Wrong Way:New Definition REQUIRED

From: Tony Duell <ard_at_odin.phy.bris.ac.uk>
Date: Wed Nov 19 06:36:14 1997

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Bill Richman wrote:
> >Since when would a CoCo 1/2/3 be a clone??? They're rather unique (uses the
> >MC6809, had a realtime, multiprocessing, multiprogramming OS available for
> >it... etc.)
>
> Did I say they would? I said "If they were made for more than 2
> years... there'd be lots of them, and probably clones". How long was
> each of those models manufactured? More than 2 years?

The CoCo line was produced for over 10 years. Since there were only 3
models, one of them had to have been produced for > 2 years.


> >What's _your_ definition of unique? Even with all my systems, I would have
> >to sorrowfully say goodbye to the list... <sniff> :-(

Problem with the 20years definition is that it excludes a heck of a lot of
machines that most people call 'classics'. Can you honestly say that the
first commercial graphics workstation (the PERQ), which came out in 1979
and was built until 1985 is not a classic. What about all the VAXen
(11/780 was 1978-ish).

Using the new definition (older than 20 years or produced for < 2 years)
would (a) cut out 90% of _my_ collection (about the only thing left would
be minicomputers) and (b) would include a lot of PC-clones (which seem to
change every other month). I mean, how long is the average name-brand
PC-clone sold for before it gets a new spec. A lot less than 2 years, I'd
bet.

I don't think you can justify lumping all PC-clones together under the
common title '486-based PC-clone boxen' or whatever unless you also lump
all (say) S100 boxes together as well. And that would be plain stupid.


> -Bill Richman

-tony
Received on Wed Nov 19 1997 - 06:36:14 GMT