Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk
Tue Aug 29 19:42:08 CDT 2006
> > 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.
> > 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 Just because I said the "10 year rule" is no longer active on the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_
More information about the cctech