172Re: [midatlanticretro] The boundary between vintage and modern Micros
- Mar 24, 2005Hi,
I also see that the era's can overlap, but some can have a significant overlap it can become futile. Which is why I often tend to leave it be. And just focus on the technological achievements(I'm an engineer not a salesman). Some models were so popular, it was presumed to be first. I wouldn't defer to marketing hype to define the era's. For example, the little known Compucolor 1(1975) was one of the first integrated systems.
And some classifications here have a significant starting point. A significant starting point for the GUI era which doesn't have any gray area is the Apple Lisa(1983). Although this was a marketing flop, but a generation ahead of Windows, it shouldn't be minimized as a trivial accomplishment.
Also, something that is 5yrs old can be considered obsolete given the huge software titles. But I wouldn't call it vintage. I feel something to be considered vintage would be something which has been cast into the obsolescence pasture due to technological advancement. For example, the Apple Mac's which used the 68000 Processor was outmoded by the PowerPC powered Mac's.
[ My Corner of Cyberspace ]
[ http://ragooman.home.comcast.net/ ]
[ Pittsburgh Robotics Society Got Robot ? ]
[ http://pghrobot.home.comcast.net/ ]
> I do not subscribe to the idea that a fluid time bracket definition
> for "vintage" MICROcomputers is valid. Here is my breakdown using
> fixed time frames:
> 1974-1976 early processor era (Scelbi, IBM 5100, Altair, etc.)
> 1977-1986 home / business era (TRS-80, Apple II, Commodore Pet, ...)
> 1987-1993 GUI era (Amiga/ Mac/ IBM)
> 1994-2005 Internet era
> 2006- ?? Wireless era
> I accept that eras overlap, but "in general" the era represents the
> predominant use at the time.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 3/21/2005
- << Previous post in topic