic) and IMSAIs........