Actually we want this Packard Bell http://www.smecc.org/itemsklkljl; _3.jpg

[David Griffith]

On July 1, 2016 11:58:18 AM PDT, COURYHOUSE at aol.com wrote:
> 
>Actually we want this Packard Bell 
>http://www.smecc.org/itemsklkljl;_3.jpg 
>  for the  computer  display at  SMECC!
>
>Also want any promo material, artwork, manuals etc etc etc....
> 
>drop me a line offlist  with a title of  SMECC Packard Bell  please
>to _couryhouse at aol.com_ (mailto:couryhouse at aol.com) 
> 
>thisis  what we are looking  for
>http://www.smecc.org/itemsklkljl;_3.jpg
>
> 
> 
>In a message dated 7/1/2016 10:49:36 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
>js at cimmeri.com writes:
>
>
>Computers don't (yet) have voting 
>rights. :-)
>
>But  you're defining "spirit" and listing 
>criteria by which a machine is  
>appropriate or not.   A PS/2 with an 
>80386 running Windows  3.1 is acceptable, 
>whereas a Packard Bell with an 80386 
>running  Windows 3.1 is not.    Yeah, you 
>and I would cringe at a PB  being 
>discussed, but maybe there's someone out 
>there who really is  fond of their PB.
>
>So as Terry ("Tezza") acknowledges, 
>terms like  "landmark," "classic," 
>"collectible" are subjective (but I 
>don't think  "vintage" is subjective -- 
>that term is usually set by age  alone).
>
>This is why it's just easier to use a 
>single criteria --  age -- and leave it 
>at that.   Why is age acceptable  
>everywhere else in collecting, but not 
>here?      Otherwise, someone (the list 
>owner?) has to pontificate over a list 
>of  acceptable computers.  Good luck with 
>that.
>
>-  J.

It seems that museums have traditionaly sought the best artifacts.  I feel they should also exhibit crap from time to time to remind visitors of history's wrong turns.
-- 
David Griffith
dave at 661.org