• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Poll. What age justifies a computer as vintage?

Poll. What age justifies a computer as vintage?


  • Total voters
    32
Rather off-topic, but the local radio station did a feature about a vintage tractor club. There was one model in particular from the 50'ties that had sold about 38,000 and of those it was estimated that 15-17,000 still remained, most in perfectly working order. Not all in pristine condition of course.

Having that said, I don't think the number of remaining units should be a major factor whether an item is interesting to discuss or not. Sure, something unusal or rare is nice to show at an expo, but it should not be a tie-breaker what's on and off topic in a general vintage computing forum. For that matter, a machine that very few have heard of or still have should spring less meaningful discussion as theoretically fewer have facts to contribute.
 
CP/M User said:
Just getting back off-topic, surely though, that LB-186 should
be able to handle CP/M-86 since it can handle DOS?

If my XT were working mate - I could assure you it would be
able to take CP/M-86 v1.1 for the IBM PC/XT as well as DOS
natively. Or is this LB-186 real fussy-fussy like?

CP/M User.
True that, but I just prefer CP/M-80, especially on a hot machine like the V40 (10MHz clock). Actually, I've never built-up the LB-186, it's still virgin.

--T
 
"On a related topic(?) I think a Computer is Vintage (or will be) if it is one that was the first of its kind or one that started a trend."

That's a worthwhile premise, but deeming something vintage is often much more then that. Remember the earlier post where it was said that a vintage item belongs to a different time period, and in some way represents the age in which it belonged (particularly inside the collector's head). Therefore whether or not something stands out based on technical merit could be considered irrelevent. Remember - vintage and collectible aren't necessarily the same thing, though they're often related. Needless to say then, an IBM PC is absolutely vintage - old enough, and started a trend (if ever a computer did).
If we're going to start weeding out machines that have similar architec-tures, many of the z80 will also fall by the wayside. ALL computers are far more similar then they are different. The logic of invalidating any particular group because they're "so similar" doesn't really hold water. They're all the blooming same thing to a large degree - a uP, memory, I/O, ancillary storage, etc.
 
Is it really vintage????

Is it really vintage????

Hi all,

I think this is really a fairly comparitive thing. I personally feel that only post 386 IBMs and compatibles are what we might consider "vintage". Maybe we should be a bit more careful about what we consider "vintage". I hesitate to label something thus unless it is old and or rare. I personally dont consider any IBM after the 386 "vintage", and wont add it to my collection unless it is in some way unique or unusual.

Having said that, my collection has a range of systems starting at an EDUC-8 micro trainer, right through to some more modern pentium systems. I dont really consider the "newer" systems vintage, just collectable. I "collect" anything computer related also, and though I have some old, wierd, and unusual items, would not consider them "vintage". A Tandy "Armatron" toy robot arm that I have in storage is a good example for instance.

The Sinister Dragon
 
I don't think that anyone would disagree that practially any computer or part made before 1977 is vintage, as defined by this site at least. After that date you will never get a consensus. I agree with Mobilemaster basically, it's not the date, it's the evolutionary significance of the thing in question. Good wines being corked today are made to be "vintage" and so too are some computers manufactured this year because they break new ground or take the industry down some quirky dead end.

I have come to the conclusion that this topic will never be settled, and that defining vintage is simply a personal thing. Every time this discussion comes up I brace myself for the illogical diatribes.

All that said, my personal interest in old computers starts to drop off with systems that are newer than 1986.
 
The thing about collecting vintage computers is that unlike any other item, except maybe guitars (as there are millions of knock off Gibson Les Paul and Fender Stratocaster copies made every year by various names, but they are at least done by a couple "ghostbuilders"), there are TONS, I mean TONS of no-name knock-off "clones" out there from the 8088 based XT's on forward. It's a tough call weather to make such "generic" devices collectable or not, since it's hard to gather all the manufacturers over the years.

You have your major Manufacturers: Compaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway 2000, Epson, Tandy, and so on, but for every one of them you got a whole pile of white box Manufactuerers like: GEM, Flight, Cactus Computers ID., AMT, CSI, a million Everex, Kingspao, MSI, In-Win, SongCheer, ASUS, and other chassis all labeled with a myriad of names, some don't even have nametags as they were built by their original owners (and sometimes second and third hand too). You also have "ghostbuilder" stuff too, like take for instance, I had an IBM PS/Valuepoint computer awhile back, that one, instead of IBM PS/Valuepoint on the front, it had GTSI Desktop Computer on the badge. I also recall some kind of custom made Compaq 386 system made in the late 80's for some special purpose that went under a different manufacturing name (Compaq was the "Ghostbuilder").

The thing I think a lot of people forget is to separate the Vintage from Collectable. Vintage is an age Vint-AGE, collectable is weather it's actually worth anything or not. I consider most computers 15 years old or older vintage, which includes pretty much anything 486/100 on down. Once it can happily run Windows 2000 or XP, it's pretty much moot to collect it, since a modern machine can do it.

Now the real collectable stuff in the x86 category, original IBM PC 5150's, 5160 XT's, 5170 AT's, Compaq Deskpro 8086/286/386 (preLPX, they did not make many of those early computers as they were Top of the line when they came out), the original Compaq Portables pre-laptop, the original foldable Laptop jobs by Zenith Data Systems sometime between 1986-1988, weird oldies like the Amdek 286/a (which was manufactured by Wyse, and used a backplane/daughtercard design, and a standard Wyse terminal keyboard).

On top of it, you have some really weird clones, like the GEM computers I have are pretty strange (one of em' has a Deskpro style case that I have not seen ANY other manufacturer use), you have some XT clones that have the Car-Hood-Like "flip-top" cases, rare IBM Blue Lightning motherboards in some early 90's systems. There's so much out there just in X86 it's hard to list it all and make a definite answer on it, unlike, say, things such as the COmmodore 64 and ATari 400/800, which were in their own design league with their or archetecture. Macintosh is 1000X easier to classify and estimate value on than an old IBM Compatible, because the variables in collecting IBM compatibles is practically through the roof, and subject to TONS of sub-classifications (portables, XT desktops, Semi-Compatibles, AT Desktops, Clones, Originals, Rarities.....yadda yadda).

In the end though, vintage to me is just whatever the mainstream is not using, I even consider some Pentium I machines vintage now, because you don't see people with a Pentium 60 very often anymore, most of those machines were junked at least 4 years ago.
 
Some funny idea came to me: Its vintage when it can only run an OS that the majority of people can't work with anymore..
 
Vintage to me is pretty much pre-Pentium, but early Pentiums are getting uncommon now. It's really a hard things to judge.

For cars, "Vintage" applies to anything built between 1919 and 1930.

Personally, I collect the systems I either have a personal interest in (ie, I used to use them) or I find interesting :)
 
illogical?

illogical?

"I agree with Mobilemaster basically, it's not the date, it's the evolutionary significance of the thing in question."

"Every time this discussion comes up I brace myself for the illogical diatribes."

Bill, you and whoever else would seek to separate the discussion of vintage items from an age based criteria really need to enlist the services of a dictionary. We are hear and now taking part of a discussion on vintage-computer.com. Not evolutionarilysignificantandehkindaoldputers.com. I hate to be so frank, but stating that vintage is anything other then an age based criteria is the most illogical conclusion one could possibly draw.
Did Erik voice his opinion on any of this yet? Let's ask Erik! He's not intentionally staying out of it by some chance is he??? LOL LOL
 
Chris2005 said:
Did Erik voice his opinion on any of this yet? Let's ask Erik! He's not intentionally staying out of it by some chance is he??? LOL LOL

I've thrown out my opinion before.

Vintage is what you make of it. People will invariably have different opinions of that and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't think anyone is trying to get us to think of GeForce 6800s as vintage since they've been supplanted.

I, myself, don't deem anything worthy of my collection unless it's 286 or earlier or it has some historical significance or coolness factor (NeXT, BeBox, etc.) but that doesn't mean I don't have a fondness for some 386 and 486 boxes. . .
 
Back
Top