Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Jan 23 09:46:32 1999

This is all well and good, but for the fact, it seems peculiar to refer to,
and deal with, as "classic", machines, the architecture of which is still
supported with currently available commercial, off-the shelf, software and
hardware products. DIGITAL products aside, the original PC architecture is
still supported with software and hardware in the form of
playing-card-sized mocrocontrollers, etc. and the software to develop for
and test these devices is still available, thereby extending the life of
these old but still capable devices.

The term classic, seemingly a qualifier to this list, must refer to SOME
class. Isn't it like the old ('50's) T-bird, vis-a-vie the Edsel?

Dick

----------
> From: Doug <doug_at_blinkenlights.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.
> Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 2:00 AM
>
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Buck Savage wrote:
>
> > To do so would not be different from the same activity as applied to
> > antiques, numismatics, philately, etc. It is exactly in this way that
> > these, and other, standards of collectability (a measure of "value" not
> > necessarily economically justifiable) are derived, becoming manifest.
>
> A "universal" rating/certification system, similar to the way coins are
> graded, would be ideal. But I don't think you'll ever get this group to
> agree on anything -- just do it! (And then sell a book.)
>
> Forget the word "classic". A guide that gives production numbers,
> variations, years, criteria to judge condition, price, etc. would be cool
> -- I'd buy one, and I'd buy a new copy every year as you updated prices
> and other info.
>
> Start with Hans P's list of machines (and pay him royalties).
>
> -- Doug
>
Received on Sat Jan 23 1999 - 09:46:32 GMT