The definition of On Topic

From: Huw Davies <huw.davies_at_kerberos.davies.net.au>
Date: Mon Jan 31 06:12:15 2005

On 31/01/2005, at 6:04 AM, Jay West wrote:

> Windows can't be considered "classic" because it IS the recent school
> of thought/theory. When it hasn't been the prevailing school of
> thought for a while, AND it is in opposition of the then current
> school of thought - it may well become classic and perfect for
> discussing here. This is not likely to happen in our lifetimes. A
> major strike against that ever happening is that it was (is) SO
> pervasive so I'm not sure it ever be "classic". But in the final
> analysis, this argument is one that will be decided by our children &
> grandchildren, not us.

The Model-T Ford is a useful analogy. During it's lifetime it was the
dominant example of it's type (certainly in the US), but today, nobody
is likely to argue that it's anything other than classic.

I have to disagree though, I doubt that Windows will be the dominant
force by the end of my lifetime (assuming that is that I live to the
average life expectancy which gives me another 30 years or so). Just
remember what the dominant paradigm was 30 years ago and the pace of
technological change is accelerating.

> This is exactly why I'm not opposed to DOS being discussed on the
> list. It comes from the days of the traditions I speak of above,
> before 90% of the cpu and memory was dedicated to a pretty gui.

"I can't define Classic, but I sure know it when I see it"

Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies_at_kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"
Received on Mon Jan 31 2005 - 06:12:15 GMT