YAAYD (Yet another "Ten (0A) year" discussion) (was: GOPHER

From: Teo Zenios <teoz_at_neo.rr.com>
Date: Tue Oct 26 16:47:08 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk_at_yahoo.co.uk>
To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: YAAYD (Yet another "Ten (0A) year" discussion) (was: GOPHER


> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 14:02 -0700, Fred Cisin wrote:
> > YAAYD (Yet another "Ten (0A) year" discussion)
>
> I thought the same thing :-)
>
> I'm sure people raise the ten year rule more often than used to happen
> on this list. I don't know why that is - I first joined 1998 or so and
> the ratio of on topic vs. OT was about the same as it is now (i.e.
> hardly any OT content) - that's pretty amazing considering the diversity
> of list members. Surely the fact there's cctech now makes it even better
> for those not wanting the odd OT post?
>
> Personally I don't see the problem at all; things kinda regulate
> themselves, and some pretty nice hardware has been made around the 10
> year boundary - just not in the PC/Mac world IMHO (but I still wouldn't
> get upset at people posting such questions because it's still a fraction
> of total list traffic)
>
> Seriously, what's wrong with the way things are? I don't get it...
>
> cheers,
>
> Jules
>

You would be better off just making a note that MS Windows 3.0 or above
questions as being OT. Making a cutoff date for the day the IBM XT came out
would kill off allot of cool machines not even related to the PC (Atari ST,
Amiga, C128, bunch of early Apple stuff etc).

What is wrong with talking about esoteric OS and hardware for x86 systems
other then windows like XENIX, other old and forgotten Unix, Desqview/X etc?
Most people just don't want this list to turn into a "help me fix this
common problem in Windows" resource.
Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 16:47:08 BST