New Definiton REQUIRED

From: HOTZE <photze_at_batelco.com.bh>
Date: Mon Nov 17 14:15:44 1997

Okay... now, I believe that the 10 year definiton is fairly correct... what
was significant about the AT was the AT sized motherboards.... which was a
standard until about a year or two ago with ATX... smaller space.... but
anyway, I think that we should say "10 years or older... but bendably, as age
is not the true determining factor of the making of a classic" or something
to that effect, as to aknowledge that it's not written in stone.... I've
found a solution to the "To many clones problem", use (1) the first (2) The
one that took full advantage (3) The ideal example of what the rest were like.

Frank McConnell wrote:

> HOTZE <photze_at_batelco.com.bh> wrote:
> > [...] 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.
>
> Right. Not too many people are going to agree on this. There's
> probably a few people out there who think the Atari Portfolio is a
> classic and I think it's under 10 years old. The IBM PC/AT is 13
> years old now but I have difficulty thinking of it as a classic and I
> really couldn't care less.
>
> But the 10 year rule is simple and not without precedent (it's roughly
> the way other things are judged "antique" -- if I remember correctly
> the "magic number" is 100 years for furniture and housewares and 20
> years for automobiles). That's why we have it, we know it's not
> perfect but it does provide a clear cutoff.
>
> (Aside to You Know Who You Are: knock it off, OK?)
>
> > 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 which has aged sufficently to be considered "outdated" by the computer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"
>
> Does it? The problem is that inside 10 years it's very difficult to
> judge historical significance.
>
> And just because it's older than 10 years doesn't make finding the
> historical significance any easier. I'm hard pressed to think of what
> was significant about the PC/AT, as near as I could tell at the time
> it was put to work as a bigger faster IBM PC, still running all the
> same old MS-DOS applications, still one at a time. And from
> conversations I've had with folks who were doing Unix stuff on the
> 80286 then, they didn't think 80286 protected mode was progress w/r/t
> the PDP-11.
>
> Well, what did the PC/AT have that the PC/XT didn't? 1.2MB
> minifloppies (although I saw those retrofit onto XT-class PCs), 16-bit
> slots, a cascaded interrupt controller to handle the additional
> interrupt request lines...and the A20 gate that let you get at another
> little chunk of RAM up above the 1MB boundary while still in real
> mode. Hmm. How many of these things do we consider historically
> significant now, and how many will we still consider significant in 5,
> 10, 25, 50, 100 years?
>
> -Frank McConnell
Received on Mon Nov 17 1997 - 14:15:44 GMT