YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(

[John Boffemmyer IV]

Thank you, finally. Someone allowed to point that out without getting 
the post pulled...
A number of technologies are unique or interesting to some people, 
even if others want to be pompous and claim because it doesn't meet 
an arbitrary rule they set, it isn't good enough to be classic, etc.
I still use MCA based IBM PS/2's and decommissioned Bay Networks 
networking hardware well over 10 years old. Some of it VERY unique. 
But, some of it was mass marketed, so a few people here call it 
garbage and not meeting the criteria. Amigas, certain PS/2's, etc- 
should be allowed as many of these are VERY reasonably inside the 
classic and unique factors of interest to a bunch of us who make up 
this group. ClassicCmp is for most classic computer collectors, not 
just the snobbish from the "beverly hills" class of collectors. Remember that.
-John Boffemmyer IV

At 11:13 AM 9/29/2005, you wrote:

>Rumor has it that Tom Jennings may have mentioned these words:
>>Eh. Dump the 10 year rule and cut off at 1994.
>
>Sure, but then my Amiga wouldn't be classic anymore. It was built in 
>'98. Oh, wait, then it still isn't, even *with* the 10-year rule. :-/
>
>>When the computer-user count became in the millions it's
>>simply not the same.
>
>OK, then that would rule out Commodore 64 (several million sold) the 
>Tandy Model 100's (several million sold) and even Ataris & Tandy CoCos.
>
>We were *well into* millions of users by '84, not '94.
>
>>pretty much ANY
>>computer from the 70s and even 80s is "interesting".
>
>But what about the 90's?
>
>Seriously - let's look at this:
>
>When I joined the list, CoCo 3s weren't technically ontopic yet, as 
>they'd been sold until '92. (Disco'ed in '91, I think I saw one 
>(still in a RS store) in '93.
>
>When I joined the list, Macintoshes *still couldn't* multitask; 
>8-bitters could do that since '81-82 (whenever OS-9 was released). 
>Yet lots of people are still waxing poetic about 68K Macs - I found 
>them udderly[1] pitiful... much less useful for the power available 
>than my NT4 workstation. Granted, I wasn't doing photo editing or 
>typesetting; just the basics.
>
>[[ dons flameproof knickers... I'm not saying that Macs sucked, but 
>I was rather disheartened when I finally had access to a Mac, that 
>every other sentence I said started with "whaddya mean it can't..." 
>What it could do, it did very well; but as a general-purpose 
>computing platform, the OS was rather lacking. ]]
>
>>  Pretty much
>>anything post-MSDOS is deadly dull -- with exceptions of course.
>
>And *who* gets to choose which exceptions are acceptable? That's the 
>"slippery slope" we must climb, and why these "ten-year-rule" 
>arguments come up every 6 months or so...
>
>>Consistency is for machinery.
>
>And yet, it's the human inconsistency that keeps us rehashing the 
>subject ad nauseum... :-/
>
>Laterz,
>Roger "Merch" Merchberger
>
>[1] Not a typo - I rather thought they were "suckin' hind teat" if 
>you catch my drift. ;-) After using OS-9 Level 2, with multiple 
>hardware & software windows, and being able to recalculate a 
>spreadsheet, spellcheck a document and play Rogue (albeit somewhat 
>slowly) at the same time - I really missed that ability when I 
>started working with MacOS. (And yes, to be fair - MS-DOS & it's ilk as well.)
>
>--
>Roger "Merch" Merchberger   | "Profile, don't speculate."
>SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers |     Daniel J. Bernstein
>zmerch at 30below.com          |
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 9/27/2005
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 9/27/2005


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 9/27/2005