Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16465Re: [midatlanticretro] historical? - Zenith minisPORT laptop

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schwier
    Mar 9, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been wondering if these two inch drives have any thing in common with the small
      floppies that Brother used even into the nineties in word processors and sewing machines.

      --- On Fri, 3/5/10, Bill Degnan <billdeg@...> wrote:

      From: Bill Degnan <billdeg@...>
      Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] historical? - Zenith minisPORT laptop
      To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 1:17 PM


      -------- Original Message --------
      > From: "Bryan Pope" <bryan.pope@comcast. net>
      > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:08 PM
      > To: midatlanticretro@ yahoogroups. com
      > Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] historical? - Zenith minisPORT laptop
      > On 3/5/2010 12:43 PM, Evan Koblentz wrote:
      > > Just because something is a mutant doesn't make it historic. If some
      > > kid is born with 19 arms, that doesn't make him an important part of
      > > human evolutionary history.
      > >
      > > In a many centuries from now, Bill Degnan the 19th will post to a list
      > > and write, "But that kid was the only one with 19 arms! I don't know
      > > any others. I best blog about it...." :)
      > >
      > But in the VHS vs Beta war, wasn't Beta important? This laptop was
      > trying to go up against the 3 1/2" disk. Beta lost even though it has
      > better quality video. This lost even though it could hold more data.

      But that was not my point.

      I was saying, IF this system were historic, it's not because it's a mini
      laptop as Jim Sheef said. It's no smaller than others of it's day. The
      only thing that could possibly make this a minor footnote in history is the
      fact that it had the 2" drives.

      My original question, which I believe has been answered, is - Is that
      enough to be "historic" / "vintage". It's from 1989/90 so it's on the
      fence years-wise in our context.

      Side note - the 2" drive had more capacity than the 3.5 disk, despite what
      they say in Wikipedia. I tested the drive myself, it's 812K.


    • Show all 15 messages in this topic