Rumor has it that Vintage Computer Festival may have mentioned these words:
>They clearly mark it as a replica on the accompanying plaque (and give me
>credit to boot :) I would agree here that it was "better" than the real
>thing since the users could actually see it working in a reasonable
>facsimilation (I made up that word).
When? Google's already got 563 hits for it, there's a webmag there (split
between Florida and BC, Canada)...
... Altho google did ask me: "Did you mean: fasciculation?" ;-)
=-=-=
Or are you just looking to patent it, a la M$ patenting using a tab key in
a browser, or somesuch? :-P
>Hans said:
> > I think that, properly represented, replicas do have a place in a
> > museum. They allow the demonstration of working machines where the
> > originals are too far gone to continue functioning.
Or - if even they *could* be brought back to life for a short time, if it
would break them in such a way to make it harder yet to restore, IMHO it's
best to say point to the original and say "This is the original, in as good
of shape as we could get." Then point to the replica and say "If this
machine could run without damage, things it would do would look like what
we display on this replica."
>I totally agree. In most cases it's entirely impractible to have the
>actual machines working.
Right. I'd much rather see a working replica next to a nearly working
original, compared to a pile of rubble with a sign: "This is what happened
when we tried to run this" and an irreplaceable machine destroyed forever.
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | JC: "Like those people in Celeronville!"
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Me: "Don't you mean Silicon Valley???"
zmerch_at_30below.com | JC: "Yea, that's the place!"
| JC == Jeremy Christian
Received on Fri Sep 10 2004 - 14:45:23 BST