*snip*
> I suggest also that classic status might be conferred upon a measure of the i
> relative throughput of the computing instrument at hand. That is, when the i
> device performs at a rate of two percent or less than the performance of
> minimal systems sold in the marketplace (at the time of the comparison),
> then such a system can be termed a classic.
> William R. Buckley
>
A couple problems with this. First, someone on here who's name I forget has
a Cray he's setting up. It's more than 10 years old, but it's NOT 2 percent
or less of the modern minimal system.
And of course (you knew this was coming) the 2 percent rule would include
anything running a Microsoft operating system when compared to identical
hardware running anything else. :)
Seriously, a classic computer is a computer more valuable for what it IS than
the work it can do. It's a subjective definition to be sure, but come on,
people collect these machines because they LIKE them. The definition needs to
be as subjective as the desire.
Speaking of classics, I'm hopefully going to get my hands on a Kaypro 10 in
the near future. No idea if the hard disk is alive. Does anyone know if the
disk in that machine is a full height mfm? I just happen to have a 40 meg
replacement for it... :)
--
Jim Strickland
jim_at_DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Meadocrat! Bill and Opus in 2000 - Who ELSE is there?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun Jan 24 1999 - 19:14:11 GMT