Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule. - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

23 Jan 1999

This is all well and good, but for the fact, it seems peculiar to refer to,
and deal with, as "classic", machines, the architecture of which is still
supported with currently available commercial, off-the shelf, software and
hardware products.  DIGITAL products aside, the original PC architecture is
still supported with software and hardware in the form of
playing-card-sized mocrocontrollers, etc. and the software to develop for
and test these devices is still available, thereby extending the life of
these old but still capable devices.

The term classic, seemingly a qualifier to this list, must refer to SOME
class.  Isn't it like the old ('50's) T-bird, vis-a-vie the Edsel?

Dick

----------
...
  From: Doug &lt;doug(a)blinkenlights.com&gt;
 To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
&lt;classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu&gt;
...
  Subject: Re: Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.
 Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 2:00 AM

 On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Buck Savage wrote:

  To do so would not be different from the same
activity as applied to
 antiques, numismatics, philately, etc.  It is exactly in this way that
 these, and other, standards of collectability (a measure of "value" not
 necessarily economically justifiable)  are derived, becoming manifest.   
 A "universal" rating/certification system, similar to the way coins are
 graded, would be ideal.  But I don't think you'll ever get this group to
 agree on anything -- just do it!  (And then sell a book.)

 Forget the word "classic".  A guide that gives production numbers,
 variations, years, criteria to judge condition, price, etc. would be cool
 -- I'd buy one, and I'd buy a new copy every year as you updated prices
 and other info.

 Start with Hans P's list of machines (and pay him royalties).

 -- Doug