Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk
Wed Aug 30 16:01:29 CDT 2006
> Tony wrote....
> > I would agree. Sounds like it's time to found another list which goes
> > back to the original 10 year rule.
> If you want a list where most of the traffic is clone PC's running 98SE,
> please do.
> > Probably CP/M is off-topic too... After all CP/M -> MS-DOS -> Windows.
> I just don't get it. Apparently people just can't get the idea of what I'm
> saying. So far people have actually pondered that I was saying the cutoff
No I don't.
Before the rule change last year, it was clear what a 'classic computer'
was. It was one that was more than 10 years old. And also on-topic were
things like software for such machines, emulators of such machines (no
matter what they ran on), repair techniques, sources of spare parts, data
preservation methods, interfacing relating to such machines and their
peripherals (e.g. connecting a paper tape reader to a PC) and so on.
I'll assume the second part of this is unchanged.
But I do _NOT_ know what is now considered to be a classic computer. I am
deadly serious here. All the definitions given so far could be taken to
exclude things that darn well ought to be considered to be classics. Yes,
my examples are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I don't for a picosecond
actually believe that anyone wants to exclude CP/M or the PERQ, or
HP9000s or .... but none-the-less they _could_ be taken to be excluded by
So, can I please have (either posted to the list, or by private e-mail,
whatever you think is more appropriate) an explicit definition of what is
now considered to be a classic computer.
More information about the cctech