Age cutoff, was: Recommendations for operating system

[Ray Arachelian]

Chuck Guzis wrote:
> Okay, so let's turn back the clock 5 more years and set the cutoff at 25
> years to 1981.  That would let out many of your favorite workstations, IBM
> PC-XTs,  all VAXen but for the 11/1780 and the 11/750, the Next boxes and
> even a few CP/M 8-bitters.  Conversation on the list would slow to a
> trickle, methinks.
>
> It's interesting that the computer field seems to model a biological
> system.  There's a tremendous amount of species diversity in a young forest
> of, say, Douglas fir.  As the stand matures, the heavy shade cover forces
> out most other plants until one is pretty much left with Douglas fir and
> various mosses and ferns that can tolerate the shade.
>
> Right now, we're looking at what appears to me to be a mature technological
> system--we've got nothing but a forest of Pentiums and Pentium look-alikes
> with other minor CPUs occupying the role of embedded support functions.
> You've seen one, you've seen them all.  Short of a major upheaval, I'd
> expect things to stay like this for a very long time.   And it's boring.
>   
Actually, I'd prefer a much easier metric: if it's a computing device of
some sort, and it isn't made anymore, it should be on topic.

This would of course allow conversations about more modern things such
as Alpha's, PowerPC based Mac's, Be and NeXT computers, but I'm not
against that, and they certainly are classics in my book.  

While it might be boring to some, I wouldn't mind some discussions of
Pentium I's and II's - there are plenty of old PC's out there that could
be put to good use.

Like you, I love the whole biological analogy of computer evolution. 
The main thing of importance is diversity.