[posted to the list as followup to the original] Please stop trying to bully people around on the list, Sam. It's been going fine since the last flamefest without any jostling for position and authority, and this is the way it ought to continue (IMHO). While a message like this does not fit into the classiccmp charter, Tim Hotze has been a long standing member here and doesn't seem to be attempting to divert the charter to classic computers _and_ Star Trek by posting an off topic question every now and then. This is just _not_ worth making a stink over. For the last few days you've been acting like you run the show again. Please stop. Please treat the list members like the adults they are, especially long standing members like Tim. Even Enrico, who I admit has annoyed me as well, deserves better treatment. You have the option to delete and filter... use it (see man procmail). --jmg [snip]

Sam Ismail: The episodes in question were over 10 years old, and it was a computer related question. So in very loose interpretation of the rules, I would let it slide by. But even taking a rather strict interpretation, would discussions about fictional computers (over 10 years) be allowed? Or is this list solely about collecting old computers? If it is, then I say throw out Toney Duell, since almost half his posts are about electronics and peripherals than COMPUTERS (to pick a silly example). Kick him off I say! Kick him off! Also, in my experience, most everthing in this industry is pretty much 10 years old or older. Virtual memory? Intelligent I/O? Plug and Play? Hot swappable components? The next Microsoft innovation? So far, everything on that list has been done by the early 70s, and frankly, there isn't much being developed today that hasn't been done before in one way or another. J. Maynard Gelinas: Sam Ismail: What exactly IS the topic of this list? I'm sure that if I were to start talking about software (older than 10 years of course) you might get on my case about it being off topic. Maybe it'd be best for you to post what topics you consider ON-TOPIC. J. Maynard Gelinas: Sam Ismail: And he comes across as being more polite than you. He did mark the message as potentially being off topic (check the subject line). But your comment is totally out of line. Until told otherwise, I had no idea that Tim was 12. How can you be sure that I'm not 13 myself? Just because I may be younger than 18 means I don't get treated as an adult? Must the people here who want to be treated as adults need to present a valid driver's licence or other form valid ID? And how is Tim supposed to learn when the adults around him are discouraging. Geeze, given some of the adults around here, let more kids on; they seem more reasonable. But that "intended bounds" is rather open ended I'm afraid. For instance, while the Newton isn't (according to the definition used on this list) a Classic Computer, a device *like it* was used (may have been used) on the original Star Trek series. Every so often, a petty officer would hand Kirk a slate and pen like object and he would sign off on something, but you never saw paper on it. Did the producers of the show conceive of the Newton 30 years ago? Who knows? They saw the actions on a regular military style ship and may have "futuristically" made improvements to certain everyday tasks (yes, the computers in the original series looked alot like contemporary computers, but they understood voice commands, something IBM is currently investing a lot of money into right now) (also, the original Star Trek bridge layout was studied by the Navy oddly enough. But enough of Trek Trivia). And even the Newton isn't new, as the idea is definitely tracable back to the late 60s/early 70s with Alan Kay and his Dynabook; a classical computer, even if a fictional one. -spc (Would like to see Sam control the topics on alt.folklore.computers, where topic drift is a way of life 8-)

Sam, Did you bother to read the entire question? Just because he was explaining why he was curious doesn't mean this is an invalid question! Thanks to you we've got a LOT of messages that have nothing to do with the actual question. Tim, Yes, unfortunatly there has been very little information on this. This is old enough that it probably actually fits under the classic computer head. I've run across this twice, once was in a magazine somewhere between 1987-90, and I think it was Byte (I'm afraid I only remember where I was when I read the article, not when). There has apparently been considerable work on Holographic Memories, and at the time I gathered they were about the size of a sugar cube. I remember it said something about a cube that size being able to hold the equivalent of a CD or more. IIRC it was at least semi nonvolitale, and rewritable. They also had a prototype Optical computer that was the size of a desk, and the speed of an IBM XT. This was when a 386 was HOT stuff. I also heard something about this in the last year or two, but I'm afraid I can't remember anything about it. It shows, and I'm sure it doesn't surprise anyone here. You seem to thrive on causing strife. Zane | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator | | healyzh(a)ix.netcom.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast | | healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector | +----------------------------------+----------------------------+ | For Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, | | see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ | | For the collecting of Classic Computers with info on them. | | see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/museum.html |