On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, HOTZE wrote:
> like 1991-93... arguebly, early Pentiums (60, 66 Mhz) could be classics,
> as they steped into a new era (superscaler arceticture) for the
> mass-production market even though the Pentium chips wern't even on the
> market until mid-1993... 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. I do not wish to offend the owner, but they
> are one person, and they can make mistakes... and together, as a group,
> the chances of making an accurate definiton are smaller with us.
> 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 which has aged sufficently to be considered "outdated" by the computer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
> 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
> in the process... but at least Wang's did eventually fall.... I can't
> even rememeber all of the problems that they had...
I'd hate for this discussion to move into explicitly allowing anything
earlier than ten years, because the next thing you know, discussions of
contemporary hardware issues will creep in (they already have, and yes I'm
guilty of it too), and then what you end up with is the classic hardware
discussions being drowned out, and there goes classiccmp.
Stick with the 10 year rule.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
Coming Soon...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See
http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
Received on Sun Nov 16 1997 - 22:22:28 GMT