Latest addition: A bondi-blue iMac

Fred Cisin cisin at
Fri Jul 1 14:42:00 CDT 2016

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, js at wrote:
> Wouldn't have guessed to discuss an iMac here, but rather than picking & 
> choosing certain computer models as being appropriate to discuss here or not, 
> wouldn't it just be easier (and fairer) to define a certain number of years 
> past which it *is* appropriate?    Or has this already been stipulated?

Do NOT go there.

Brought up, beaten down, brought up, beaten down.  Over and over.
Like the weeds in the garden.
On this list, the prevalent weed is "the ten year rule".

The premise is that some things will NEVER be considered "classic".  EVER.
Not for historians.  Not for Anthropologists.  Not for archeologists.  Not 
for paleontologists.  There are some machines that the coprolite 
(fossilized feces) collectors will pass up.

Could you tolerate any algorithmic determination of being "classic" that 
would make Windoze XP a classic, or EVER EVER select Windoze7??!?
(admittedly, long ago, there were some that used that argument about all 
PC-DOS machines)

OTOH, there were SOME machines that were classic as soon as they existed.
I think that my collection of OQOs qualifies.
The iMac is definitely one of those.  If you were to collect everything 
ever available about ADM3a, what machine would you store those files on?
Imagine a museum collection of the history of the ADM3a; at the end of the 
row is an iMac on which you can view schematics, news articles of its 
introduction, etc.

Any attempt to implement number of years as a standard will only get an 
admonishment to "get offa my lawn".

Grumpy Ol' Fred     		cisin at

More information about the cctalk mailing list