Latest addition: A bondi-blue iMac

[js at cimmeri.com]

On 7/1/2016 11:48 AM, Ian Finder wrote:
> The original iMac is old enough to vote... And besides, I don't think
> drawing a chronological line in the sand is necessarily sensible.
>
> Just don't violate the spirit of classic computing? (A G5 tower that you
> run Linux on is not classic computing, for instance)
>
> Likewise there are Packard Bell X86 older than that iMac, that would
> qualify by most age limits I'd expect to be imposed, but that I'd cringe at
> seeing discussed here.
>
> If you post your Mattel HotWheels PC here, it might be worth getting
> irritated. But there is no upgrade path from classic MacOS, and it's not
> X86, so I'd say it has far more of a place here than the constant 30+
> message modern-OS RANT threads I'm constantly subjected to on here.
>
> - Ian

Computers don't (yet) have voting 
rights. :-)

But you're defining "spirit" and listing 
criteria by which a machine is 
appropriate or not.   A PS/2 with an 
80386 running Windows 3.1 is acceptable, 
whereas a Packard Bell with an 80386 
running Windows 3.1 is not.    Yeah, you 
and I would cringe at a PB being 
discussed, but maybe there's someone out 
there who really is fond of their PB.

So as Terry ("Tezza") acknowledges, 
terms like "landmark," "classic," 
"collectible" are subjective (but I 
don't think "vintage" is subjective -- 
that term is usually set by age alone).

This is why it's just easier to use a 
single criteria -- age -- and leave it 
at that.   Why is age acceptable 
everywhere else in collecting, but not 
here?     Otherwise, someone (the list 
owner?) has to pontificate over a list 
of acceptable computers.  Good luck with 
that.

- J.