10 year rule

From: Roger Merchberger <zmerch_at_30below.com>
Date: Wed Nov 17 11:20:17 2004

Rumor has it that Computer Collector E-Mail Newsletter may have mentioned
these words:
>The terms are too similar, people will just get more confused.
>All I intended to do when I started this discussion topic was to point out the
>obsurdity of considering things like the Web and Pentiums as "vintage" (or any
>other synonym). But then others observed back that I was being short-sighted
>-- if you ignore that actual age, "vintage" just means "anything considered
>obsolete by the mainstream," and that's a good enough answer for me. But I do
>think that 15 years, not 10, is a better divider between what's just "old" and
>what's truly vintage.

Wham. Wham. Wham.

Yet another dead horse being beaten once again... Ungh.

Yet again, I will mention that depending on *how* strict you feel we should
police that number, my beloved CoCo3 will once again become offtopic. If
memory serves, it was manufactured through 1990 and was sold until late 1992.

So, you want to change the "deadline" (as does someone at least once per
year -- check the archives!) -- will there be exceptions? If so, what will
they be? Will it be "anything newer but still used an 8-bit processor"?
That would still leave out a lot of neat Amiga hardware that just got
ontopic. Will it be "introduction date?" There are MS-DOS versions
introduced over 15 years ago that still run on brand-new equipment. Will
that make it all ontopic? Will it be an arbitrary "kewlness factor" which
can (of course) never be quantified? If it's the latest that you're
considering, what's the point of even *having* a number?

For some reason, someone always feels that the way it is now is "horribly
broken" and that by changing a number will magically "unbreak" it. Unforch,
what you may consider "fixed" may be "horribly broken" to someone else.

There is no solution for this perceived "problem," and most say there is no
problem to solve.

Roger "Merch" Merchberger

Roger "Merch" Merchberger  --  SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
  _??_                          zmerch_at_30below.com
(?||?)  If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
  _)(_   disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
Received on Wed Nov 17 2004 - 11:20:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:17 BST