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

RE: [midatlanticretro] New Member - classic vs. vintage

Expand Messages
  • Jim Scheef
    Evan, Car collectors have had this nailed down for years. Pre-WWII cars that were unique and special when they were new are Classic . Any Bugatti or
    Message 1 of 5 , May 19, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Evan,

      Car collectors have had this nailed down for years. Pre-WWII cars that were
      unique and 'special' when they were new are "Classic". Any Bugatti or
      Duesenberg is a Classic, but a Ford from the same era is Vintage - and
      collectable. Yet somehow a Ford is more collectable than a Chevrolet - go
      figure. However, a 1952 Rolls Royce is not a "Classic" even though it was
      unique when new and is rare today.

      Given enough time, even the generic IBM PC will be rare, but a Zenith Z-100
      or a Xerox 8/16 is rare now and has features that make it different from the
      'norm'. Many of the non-compatible PCs of the early 80's were arguably
      superior to the IBM (inferior but marketable) PC in many areas which is what
      makes them unique today.

      An IBM PC/370 (a PC that runs VM/CMS) looks like any other PC but is
      certainly much rarer than the Zenith or Xerox. Somewhere there is a
      distinction between classic and vintage for computers but I don't know how to
      cut it. You are right when you say it is not just age. For PCs maybe it has
      something to do with when when PCs became a commodity - the age of the
      clones. When that happened manufacturers like Zenith, Xerox and others could
      no longer produce a box with meaningful differences. Was a Compaq better than
      an IBM? Looking back, how could you tell?

      Another factor is market success. In computer collecting I'm not sure if
      market success is a plus or a negative. I think we all agree that Commadore
      computers fit into our "vintage" designation, but the 64 and 128 were far
      from rare or unique when they were new. So are all non-PC home computers
      "classic" or "vintage"?

      Last, does current value enter into this at all?

      Jim

      --- Evan <evan947@...> wrote:
      > Jeff,
      >
      > Thanks for joining MARCH.
      >
      > There certainly is not a black-and-white line. There used to be what
      > people
      > called "The 10-Year Rule" but today that included the WWW and Windows 95,
      > and those definitely aren't vintage! So rather than extending it just for
      > the purpose of excluding specific things, I think most people just say "I
      > know vintage when I see it." Personally, vintage to me has two parts:
      > something that was unique when it was new, yet is considered obsolete
      > today.
      > So in 20 years from now, a typical beige PC wouldn't be vintage, because it
      > was not unique when new. An iMac would be, because it would've been unique
      > when new. See?
      >
      > Where in the mid-Atlantic region do you live?
      >
      > - Evan Koblentz, moderator
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of relayer
      > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:00 PM
      > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [midatlanticretro] New Member
      >
      >
      > I'm into classic computing, video games, and computing devices. I'm
      > curious as to what the membership considers "too new" to be classic.
      >
      > Out of my collection, I would consider my MAC Classic (the
      > reproduction of the first MAC) and/or the SGI Indigo 2 to be right on
      > the edge of being new or classic. My oldest ones would be the TRS-80
      > Model 4 and my Ohio Scientific. I keep a standard collection of other
      > computers in between those dates.
      >
      > Jeff
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/midatlanticretro/
      >
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > midatlanticretro-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:midatlanticretro-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
      >
      >
      >
    • Chris M
      I don t know. Anything 20 years old or more is retro/classic/vintage in my book, with regards to puters. Strictly speaking, retro implies a reproduction of
      Message 2 of 5 , May 19, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't know. Anything 20 years old or more is retro/classic/vintage in my book, with regards to puters. Strictly speaking, retro implies a reproduction of something, not the originals. But we've seen the word used differently - like the retro 80's hour on a radio station. And they are playing the original cuts, not cover versions or whatever. It all depends on who you're talking to I guess...
         In the process of starting "a collection", which is really just an accumulation ;), I became turned off by units that weren't readily repairable - use of custom ic's. Most of the say pre-1986 pc's are emminently repairable - there's tons and tons of old boards wherever you look. A few of the early '286's fall into this category also, but generally that's where my collecting stops. Yet, and this is where even collecting "old junk" proves to be a worthwhile (i.e. educational) persuit, I'm looking into ways of extending those things for which parts are not easily found. I'm a far way off, but I'd like to look into ways of implementing some ic's with discrete logic. I think it would be even fun to build the equivalent of an 8086 using only transistors. It would only take 29,000 of them! Anyone interested in building a replica Univac? I know a dude who has like 1,000 tubes in his basement. It's a start...

        Jim Scheef <jscheef@...> wrote:
        Evan,

        Car collectors have had this nailed down for years. Pre-WWII cars that were
        unique and 'special' when they were new are "Classic". Any Bugatti or
        Duesenberg is a Classic, but a Ford from the same era is Vintage - and
        collectable. Yet somehow a Ford is more collectable than a Chevrolet - go
        figure. However, a 1952 Rolls Royce is not a "Classic" even though it was
        unique when new and is rare today.

        Given enough time, even the generic IBM PC will be rare, but a Zenith Z-100
        or a Xerox 8/16 is rare now and has features that make it different from the
        'norm'. Many of the non-compatible PCs of the early 80's were arguably
        superior to the IBM (inferior but marketable) PC in many areas which is what
        makes them unique today.

        An IBM PC/370 (a PC that runs VM/CMS) looks like any other PC but is
        certainly much rarer than the Zenith or Xerox. Somewhere there is a
        distinction between classic and vintage for computers but I don't know how to
        cut it. You are right when you say it is not just age. For PCs maybe it has
        something to do with when when PCs became a commodity - the age of the
        clones. When that happened manufacturers like Zenith, Xerox and others could
        no longer produce a box with meaningful differences. Was a Compaq better than
        an IBM? Looking back, how could you tell?

        Another factor is market success. In computer collecting I'm not sure if
        market success is a plus or a negative. I think we all agree that Commadore
        computers fit into our "vintage" designation, but the 64 and 128 were far
        from rare or unique when they were new. So are all non-PC home computers
        "classic" or "vintage"?

        Last, does current value enter into this at all?

        Jim

        --- Evan <evan947@...> wrote:
        > Jeff,

        > Thanks for joining MARCH.

        > There certainly is not a black-and-white line.  There used to be what
        > people
        > called "The 10-Year Rule" but today that included the WWW and Windows 95,
        > and those definitely aren't vintage!  So rather than extending it just for
        > the purpose of excluding specific things, I think most people just say "I
        > know vintage when I see it."  Personally, vintage to me has two parts:
        > something that was unique when it was new, yet is considered obsolete
        > today.
        > So in 20 years from now, a typical beige PC wouldn't be vintage, because it
        > was not unique when new.  An iMac would be, because it would've been unique
        > when new.  See?

        > Where in the mid-Atlantic region do you live?

        >  - Evan Koblentz, moderator
        >
        >   _____ 
        >
        > From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of relayer
        > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:00 PM
        > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [midatlanticretro] New Member
        >
        >
        > I'm into classic computing, video games, and computing devices. I'm
        > curious as to what the membership considers "too new" to be classic.
        >
        > Out of my collection, I would consider my MAC Classic (the
        > reproduction of the first MAC) and/or the SGI Indigo 2 to be right on
        > the edge of being new or classic. My oldest ones would be the TRS-80
        > Model 4 and my Ohio Scientific. I keep a standard collection of other
        > computers in between those dates.
        >
        > Jeff
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >   _____ 
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        > *      To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/midatlanticretro/
        >  
        >
        > *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > midatlanticretro-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:midatlanticretro-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        >  
        >
        > *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
        >
        >
        >


        Discover Yahoo!
        Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!

      • Evan
        This is endlessly debatable. Good points all around and lots of gray area in the middle. It s been a hot topic for years on classiccmp.org. I chose to let
        Message 3 of 5 , May 19, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          This is endlessly debatable.  Good points all around and lots of gray area in the middle.  It's been a hot topic for years on classiccmp.org.
           
          I chose to let people call our hobby whatever they like.   :)
           
          Per my earlier message, until someone comes up with a better name than MARCH, we're going to use "retro" officially (and infinite combinations of vintage, antique, classic, or just "old") colloquially, since the bottom line is that people still know what we mean.
           
          I remember taking a linguistics course in college.  The prof made a point about how linguistics is the study of what people say, not the study what they're supposed to say, and that it's therefore different from every other English class we'd ever had.  She told this little story: One day an old batty English teacher drove to the gas station and told the attendent to fill her tank.  The uneducated attendent said "we ain't got no gas today."  The question is, does she stay and wait for gas?  After all, "we ain't got no" technically means "we do not have none" and therefore "we do have gas." The answer is, of course not, she leaves, because she understands that in real life, the message is "we're out of gas."
           
          Same with retro.  As I said last time, Jim is 100% right, technically retro means "something designed to be like the original", which isn't what MARCH is about.  Don't worry though, if people give us a hard time about the name, there are three good replies I recommend: 1.) blame it on me; 2.) tell them to chill out; 3.) justify by explaining that "retro" applies to our memories and mind, not the actual things we collect.


          From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris M
          Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:05 AM
          To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [midatlanticretro] New Member - classic vs. vintage

          I don't know. Anything 20 years old or more is retro/classic/vintage in my book, with regards to puters. Strictly speaking, retro implies a reproduction of something, not the originals. But we've seen the word used differently - like the retro 80's hour on a radio station. And they are playing the original cuts, not cover versions or whatever. It all depends on who you're talking to I guess...
           In the process of starting "a collection", which is really just an accumulation ;), I became turned off by units that weren't readily repairable - use of custom ic's. Most of the say pre-1986 pc's are emminently repairable - there's tons and tons of old boards wherever you look. A few of the early '286's fall into this category also, but generally that's where my collecting stops. Yet, and this is where even collecting "old junk" proves to be a worthwhile (i.e. educational) persuit, I'm looking into ways of extending those things for which parts are not easily found. I'm a far way off, but I'd like to look into ways of implementing some ic's with discrete logic. I think it would be even fun to build the equivalent of an 8086 using only transistors. It would only take 29,000 of them! Anyone interested in building a replica Univac? I know a dude who has like 1,000 tubes in his basement. It's a start...

          Jim Scheef <jscheef@...> wrote:
          Evan,

          Car collectors have had this nailed down for years. Pre-WWII cars that were
          unique and 'special' when they were new are "Classic". Any Bugatti or
          Duesenberg is a Classic, but a Ford from the same era is Vintage - and
          collectable. Yet somehow a Ford is more collectable than a Chevrolet - go
          figure. However, a 1952 Rolls Royce is not a "Classic" even though it was
          unique when new and is rare today.

          Given enough time, even the generic IBM PC will be rare, but a Zenith Z-100
          or a Xerox 8/16 is rare now and has features that make it different from the
          'norm'. Many of the non-compatible PCs of the early 80's were arguably
          superior to the IBM (inferior but marketable) PC in many areas which is what
          makes them unique today.

          An IBM PC/370 (a PC that runs VM/CMS) looks like any other PC but is
          certainly much rarer than the Zenith or Xerox. Somewhere there is a
          distinction between classic and vintage for computers but I don't know how to
          cut it. You are right when you say it is not just age. For PCs maybe it has
          something to do with when when PCs became a commodity - the age of the
          clones. When that happened manufacturers like Zenith, Xerox and others could
          no longer produce a box with meaningful differences. Was a Compaq better than
          an IBM? Looking back, how could you tell?

          Another factor is market success. In computer collecting I'm not sure if
          market success is a plus or a negative. I think we all agree that Commadore
          computers fit into our "vintage" designation, but the 64 and 128 were far
          from rare or unique when they were new. So are all non-PC home computers
          "classic" or "vintage"?

          Last, does current value enter into this at all?

          Jim

          --- Evan <evan947@...> wrote:
          > Jeff,

          > Thanks for joining MARCH.

          > There certainly is not a black-and-white line.  There used to be what
          > people
          > called "The 10-Year Rule" but today that included the WWW and Windows 95,
          > and those definitely aren't vintage!  So rather than extending it just for
          > the purpose of excluding specific things, I think most people just say "I
          > know vintage when I see it."  Personally, vintage to me has two parts:
          > something that was unique when it was new, yet is considered obsolete
          > today.
          > So in 20 years from now, a typical beige PC wouldn't be vintage, because it
          > was not unique when new.  An iMac would be, because it would've been unique
          > when new.  See?

          > Where in the mid-Atlantic region do you live?

          >  - Evan Koblentz, moderator
          >
          >   _____ 
          >
          > From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of relayer
          > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:00 PM
          > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [midatlanticretro] New Member
          >
          >
          > I'm into classic computing, video games, and computing devices. I'm
          > curious as to what the membership considers "too new" to be classic.
          >
          > Out of my collection, I would consider my MAC Classic (the
          > reproduction of the first MAC) and/or the SGI Indigo 2 to be right on
          > the edge of being new or classic. My oldest ones would be the TRS-80
          > Model 4 and my Ohio Scientific. I keep a standard collection of other
          > computers in between those dates.
          >
          > Jeff
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >   _____ 
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          > *      To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/midatlanticretro/
          >  
          >
          > *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > midatlanticretro-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:midatlanticretro-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
          >  
          >
          > *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
          >
          >
          >


          Discover Yahoo!
          Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!

        • msimonsmail
          I think it would be even fun to build the equivalent of an 8086 using only transistors. It would only take 29,000 of them! Anyone interested in building a
          Message 4 of 5 , May 19, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            " I think it would be even fun to build the equivalent of an 8086
            using only transistors. It would only take 29,000 of them! Anyone
            interested in building a replica Univac? I know a dude who has like
            1,000 tubes in his basement. It's a start..."

            Yes, I thought about this a while back...

            that is, building a 'modern' processor out of transistors and misc
            components.

            I envision a big ball of transistors each soldered to each other as
            appropriate...

            --
            MS
          • Evan
            Very powerful computer made of entirely fragile electromechanical parts = the Hitchhikers Guide entry for Earth :) _____ From:
            Message 5 of 5 , May 19, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Very powerful computer made of entirely fragile electromechanical parts = the Hitchhikers Guide entry for "Earth"    :)


              From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of msimonsmail
              Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:28 PM
              To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [midatlanticretro] Sculptural Processor was Re: New Member - classic vs. vintage

              " I think it would be even fun to build the equivalent of an 8086
              using only transistors. It would only take 29,000 of them! Anyone
              interested in building a replica Univac? I know a dude who has like
              1,000 tubes in his basement. It's a start..."

              Yes, I thought about this a while back...

              that is, building a 'modern' processor out of transistors and misc
              components. 

              I envision a big ball of transistors each soldered to each other as
              appropriate...

              --
              MS


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