New Definiton REQUIRED

From: HOTZE <photze_at_batelco.com.bh>
Date: Mon Nov 17 01:13:55 1997

Well, I started it.... I'm going to have to take all the blame....

William Donzelli wrote:

> OK, I am probably going to get yelled at...
>
> > Okay.... recently, there's been lots of "off-topic" stuff going on here
> > about computers... but I think that it's not "off-topic."
>
> In my opinion it is. There are lots of good, smart people on this list
> that can help everyone with modern(ish) equipment, but there are also lots
> of them on other lists and USENET.
>
> > if you remember, in the "welcome" message, it
> > said that it was hard to state the definiton of a classic... but 10
> > years or older would do.
>
> >The definition is no doubt flawed, but trying to fix it may prove to be
> >impossible. It is the classic cats vs. dogs argument - no one will win, or
> >have any real valid points to argue with. When does a machine become a
> >classic? Probably when a bunch of us computer geeks get together and ask
> >"Remember the Unitari PDQ-8/w? Now that was a good machine! They don't
> >make machines like that anymore!".
> Okay, that's actually a real good thing to say... WE decide what's a classic
> as we discover "new" (To our eyes) models, and discard others (IE possibly
> the PIIs well never become classics,)
> >It is probably best to stay with what we have - it can be bent as needed.
> But we can try.....
> >>Possibly (out for MUCH revision...) is the definition "Any computer
> >>which has aged sufficently to be considered "outdated" by the computer
> >> market and has historic signifiance, OR is 10 years old or older."
>
> >The problem is that that means just about any machine over 3 months old.
> Historical signifance?
> >> The
> >> one evedeint place that requires revsion is the "historical signifiacne"
> >> but I'm not sure how to include that while still aknowladgeing the
> >> presence of many of the best machines and componets that did indeed fail
>
> >Many machines that did fail were historically significant - Xerox springs
> >to mind.
> Exactly... the "historically significant part was also my "safeguard" .
> >Also, sometimes a whole class of machines is significant, and sometimes
> >just a few instances (Smalltalk influence leaking out now!) are. The IBM
> >RT was a bomb, but a hundred or so of them did a great deal to society.
> >Another example would be the 68000 developement systems that Apple used to
> >make the Lisa (and Macintosh) - again, the class of hardware may only be a
> >footnote, but the few actual machines shaped the industry forever.
> See what I mean about the "historical signifiance"?
> Tim D. Hotze
Received on Mon Nov 17 1997 - 01:13:55 GMT