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

The boundary between vintage and modern Micros

Expand Messages
  • billdeg
    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:
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
    • BOYD BORRILL
      Bill; I like it, I wish I had thought of it! Ray billdeg wrote: I do not subscribe to the idea that a fluid time bracket definition for
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 24, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill;
             I like it,  I wish I  had thought of it!
        Ray

        billdeg <billdeg@...> wrote:

        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.












        Pioneer Purveyor of Personal Processing Power
      • evan
        Bill, I m confused, are you replying to someone or just putting forth a random thought? LOL, I agree that time-based definitions of what s vintage and what s
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 24, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill, I'm confused, are you replying to someone or just putting forth a random
          thought?

          LOL, I agree that time-based definitions of what's vintage and what's not are
          bogus. We've all had the "Yet Another Ten-Year Rule" debate, especially in the
          classiccmp.org lists. My own belief is that vintage is defined very simply: if
          it's 1.) obsolete (can't effectively run current-gen tasks) and 2.) unique (at
          least when it debuted). I think this simple two-part test applies very nicely
          to most items I can think of.

          --- billdeg <billdeg@...> wrote:
          >
          > 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.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >

          Evan's personal homepage: www.snarc.net

          *** Tell your friends about the (free!) Computer Collector Newsletter
          - 700 readers and no spam / Publishes every Monday / Write for us!
          - Mainframes to videogames, hardware and software, we cover it all
          - W: http://news.computercollector.com E: news@...
        • billdeg@aol.com
          Yah...I was just lobbing a softball. bd In a message dated 3/24/2005 12:02:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... in ... (
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 24, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Yah...I was just lobbing a softball.
            bd

            In a message dated 3/24/2005 12:02:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
            evan947@... writes:

            > Bill, I'm confused, are you replying to someone or just putting forth a
            > random
            > thought?
            >
            > LOL, I agree that time-based definitions of what's vintage and what's not
            > are
            > bogus. We've all had the "Yet Another Ten-Year Rule" debate, especially
            in
            > the
            > classiccmp.org lists. My own belief is that vintage is defined very
            simply:
            > if
            > it's 1.) obsolete (can't effectively run current-gen tasks) and 2.) unique
            (
            > at
            > least when it debuted). I think this simple two-part test applies very
            > nicely
            > to most items I can think of.
          • Bill Sudbrink
            Here s what I would add, based on what interests me about classic computers... ... Complete systems can be understood on the hardware level from the
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 24, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Here's what I would add, based on what interests me about "classic"
              computers...

              > 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.)

              Complete systems can be understood on the hardware level from the
              schematics by a single person. System problems can be diagnosed
              with a volt-ohm meter and an o-scope. Repair via replacement of
              individual components possible, sometimes requiring soldering skills.

              > 1977-1986 home / business era (TRS-80, Apple II, Commodore Pet, ...)

              The above mentioned points are still possible in this era...

              > 1987-1993 GUI era (Amiga/ Mac/ IBM)

              Understandability and repairability begins to decrease rapidly.

              > 1994-2005 Internet era

              Understandability and repairability on the level of individual
              components is eliminated. Some larger level components (graphics
              cards, ethernet adapters, etc.) still replaceable, but failed
              elements are discarded.

              > 2006- ?? Wireless era

              Entire machines are discarded due to failures of integrated
              and unrepairable components.
            • billdeg@aol.com
              Bill, I agree.
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 24, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill,
                I agree.

                > Here's what I would add, based on what interests me about "classic"
                > computers...
              • Dan
                Hi, 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
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 24, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi,

                  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 2cents,
                  Dan

                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  [ My Corner of Cyberspace ]
                  [ http://ragooman.home.comcast.net/ ]
                  [ ]
                  [ Pittsburgh Robotics Society Got Robot ? ]
                  [ http://pghrobot.home.comcast.net/ ]
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


                  billdeg wrote:

                  >
                  > 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
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.