... entirely ... version: architecturally ... architecture ... Conversely, ... do qualify ... For whatever reason, THIS topic has to keep coming up. ModernMessage 1 of 59 , Dec 5 3:13 PMView Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Evan" <evan947@y...> wrote:
> Other people (including me) prefer ditching the age-based criteriaentirely
> and switching to a semantic definition. Myversion: "architecturally
> obsolete." So things that are very old but have the same basicarchitecture
> as modern versions (for example: early x86) do not qualify.Conversely,
> things that are relatively young but are architecturally obsoletedo qualify
> (for example: Newton.)For whatever reason, THIS topic has to keep coming up. Modern PC's
resemble early ones in the same way that a Palm Tungsten T resembles
a Newton (the Newton had an ARM 610 processor, modern Palms and IPaqs
use latter day ARMS or StrongARM chips). If you're going to try to
exclude pre-1985 PC's, and I'm convinced you're going to keep on
trying, you're going to have to do it on something other then an
emotional basis. The technical one just isn't there. And keep in
mind, the PowerPC chips of today are an outgrowth of the original
68000, used in the Lisa, early Macs, Atari ST's, Amigas, AT & T UNIX
PC (68010), Sinclair QL, Canon Cat, Dimension 68000, etc. Are those
machines going to be disqualified also? And I'd really like to see
someone disqualify a Seattle Gazelle or a Mindset.
I agree that I hardly ever agree with anyone s opinion on this subject. Sorry I can t make it this weekend. Bill D.Message 59 of 59 , Dec 9 5:31 AMView SourceI agree that I hardly ever agree with anyone's opinion on this subject.
Sorry I can't make it this weekend.
At 01:16 PM 12/9/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>I'd like to debate how many angels dance on the head of a pin. I say 10.
>I mean no disrespect to anyone in MARCH, or your opinions which are valid
>everyone but Evan's) **just kidding** ;).
>But everyone seems to begin by agreeing that "Vintage" can't be defined,
>and then proceed
>to try to define it. It just reminds me of the Monty Python skit where the
>guy goes in to the
>business that is selling arguments.
>None of us are going to give our opinion, and afterwords the rest will say
>- "Aha! You are
>right, THAT is what vintage is!" It all just hovers too close to being an
>argument, instead of
>love you all,
>--- In email@example.com, "Evan" <evan947@y...> wrote:
> > Your collection of "incompatibles", as I understand it, focuses on 8088,
> > 8086, maybe some 80286 ... when I write about how "PCs" aren't part of our
> > mission, I'm * not * talking about pre-286 ... I'm just talking about
> > run-of-the-mill beige-box PCs. Maybe the real thread should be "what's a
> > PC?" :)
> > >>> bogus newsletter
> > Bogus? Feel free to elaborate because I don't know what you are talking
> > about.
> > >>> who made... YOU an authority???
> > Hey, I'm just trying to lead a club here. We're not censoring what people
> > collect in their own time. Just saying that modern-era stuff (for example,
> > anything that runs Windows 3.x or newer) is (quite bluntly) uninteresting,
> > unrelated, and unwelcome.
> > _____
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Chris M
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 8:42 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: RE: [midatlanticretro] The 'what's vintage' thread
> > --- Evan <evan947@y...> wrote:
> > > >>>> Heretofore I've seen no good reasons except
> > > that PC's along the years
> > > have
> > > become a commodity, sit on top of a desk LOL, all
> > > run Windoze software, etc.
> > >
> > > Yup. And that they're just too freaking new and
> > > boring. Anyone can collect
> > > whatever they darn well please, but that doesn't
> > > make the collections
> > > appropriate for MARCH.
> > Lovely language. PC's are as old as C64's, many
> > Ataris, etc. Now we're back to age based criteria???
> > What's the criteria for boring??? High-res graphics? A
> > plethora of software in general, and languages to
> > program in specifically? And who made MARCH, rather
> > YOU an authority??? Just because you started a club,
> > or put out this bogus newsletter lol, does not make
> > you an authority on anything. And it amazes me how
> > people think an item becomes INTERESTING simply when
> > you attach a handle to it - like the 5155 that was
> > appropriated for the museum the last time I checked.
> > > >>>> or is it a reflection of the opinion of others?
> > >
> > > That's just insulting.
> > You never gave ANY acceptable reasons, tried to drum
> > up new schemes for validating elements of your
> > collection, while invalidating others. And you were
> > never even consistent. You even went as far as to tell
> > me you WANTED me to have an exhibit of
> > IBM-incompatibles. And you have to come back with the
> > post on Monday. What's someone to conclude? You've
> > been working real hard to weed out PC's and such.
> > What's the reason? Don't come back with too new or
> > boring either. They *were* business machines largely
> > aimed at a business environment. If we're going to
> > apply that criteria, many other things would also fall
> > by the wayside.
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Vintage
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Vintage+computer&w1=Vintage
> > fWZWnP-61n_BTQ> computer Computer
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+security&w1=Vintage
> > Yj4oAGQSA29LvCw> security Computer
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+training&w1=Vintage
> > ZIYQJD2FP1DwFdw> training
> > Field
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Field+trip&w1=Vintage
> > SwdHWZfg> trip
> > _____
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > * Visit your group "midatlanticretro
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/midatlanticretro> " on the web.
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > email@example.com
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > _____
>Yahoo! Groups Links