Greetings

[denim]

I don't currently have anything I'd call "vintage", being that my oldest machine is currently a Mac SE, but I've an interest.

I generally specialize in the IBM 1130, but I've also got an interest in PDP-x and VAXen. I have one VAX, which isn't yet old enough to be called "vintage" as far as I know, since it dates from 1994.

Anyway, I'm here and I'll be checking out the other areas today.

 

[Erik]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome to the VC Forum!

You certainly don't have to own vintage gear to be interested in it and all that you need is that interest to find these forums useful.

I think the typical yardstick for "vintage" computer systems is ten years so your Vax is getting close!

Enjoy the forums!

Erik

 

[CP/M User]

Re: Greetings

"denim" wrote in message:

> I don't currently have anything I'd call
> "vintage", being that my oldest machine
> is currently a Mac SE, but I've an interest.

> I generally specialize in the IBM 1130,
> but I've also got an interest in PDP-x and
> VAXen. I have one VAX, which isn't yet
> old enough to be called "vintage" as far
> as I know, since it dates from 1994.

> Anyway, I'm here and I'll be checking out
> the other areas today.

Heh! A Mac SE is over 10 years old isn't it.
So by Eriks definition, that's a vintage
computer!

Cheers.

 

[denim]

Re: Greetings

"denim" wrote in message:
Heh! A Mac SE is over 10 years old isn't it.
So by Eriks definition, that's a vintage
computer!

Is that the local definition? Seems kinda weak for "vintage". I just call that "old". Not even "Old". :D Hm, now that I think about it, maybe it is "Old". But "vintage"??

Here's why I'm rethinking this: if I have a 3 year old Wintel machine at work, it's "old". Yet I'm typing this on a 5 year old "beige" G3 at home, which I'm just beginning to consider "old". It's more of a performance thing, if you follow me. A three-year-old Wintel box is no longer useful, so it's old. If it ran Linux, it'd not be old 'cause it'd still run respectably.

And a 5 year old Mac is just getting to its end of life, maybe. Depends on Monday's announcement. :D

So a Mac SE, which is definitely beyond current software's reach, is indeed "old" in that sense. Even with the alt.folklore.computer attitude, they've been weakening their 20-year rule for smaller boxes since (I think) they become less useful faster.

No, that's not it. The reason may be that computers are becoming obsolete faster as time goes on. I have to think about this one.

For instance, my IBM 1130 idea. It was released in 1965. They sold it, I think, until the 1970s. Can you imagine a model of computer these days lasting that long? Things are moving faster in all senses now.

 

[Erik]

Actually it's a mixed definition. 10 years is a good cutoff, but there are "cool factors" to be considered as well.

A BeBox isn't all that old, but it's cool.

NeXT machines were cool from the outset and went "vintage" only a few years after production.

A 386SX-20 based machine probably won't ever be "vintage" in the collectible sense, but it's bound to be cool if you do something cool with it (like run an odd operating system, use it to control your lawn sprinklers or home alarm system or something)

Erik

 

[denim]

Actually it's a mixed definition. 10 years is a good cutoff, but there are "cool factors" to be considered as well.

Okay...

NeXT machines were cool from the outset and went "vintage" only a few years after production.

Um, have you ever used one? IMHO, buying NeXT was one of the stupidest things Apple's done. The NeXT interface was crap, rejected by the marketplace for over a decade. So Apple buys it and crows about this wonderful "new" interface, when they already had the most popular interface ever, as proven for longer than the NeXT box's was disproven. Gah!

The Dock sucks. I had that opinion when I used the NeXT box, and my opinion hasn't changed with experience using it on my Mac.

I can't speak about the BeBox 'cause I've never seen one.

A 386SX-20 based machine probably won't ever be "vintage" in the collectible sense, but it's bound to be cool if you do something cool with it (like run an odd operating system, use it to control your lawn sprinklers or home alarm system or something)

I thought the 386SX and previous Intel chips (not including the 386DX) were best used for ... well, I can't think of anything appropriate. I guess "useless" would be the best word.

 

[CP/M User]

Re: Greetings

"denim" wrote in message:

>> Heh! A Mac SE is over 10 years old isn't it.
>> So by Eriks definition, that's a vintage
>> computer!

> Is that the local definition? Seems kinda
> weak for "vintage". I just call that "old".
> Not even "Old". :D Hm, now that I think
> about it, maybe it 'is' "Old". But "vintage"??

Okay, lets look at it this way. If this was called
the 'Old Computer Forum' instead, then that
would be incorrect too. Everyone in a sense
would believe that this is a Old Computer
Forum, but it isn't because it only started a
couple of months ago! Old is such a yucky
word too, Vintage isn't.

Lets look at wine for example. People class
wines into Vintages. Even new Wines have
a Vintage, yet they aren't old. Having shed
some light onto this, it looks that any machine
(new or old) could be talked about here,
because it comes from a certain vintage!
Maybe we should be calling this the 'old
vintage computer forum'? But if this happens,
there will be no end to it, because in a sense
we're doing what people discuss about in
alt.folklore.computers & that is talking an
awful amount of time trying to get the
name right (because two people say that's
incorrect & here's why)! ;-)

> Here's why I'm rethinking this: if I have a 3
> year old Wintel machine at work, it's "old".
> Yet I'm typing this on a 5 year old "beige"
> G3 at home, which I'm just beginning to
> consider "old". It's more of a performance
> thing, if you follow me. A three-year-old
> Wintel box is no longer useful, so it's old.
> If it ran Linux, it'd not be old 'cause it'd still
> run respectably.

I believe a machine which is no longer useful
it's useless (not old). I could be sitting at home
typing this on a Pentium 166 & alongside this
machine is a Pentium 4 with 2 Ghz in it. Let it's
covered in dust though the lack of use. Is that
such an old machine?

<snip!>


> No, that's not it. The reason may be that
> computers are becoming obsolete faster as
> time goes on. I have to think about this one.

Yes one day you may pick up a 10Ghz IBM
compatable & the next day they release a
20Ghz model. That is doubled the speed of
a 10Ghz machine.

> For instance, my IBM 1130 idea. It was
> released in 1965. They sold it, I think, until
> the 1970s. Can you imagine a model of
> computer 'these' days lasting that long? Things
> are moving faster in all senses now.

Yes, I agree with that. I have an Amstrad
CPC6128, which lasted quite a few years. They
were still released Amstrad CPC464's 5 years
after they came out. On an IBM the XT was
the current machine when the 464 came out,
but 5 years on a 386 would have been the
machine most had. In defence for the XT
though, they were still making XTs 5 years
after they were introduced!

Cheers.

 

[Erik]

Re: Greetings

Okay, lets look at it this way. If this was called
the 'Old Computer Forum' instead, then that
would be incorrect too. Everyone in a sense
would believe that this is a Old Computer
Forum, but it isn't because it only started a
couple of months ago! ...

By the same token I could have called it the collectible computer forum but not everyone collects machines, some actually use them. Some just use emulators but would still find kindred spirits here.

In the end the semantic discussion is probably good for entertainment but probably won't be resolvable. My intention for the forums (which isn't necessarily the only guiding principle here, this is a community and all members have input) was to provide a place for people who collect, use, restore, remember or otherwise care about machines that aren't quite new anymore to gather and share.

There doesn't have to be perfect overlap between any of the people using the forums. If only two people ever visit that are interested in a Sharp PC1500 (I just got one today!) then that's enough. . . for them.

I do enjoy hearing what people think about different machines, though, and whether or not they "belong" in a given category.

Erik

 

[CP/M User]

Re: Greetings

"Erik" wrote in message:

>> Okay, lets look at it this way. If this was called
>> the 'Old Computer Forum' instead, then that
>> would be incorrect too. Everyone in a sense
>> would believe that this is a Old Computer
>> Forum, but it isn't because it only started a
>> couple of months ago! ...

> By the same token I could have called it the
> collectible computer forum but not everyone
> collects machines, some actually use them.
> Some just use emulators but would still find
> kindred spirits here.

> In the end the semantic discussion is probably
> good for entertainment but probably won't be
> resolvable. My intention for the forums (which
> isn't necessarily the only guiding principle here,
> this is a community and all members have
> input) was to provide a place for people who
> collect, use, restore, remember or otherwise
> care about machines that aren't quite new
> anymore to gather and share.

> There doesn't have to be perfect overlap between
> any of the people using the forums. If only two
> people ever visit that are interested in a Sharp
> PC1500 (I just got one today!) then that's enough
> . . . for them.

> I do enjoy hearing what people think about
> different machines, though, and whether or not
> they "belong" in a given category.

Naturally I tend to have some humor in it. In the end
it's all about having the interest in the machines you
use, post about here & give support for. Since the
boss here has made it clear what is acceptable here
& what isn't, it's all within the boundaries!

Cheers.