Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule)

[Allison]

>
>Subject: Re: Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule)
>   From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell)
>   Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:42:08 +0100 (BST)
>     To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>> 
>> > I'm trying really hard to reach out and maintain composure....
>> 
>> It is appreciated, and I hope you can see the point that myself and several
>> others are trying to get across.  Please bare with my rambling in this
>> email.  I'm trying to illustrate a point :^)
>> 
>> I would like to emphasis that I am not trying to pick a fight here.  If
>> anyone feels that way, or feels like firing back a flame, please go do
>
>Hopefully this is not a flame, I don't intend it to be 
>
>> something else for an hour or two.  If you still feel the need to reply, try
>> to let logic rather than emotion dictate what you write.
>> 
>> Let me start by saying that what I right below is based on my perception
>> that the crux of this issue is that if the "10 year rule" is in effect, then
>> Pentiums and Windows 95 are on-topic.
>
>A serious question : Was the Pentium ever used in a non-PC compatible? I 
>know the 386 was -- there was a least one Sun that used it, and those 
>interesting Sequent multi-processor 386 machines. Anything similar with 
>the Pentium? If so, (and if they're more than 10 years old or whatever), 
>I think I could easily consider those to be classic computers.

No pentium but the 386 did appear on the S100 bus.


Allison


>
>> 
>> > Zane wrote....
>> > > Wrong.  The 10 year rule still makes sense.  What you are saying is that 
>> > > no
>> > > new systems will be added, and that this is a dying hobby.
>> 
>> > Wrong. Just because I said the "10 year rule" is no longer active on the 
>> > list, does NOT mean that in it's place is a firm year cutoff instead. 
>> > NEITHER are acceptable.
>> 
>> Even in the beginning the "10 year rule" wasn't considered to be perfect, it
>> was a compromise.  It was also recognized that an arbitrary cut-off at 10
>> years was bad, as systems newer than 10 years could be considered a classic.
>
>One great advantage of the 10 year rule was that it was easy to use. It 
>was pretty easy to dermine if a machine was over 10 years old or not. 
>Other definitions of 'classicness' seem much harder to apply.
>
>> I personally don't consider a Sun workstation a classic, I consider it a
>
>As a PERQ-fanatic I can't like Suns, right :-). But more seriously, I 
>would certainly consider a Sun 1 or Sun 2 to be a classic.
>
>> workhorse.  I'm sure there are plenty here that disagree.  At the same time
>> I consider at least all pre-PCI Sun HW to be ontopic for this list.
>> 
>> Shoot, I don't even consider most (if not all VAXen) to be classics! 
>> They're still widely used in businesses, and after the MicroVAX II, I for
>> one don't find the hardware that interesting.  I do however, think that they
>> are great for supporting systems I do consider to be classics, namely
>> PDP-11's.  BTW, I run a VAX 24x7.
>
>Hmm.. I think the 11/730 _is_ a classic. To fit a complete VAX into 3 
>hex-height boards using almost all standard chips (there are 2 custom 
>gate arrays for the memory ECC logic, the rest is microcode RAM, 2901s, 
>and a lot of PALs) is a wonderful piece of design. 
>
>And as a hardware hacker, I really see little difference between an 
>11/730 or an 11/780 and the older PDP11s that I know and love...
>
>I have difficulty thinking of anything made by Sinclair as a classic. But 
>I know others will disagree, and for good reasons (given _their_ 
>interests). 
>
>-tony