[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 It's about being dang-old or not. Nuff said I feel.

As far as deeming PPC Macs on topic, it sort of makes me cringe. They're 
interesting, especially the earlier ones. But we already have the Quadra 
series, weird and wonderful enough to be inaugurated as classic certainly. 
Remember classic, vintage, retro, old, and dang-old don't have to mean the same 
thing. The 68040 based Macs were the pinnacle of what began with the Macintosh 
II. People who owned Tandy 1000s and 2000s drooled when the Tandy 3000 was 
released. Likewise with really every new generation of Macs. The Quadras sorta 
kinda marked the end of a period. New technologies were brought in to advance 
the line.

I have my own way of looking at things. As if anyone cared.  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Joshua Rice via cctalk]

The subject to f that is and what isn’t vintage computing is an argument as 
ancient as the computer itself. Fact is, it’s a moving target. As every year 
passes, products you can categorise as “vintage” changes at different rates. 
For example: IBM PC’s have largely standardised and “stagnated” in the last 
10-50 years. A machine from 2010 is largely similar in operation as a machine 
from 2022. However, an iPhone from 2010 (such as the iPhone 4), is woefully 
obsolete compared to modern offerings. Certain product lines and categories age 
worse than others. Another example is the PPC Macintosh line. Radically 
different, and largely unsuported, this range of computers were only 
discontinued in 2006, but i’m sure there’s no argument that they’re pretty 
on-topic. 

What is defined as on-topic and off-topic is something we can argue until the 
cows come home, but utimately it’s a matter of opinion. However, i believe that 
this list, in particular, seems to aim at the weird and wonderful, regardless 
of decades. There’s people on this list who are experts at the Apollo Guidance 
Computer, there are people here who understand the BeBox. There’s people here 
who have experience with Cray supercomputers and Connections Machines 
supercomputers. 

There’s places to discusss early 00’s winboxes, 8-bit home computers, or video 
games consoles. But ultimately, if i’m interested in information on some 
obscure 70’s-80’s-90’s-00’s box of chips, i bet this list is the place i can 
get an answer.

I think, in general, this list is ultimately aimed at the “weird and wacky”, 
and not any sort of age. Even if that is pretty frab run-of-the-mill stuff like 
modern winboxes or 8-bit consoles. Looking to see how to rig an acoustic modem 
and a 5.25” drives to a Server 2003 machine? Here’s a good place. Looking for 
ROMs for your C64? Probably not.

Cheers, 

Josh Rice

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

Oops.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:10 PM steve shumaker via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> well..  apologies - this was not intended for the list.
>
> Steve
>
> On 12/22/22 11:49 AM, steve shumaker via cctalk wrote:
> > No kidding!   It has been a while.  I've pretty much been lurking
> > without much to say here since I lost all my toys in the fires two
> > years ago.   Managed to replace a couple Heathkit units since then but
> > with prices what they are, it'll never be what it was.
> >
> > I did score a PET 2001-8 that seems complete to include the keyboard
> > (with keys missing).  Been watching EBay for parts boxes but even
> > those are usually serious money now. I'll keep watching though! I was
> > hoping someone had already put some effort into 3d printing the keys
> > as a solution - figured someone here would know about if it was done.
> > Mike Stein pointed me at a complete set of replacement labels for the
> > key tops so that's start.
> >
> > Enjoy! Happy Holidays!
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On 12/21/22 11:40 AM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
> >> Hi Steve.
> >>
> >> (Long time no talk.)
> >>
> >> My suggestion to you, as abhorrent as it may seem, is to buy a
> >> complete PET
> >> 2001, take your 3 keycaps, and part the rest out.  Preferably one
> >> that's in
> >> crap shape.  They aren't that uncommon.
> >>
> >> Sellam
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 10:56 AM steve shumaker via cctalk <
> >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK..Now that you mention it, I do have a CBM PET question.  I'm
> >>> searching for replacement key tops for the chicklet keyboard. There are
> >>> stems available (apparently 3d printed) on EPay but no caps. Any
> >>> suggestions on where to look?I have the keyboard and it seems a
> >>> little silly to spend $300 on EPay if I only need 3 keys
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>> On 12/20/22 10:19 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:
>  On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> > Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist
> >
>  As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet
>  another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these
>  machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't
>  ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about
>  these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.
> 
> 
> >>>
> >
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:49 AM steve shumaker via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> No kidding!   It has been a while.  I've pretty much been lurking
> without much to say here since I lost all my toys in the fires two years
> ago.   Managed to replace a couple Heathkit units since then but with
> prices what they are, it'll never be what it was.
>

What?  I'll e-mail you privately.


> I did score a PET 2001-8 that seems complete to include the keyboard
> (with keys missing).  Been watching EBay for parts boxes but even those
> are usually serious money now. I'll keep watching though! I was hoping
> someone had already put some effort into 3d printing the keys as a
> solution - figured someone here would know about if it was done.  Mike
> Stein pointed me at a complete set of replacement labels for the key
> tops so that's start.
>

Ask on the VCFed forums about 3D printed keycaps.  I'm guessing someone has
surely done that by now.  If not, you can probably find someone who can and
will.

As far as PET 2001 prices, they're still lower than I think they should be
but they're definitely climbing.  You bought that one from me way back when
for a good price.  Sad to hear it is no longer.

I sold one earlier in the year that had been heavily modified into a
portable unit but I hope it didn't get parted out (however I think that's
why the guy bought it).  It was an interesting unit.  In fact, I'll contact
that buyer and see if he did end up disassembling it.  If he did, maybe he
has some extra keycaps for you.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[steve shumaker via cctalk]

well..  apologies - this was not intended for the list.

Steve

On 12/22/22 11:49 AM, steve shumaker via cctalk wrote:
No kidding!   It has been a while.  I've pretty much been lurking 
without much to say here since I lost all my toys in the fires two 
years ago.   Managed to replace a couple Heathkit units since then but 
with prices what they are, it'll never be what it was.


I did score a PET 2001-8 that seems complete to include the keyboard 
(with keys missing).  Been watching EBay for parts boxes but even 
those are usually serious money now. I'll keep watching though! I was 
hoping someone had already put some effort into 3d printing the keys 
as a solution - figured someone here would know about if it was done.  
Mike Stein pointed me at a complete set of replacement labels for the 
key tops so that's start.


Enjoy! Happy Holidays!

Steve


On 12/21/22 11:40 AM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Hi Steve.

(Long time no talk.)

My suggestion to you, as abhorrent as it may seem, is to buy a 
complete PET
2001, take your 3 keycaps, and part the rest out.  Preferably one 
that's in

crap shape.  They aren't that uncommon.

Sellam

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 10:56 AM steve shumaker via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:


OK..    Now that you mention it, I do have a CBM PET question.  I'm
searching for replacement key tops for the chicklet keyboard. There are
stems available (apparently 3d printed) on EPay but no caps. Any
suggestions on where to look?    I have the keyboard and it seems a
little silly to spend $300 on EPay if I only need 3 keys

Steve

On 12/20/22 10:19 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:

On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist


As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet
another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these
machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't
ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about
these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[steve shumaker via cctalk]

No kidding!   It has been a while.  I've pretty much been lurking 
without much to say here since I lost all my toys in the fires two years 
ago.   Managed to replace a couple Heathkit units since then but with 
prices what they are, it'll never be what it was.


I did score a PET 2001-8 that seems complete to include the keyboard 
(with keys missing).  Been watching EBay for parts boxes but even those 
are usually serious money now. I'll keep watching though! I was hoping 
someone had already put some effort into 3d printing the keys as a 
solution - figured someone here would know about if it was done.  Mike 
Stein pointed me at a complete set of replacement labels for the key 
tops so that's start.


Enjoy! Happy Holidays!

Steve


On 12/21/22 11:40 AM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Hi Steve.

(Long time no talk.)

My suggestion to you, as abhorrent as it may seem, is to buy a complete PET
2001, take your 3 keycaps, and part the rest out.  Preferably one that's in
crap shape.  They aren't that uncommon.

Sellam

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 10:56 AM steve shumaker via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:


OK..Now that you mention it, I do have a CBM PET question.  I'm
searching for replacement key tops for the chicklet keyboard.  There are
stems available (apparently 3d printed) on EPay but no caps. Any
suggestions on where to look?I have the keyboard and it seems a
little silly to spend $300 on EPay if I only need 3 keys

Steve

On 12/20/22 10:19 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:

On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist


As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet
another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these
machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't
ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about
these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Here here! 

On Thursday, December 22, 2022, 02:29:48 PM EST, Bill Degnan via cctalk 
 wrote:


"what is vintage" has been a discussion since the beginning. It's when no
one asks that I wonder if anyone cares. So I am ok with it. :-)
b

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 2:25 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:19 AM Marvin Johnston via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > After all is said and done, my observations since the time this
> > listserver was up in Washington is that anything OT has a very short
> > "shelf life." That would suggest most people here have a working brain
> > and thus, like the definition of pornography, they know OT when they see
> > it.
> >
>
> Hi Marvin.
>
> Except they invariably end up carrying on way too long, like this
> discussion has :D
>
> Sellam
>
  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 5:35 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk
 wrote:
> We used to shun anything newer than and including the IBM PC but
> time.marches on.  You're safe if you discuss systems produced before 1990.
> After that put an OT in the front of your subject so as not to offend the
> purists.  Personally I think anything built after 1995 is too new for
> cctalk, but thats just me.

As mentioned elsewhere, the old "10 year" rule is long irrelevant.

I think 1995 is a good general cut-off for a strictly time-based
threshold, but it's not a hard boundary - PPC Macs I would think
should still be in bounds.

A softer rule would probably be "(nearly) anything goes except
nearly-current Windows PCs".  If a machine can run WinXP, it's too
new.  Also as mentioned, there are plenty of lists about modern PCs.

-ethan

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

"what is vintage" has been a discussion since the beginning.  It's when no
one asks that I wonder if anyone cares.  So I am ok with it. :-)
b

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 2:25 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:19 AM Marvin Johnston via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > After all is said and done, my observations since the time this
> > listserver was up in Washington is that anything OT has a very short
> > "shelf life." That would suggest most people here have a working brain
> > and thus, like the definition of pornography, they know OT when they see
> > it.
> >
>
> Hi Marvin.
>
> Except they invariably end up carrying on way too long, like this
> discussion has :D
>
> Sellam
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:19 AM Marvin Johnston via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> After all is said and done, my observations since the time this
> listserver was up in Washington is that anything OT has a very short
> "shelf life." That would suggest most people here have a working brain
> and thus, like the definition of pornography, they know OT when they see
> it.
>

Hi Marvin.

Except they invariably end up carrying on way too long, like this
discussion has :D

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Marvin Johnston via cctalk]

After all is said and done, my observations since the time this 
listserver was up in Washington is that anything OT has a very short 
"shelf life." That would suggest most people here have a working brain 
and thus, like the definition of pornography, they know OT when they see it.


A long way of saying OT or not is being well served by the choice of 
most people here on what they post... with the exception of the waaay 
too long discussion, Re: what is on topic?, currently taking place.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Yep. It's called dang old Guy. Anything dang-old is like totally appropriate 
dude.

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 10:23:36 PM EST, Guy N. via cctalk 
 wrote:

Perhaps a good but blurry line is "old enough not to be of much
practical use anymore for most people, but significant in the history of
computing for some reason"?

[1] http://www.macos9lives.com, for anyone else playing with such toys.

  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Guy N. via cctalk]

Oh, funny, I was just thinking of asking this same question as I
resurrect a Mac G4 from about 2001, running Mac OS 9 (not OS X). There's
a whole website and forum[1] for that, though.

I read this list a lot more than I post. I enjoy some of the tales of
old machines, especially anything DEC. Sometimes I learn things from
tangentially off-topic posts (like discussions of software tools and
image file formats best for making archival copies of documentation, or
the best formulation for trapping fruit flies in the kitchen).
Personally, I'm not very interested in C64, TRS-80, or peecees, but
that's just me.

It takes me a trivial amount of time to delete a message and move on to
the next if I'm not interested. Since the average traffic is low, I
don't have a problem with a low bar for "on topic".

Perhaps a good but blurry line is "old enough not to be of much
practical use anymore for most people, but significant in the history of
computing for some reason"?

[1] http://www.macos9lives.com, for anyone else playing with such toys.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[ben via cctalk]

On 2022-12-21 6:32 p.m., Tomasz Rola via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 04:28:35AM +, Chris via cctalk wrote:
[...]

Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is
necessary. Certainly not an expert. But I should think older
hardware would be very very slow.



From my rather limited experience, it grossly depends on cache size vs

size of movie frame, at least for some kinds of processing. I can,
(well, could) have seen it very well - processing (say, denoising) a
1:1.85 ratio material with 560x304 resolution was going with, say,
acceptable speed. Of course I would love it ten times, hundred,
thousand times faster, because, why not. But, acceptable. Increase
frame size twofold (because experimenting - is it worth to process
like this, will results be any better?), still fits in cache, I still
can live with it even if it is circa four times slower. Increase
fourfold, eightfold, and it seems to choke my 8-10yo cpu.

So, yeah, modern formats, 4K and whatnot, they would not fit in cache.

On the positive side, even old cpu for which new Windows is "too good
to install" can still do a lot of sound processing - which is, again,
as far as I understand it, related to cpu cache vs problem size. And why
would anybody waste cpu cycles on showing all the Windows menus and
stuff :-).

Unless you guys talk about video crunching on PDP-8? (runs and ducks)


Modern computers still need to faster, for real I/O. This is PDP 1 here.
https://spacewar.oversigma.com/
Ben.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[ben via cctalk]

On 2022-12-21 6:44 p.m., Tomasz Rola via cctalk wrote:

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:17:19PM -0800, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

I am going to ditto Zane because I basically could've written that same
exact message like an infinite monkey on an infinite typewriter.

Sellam


Turing Monkey? Does it have infinite roll of paper?


Forget that, when does get he his bananas. :)
Ben.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Tomasz Rola via cctalk]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:17:19PM -0800, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
> I am going to ditto Zane because I basically could've written that same
> exact message like an infinite monkey on an infinite typewriter.
> 
> Sellam

Turing Monkey? Does it have infinite roll of paper?

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Tomasz Rola via cctalk]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 04:28:35AM +, Chris via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
> entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
> processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is
> necessary. Certainly not an expert. But I should think older
> hardware would be very very slow.

>From my rather limited experience, it grossly depends on cache size vs
size of movie frame, at least for some kinds of processing. I can,
(well, could) have seen it very well - processing (say, denoising) a
1:1.85 ratio material with 560x304 resolution was going with, say,
acceptable speed. Of course I would love it ten times, hundred,
thousand times faster, because, why not. But, acceptable. Increase
frame size twofold (because experimenting - is it worth to process
like this, will results be any better?), still fits in cache, I still
can live with it even if it is circa four times slower. Increase
fourfold, eightfold, and it seems to choke my 8-10yo cpu.

So, yeah, modern formats, 4K and whatnot, they would not fit in cache.

On the positive side, even old cpu for which new Windows is "too good
to install" can still do a lot of sound processing - which is, again,
as far as I understand it, related to cpu cache vs problem size. And why
would anybody waste cpu cycles on showing all the Windows menus and
stuff :-).

Unless you guys talk about video crunching on PDP-8? (runs and ducks)

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Glen Slick via cctalk]

100's of replies later...

The first rule of Off-Topic Club is that you do not talk about Off-Topic
Club.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 05:14:13 PM EST, Sean Conner via cctalk 
 wrote:

 One rule I remember (from the early 2000s) is that anything 10 years or
older is on-topic. At that point, it was pretty much stuff up to around
1990 or there abouts. I personally feel that MS-DOS is fine, and even
Windows up through 2.x is okay, but Windows 3 or higher is probably not a
fit for this list (aka, anything Wintel is not fine).

 As far as 1990 goes, that is now 30 years ago (nearly 33 in fact). The
SGI I used in 1992 is probably on topic (as it was never mainstream, but a
cool machine nonetheless), but not a PC from 1992.

 -spc

As a general rule, by my reckoning, something 1990 ish is the breakpoint for 
what's truly vintage also. Sgi, Amiga, Atari, all vintage. 386 pc's, I tend to 
say no, but wouldn't howl about it. There's a lot of shooting from the hip , 
but my opinion is real close to Sean's and a lot of other people. And like 
someone said there is loads of expertise on forums like this. It's seems a 
shame not to tap into it.


  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sean Conner via cctalk]

It was thus said that the Great Chris via cctalk once stated:
>  I just don't remember anyone declaring this to be an 8-bit list. Back
>  when I was a member no one said pc stuff was off topic. Which is why I
>  asked. And wasn't aware JW didn't own or run tne list anymore.

  One rule I remember (from the early 2000s) is that anything 10 years or
older is on-topic.  At that point, it was pretty much stuff up to around
1990 or there abouts.  I personally feel that MS-DOS is fine, and even
Windows up through 2.x is okay, but Windows 3 or higher is probably not a
fit for this list (aka, anything Wintel is not fine).

  As far as 1990 goes, that is now 30 years ago (nearly 33 in fact).  The
SGI I used in 1992 is probably on topic (as it was never mainstream, but a
cool machine nonetheless), but not a PC from 1992. 

  -spc

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Sellam, I find nearly everything you said cogent and well appreciated. 
Especially coming from someone like you who is a prime mover-shaker in this 
hobby. I'd like to give a better more detailed reply, but don't have the time 
presently. And I realize people get tired of a topic when it's drawn out for 
too long. But perhaps new insights can be brought to light when an old issue is 
revisited. 

I don't know, what do I know. No one ever said I was an authoriry on anything. 
Except Suzi-Qs. And I can't even seem to find them anymore! On Wednesday, 
December 21, 2022, 02:59:10 PM EST, Sellam Abraham via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 Chris,

This list was never declared to be exclusively an 8-bit affair.  I'm not
sure where you're getting that from.  From the get go in 1997 when Bill
Whitson founded the list, all computers of a vintage or obsolete nature
were game for discussion.  It's only after a few years and time marching on
with its inevitable technological progress, and companies that were once
industry stalwarts started to fall by the wayside, that we began to
question what the cut-off is.  And as far as the IBM PC, it was definitely
vintage by the time the list was launched.  The objections back in the day
as I remember them were to questions pertaining to modern x86 or Macintosh
systems that had plenty of forums elsewhere on the internet to engage in
discussions of those (i.e. this is not a tech support forum) (...unless
it's vintage tech).  These days, however, I think it's fine to discuss
286/386/486 and even Pentium (below the II, at least) systems because
they're sufficiently "vintage" now in the sense of the word that I think
brings focus to the purpose and nature of this hobby.

In the interest of putting this thread to rest, if I were to call the rule,
I'd make it simple: don't bring up boring modern topics that have a better
home somewhere else.

And with that, I hope we can move on, or at least morph this thread into a
more interesting topic.

Sellam

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:34 AM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  I just don't remember anyone declaring this to be an 8-bit list. Back
> when I was a member no one said pc stuff was off topic. Which is why I
> asked. And wasn't aware JW didn't own or run tne list anymore.
>
> Evan Koblentz used to hate anything remotely connected to IBM for reasons
> (more then likely) I won't get into. Everyone has a preference as to what a
> list like this should focus on. Their preference is their business. But
> their preference doesn't need to be forced on everyone else. Jay would
> chime me when it was needed and cite the rules. This is why I asked,
> expecting a moderator or someone well acquainted with the rules to read me
> the riot act.
>
> So Win2003 is off topic, but allowed as long as I say that it is. But I
> still want to know when or even if this was formerly declared an 8 bit
> list.
>
> As to your response to my other question, I need to know if ghost will
> reliably image the 2003 imstall. As I want to keep it. The other issues
> I'll deal with afterwards. I'm not sure I'll need a setup disk, of course
> it wouldn't hurt. But he warned me to enter setup each time it was powered
> on and specify 'raid' in one of the settings, for tbe default was 'scsi',
> and if I didn't make that adjustment (I think because the backup battery is
> dead) it would wipe out rje current OS.
>      On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 02:05:19 PM EST, Bill Degnan via
> cctalk  wrote:
>
>  Chris,
> That was me saying after 1990, within the context that one should start
> thinking "is this on topic" if the thing is any newer, and I gave some
> examples of then it would be and not so much be in my opinion.  I also
> mentioned that to high school kids interested in vintage computers, their
> *start* point is 1990 many of them based on what I have seen at Kennett
> Classic museum.  They're interested in much newer stuff.  Also, smartphones
> and devices, not just computers.
>
> But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
> computer hobbyist.
>
> b
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> >  So Jay West doesn't own the list anymore? Since when was the cutoff
> > declared to be 1990? No one is in charge here? What if a revolution takes
> > place? Who will martial the forces to put ot down and hang all the
> > imsurgents?
>
  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Mike Katz via cctalk]

There were many computers that predate the 8 bit microprocessor based 
computers.


Most of these systems are 12 bits, 16 bits, 18 bits and 36 bits (I 
excluded 32 bits because I'm not familiar with any 32 bits systems that 
were not microprocessors)


DEC, Data General, CDC, IBM, Honeywell, Amdahl, GE & Cray to name just a 
few systems that predate 1990 that are not 8 bit microprocessor based 
systems.


All of these would be totally on topic.

On 12/21/2022 1:05 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:

Chris,
That was me saying after 1990, within the context that one should start
thinking "is this on topic" if the thing is any newer, and I gave some
examples of then it would be and not so much be in my opinion.  I also
mentioned that to high school kids interested in vintage computers, their
*start* point is 1990 many of them based on what I have seen at Kennett
Classic museum.  They're interested in much newer stuff.  Also, smartphones
and devices, not just computers.

But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
computer hobbyist.

b

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:


  So Jay West doesn't own the list anymore? Since when was the cutoff
declared to be 1990? No one is in charge here? What if a revolution takes
place? Who will martial the forces to put ot down and hang all the
imsurgents?

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 You see, you see. A lot of people are getting stressed oit! Somebody please 
give me a pillow. And a candy bar would be nice. A draw the shades LOL

 On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 02:38:37 PM EST, Alan Perry via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 

> On Dec 21, 2022, at 11:05, Bill Degnan via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
> computer hobbyist.

Is that what is on-topic for this list?

To me those were kinda cute toys in the day. But I was using CYBERs and PDPs 
and VAXen and Burroughs mainframes then. That stuff and JAWS-era workstations 
and pre-Ultra Sun boxes are what interest me.

Am I in the wrong place?  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Tony Jones via cctalk]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:35 PM Mike Katz via cctalk 
wrote:

> If old 8 bits are fun, older 12 bits are even more fun (50% more fun by
> word size).
>

What about VLIW?Not that many places to discuss Itanic these days :)

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Mike Katz via cctalk]

If old 8 bits are fun, older 12 bits are even more fun (50% more fun by 
word size).


And who needs BASIC in ROM (or on cassette), just toggle in your program 
with the switch register or load it by paper tape.



On 12/21/2022 12:40 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Old 8-bits are fun. All you need is a television generally and you're ready
to go. Power it up, drop into BASIC, and start doing stuff.

With a PC you need a keyboard, a monitor, a mouse probably, a desktop, some
software, etc. How cumbersome. And uninteresting. And boring.

Maybe not the greatest comparison but that's why I don't come to the
ClassicCmp maillist expecting PC discussions.

Sellam

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 11:22 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:


  Ok for cbm and atari yes I'm familiar with most of those. I meant in
general. And specifically where would you go for server related discussions
for pII through socket 771? Every classic/vintage forum seems to adhere to
a classic in it's own right (but perhaps totally valid) definition of
obsolete hardware and software. Remember before this stuff was classic it
was overwhelmingly considered to be obsolete junk. Win98/2000/XP has been
moderately collectible for a while. Don't care what category it falls into.
Socket 775 stuff is more or less just obsolete junk. There's a grouping
between and contemporary somewhat with those 2 and that's the early-ish
server class, which no one may _ever_ care much about, because it's
comparitively rare (few can relate) and lacks agp, so less then ideal for
gaming. So where do I go for those discussions?

As an aside 2000+\- beige boxes have become pretty collectible, and the
larger server cases like an Inwin A500 has a chassis that slides out. Real
nifty. It'll take a full size ssi-eeb mobo, and standard atx. If someone
gets their hands on 1 they'll likely toss the serverboard and replace it
with something more appropriate for gaming.

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 01:49:24 AM EST, Jim Brain via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:


On 12/21/2022 12:28 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

I keep hearing allusions to many forums. I think there are very few. I

don't do FB.

There are many web forums. Just for CBM, there's lemon 64, vcforum,
atariage (yes, CBM on atariage), denial, Everything 64, and 6502.org
handles a few things. If you can grok German, there's forum64.de

Mailing lists include cbm-hackers.

Apple, TI, Atari all have similar. AtariAge handles all of them
nominally. Retro Hackers also handles multiple.

Jim

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

I've not (yet) read 40+ messages in this thread.

I'd borrow a measure from vehicle licensing in what defines a "classic" 
car.  Specifically any care 25 years old or older.


It's not a perfect line, but it is a relatively easy line.  I find that 
a quarter of a century to be easier to remember than something else; 20 
/ 30 years.


Of course, this is a guideline and things will fall either side thereof.

Just my 2¢ worth.

On 12/20/22 4:36 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10 
years was on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, 
but these days a 10 year old system isn’t that much different from 
a current one.  I think at one point someone suggested it should be 
shifted to 20+ years.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

Chris,

This list was never declared to be exclusively an 8-bit affair.  I'm not
sure where you're getting that from.  From the get go in 1997 when Bill
Whitson founded the list, all computers of a vintage or obsolete nature
were game for discussion.  It's only after a few years and time marching on
with its inevitable technological progress, and companies that were once
industry stalwarts started to fall by the wayside, that we began to
question what the cut-off is.  And as far as the IBM PC, it was definitely
vintage by the time the list was launched.  The objections back in the day
as I remember them were to questions pertaining to modern x86 or Macintosh
systems that had plenty of forums elsewhere on the internet to engage in
discussions of those (i.e. this is not a tech support forum) (...unless
it's vintage tech).  These days, however, I think it's fine to discuss
286/386/486 and even Pentium (below the II, at least) systems because
they're sufficiently "vintage" now in the sense of the word that I think
brings focus to the purpose and nature of this hobby.

In the interest of putting this thread to rest, if I were to call the rule,
I'd make it simple: don't bring up boring modern topics that have a better
home somewhere else.

And with that, I hope we can move on, or at least morph this thread into a
more interesting topic.

Sellam

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:34 AM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  I just don't remember anyone declaring this to be an 8-bit list. Back
> when I was a member no one said pc stuff was off topic. Which is why I
> asked. And wasn't aware JW didn't own or run tne list anymore.
>
> Evan Koblentz used to hate anything remotely connected to IBM for reasons
> (more then likely) I won't get into. Everyone has a preference as to what a
> list like this should focus on. Their preference is their business. But
> their preference doesn't need to be forced on everyone else. Jay would
> chime me when it was needed and cite the rules. This is why I asked,
> expecting a moderator or someone well acquainted with the rules to read me
> the riot act.
>
> So Win2003 is off topic, but allowed as long as I say that it is. But I
> still want to know when or even if this was formerly declared an 8 bit
> list.
>
> As to your response to my other question, I need to know if ghost will
> reliably image the 2003 imstall. As I want to keep it. The other issues
> I'll deal with afterwards. I'm not sure I'll need a setup disk, of course
> it wouldn't hurt. But he warned me to enter setup each time it was powered
> on and specify 'raid' in one of the settings, for tbe default was 'scsi',
> and if I didn't make that adjustment (I think because the backup battery is
> dead) it would wipe out rje current OS.
>  On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 02:05:19 PM EST, Bill Degnan via
> cctalk  wrote:
>
>  Chris,
> That was me saying after 1990, within the context that one should start
> thinking "is this on topic" if the thing is any newer, and I gave some
> examples of then it would be and not so much be in my opinion.  I also
> mentioned that to high school kids interested in vintage computers, their
> *start* point is 1990 many of them based on what I have seen at Kennett
> Classic museum.  They're interested in much newer stuff.  Also, smartphones
> and devices, not just computers.
>
> But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
> computer hobbyist.
>
> b
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> >  So Jay West doesn't own the list anymore? Since when was the cutoff
> > declared to be 1990? No one is in charge here? What if a revolution takes
> > place? Who will martial the forces to put ot down and hang all the
> > imsurgents?
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Mike Stein via cctalk]

No personal experience but maybe this'll help:
https://corei64.com/shop/index.php?route=product/product_id=285

Sorry for encouraging inappropriate threads ;-)

m

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:56 PM steve shumaker via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> OK..Now that you mention it, I do have a CBM PET question.  I'm
> searching for replacement key tops for the chicklet keyboard.  There are
> stems available (apparently 3d printed) on EPay but no caps. Any
> suggestions on where to look?I have the keyboard and it seems a
> little silly to spend $300 on EPay if I only need 3 keys
>
> Steve
>
> On 12/20/22 10:19 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:
> > On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> >> Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist
> >>
> > As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet
> > another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these
> > machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't
> > ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about
> > these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.
> >
> >
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

I will have to admit that, until I joined the CC list in 1997 when it was
first launched by Bill Whitson (anyone ever heard from him since he last
posted about sticking razorblades to the underside of his dashboard to
thwart thieves, which apparently worked?) I didn't have much knowledge
about computers before 1980, and I was amazed to learn that the first
computers were being built in the 1930s (to say nothing of Charles
Babbage's work in the 1830s).  I was pretty much a neophyte of computer
history.  However, I quickly became interested in all machines of all eras
after joining the mailing list.

Sellam

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:05 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Chris,
> That was me saying after 1990, within the context that one should start
> thinking "is this on topic" if the thing is any newer, and I gave some
> examples of then it would be and not so much be in my opinion.  I also
> mentioned that to high school kids interested in vintage computers, their
> *start* point is 1990 many of them based on what I have seen at Kennett
> Classic museum.  They're interested in much newer stuff.  Also, smartphones
> and devices, not just computers.
>
> But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
> computer hobbyist.
>
> b
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> >  So Jay West doesn't own the list anymore? Since when was the cutoff
> > declared to be 1990? No one is in charge here? What if a revolution takes
> > place? Who will martial the forces to put ot down and hang all the
> > imsurgents?
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

Hi Steve.

(Long time no talk.)

My suggestion to you, as abhorrent as it may seem, is to buy a complete PET
2001, take your 3 keycaps, and part the rest out.  Preferably one that's in
crap shape.  They aren't that uncommon.

Sellam

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 10:56 AM steve shumaker via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> OK..Now that you mention it, I do have a CBM PET question.  I'm
> searching for replacement key tops for the chicklet keyboard.  There are
> stems available (apparently 3d printed) on EPay but no caps. Any
> suggestions on where to look?I have the keyboard and it seems a
> little silly to spend $300 on EPay if I only need 3 keys
>
> Steve
>
> On 12/20/22 10:19 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:
> > On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> >> Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist
> >>
> > As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet
> > another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these
> > machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't
> > ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about
> > these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.
> >
> >
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Alan Perry via cctalk]

> On Dec 21, 2022, at 11:05, Bill Degnan via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
> computer hobbyist.

Is that what is on-topic for this list?

To me those were kinda cute toys in the day. But I was using CYBERs and PDPs 
and VAXen and Burroughs mainframes then. That stuff and JAWS-era workstations 
and pre-Ultra Sun boxes are what interest me.

Am I in the wrong place?

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 I just don't remember anyone declaring this to be an 8-bit list. Back when I 
was a member no one said pc stuff was off topic. Which is why I asked. And 
wasn't aware JW didn't own or run tne list anymore.

Evan Koblentz used to hate anything remotely connected to IBM for reasons (more 
then likely) I won't get into. Everyone has a preference as to what a list like 
this should focus on. Their preference is their business. But their preference 
doesn't need to be forced on everyone else. Jay would chime me when it was 
needed and cite the rules. This is why I asked, expecting a moderator or 
someone well acquainted with the rules to read me the riot act.

So Win2003 is off topic, but allowed as long as I say that it is. But I still 
want to know when or even if this was formerly declared an 8 bit list. 

As to your response to my other question, I need to know if ghost will reliably 
image the 2003 imstall. As I want to keep it. The other issues I'll deal with 
afterwards. I'm not sure I'll need a setup disk, of course it wouldn't hurt. 
But he warned me to enter setup each time it was powered on and specify 'raid' 
in one of the settings, for tbe default was 'scsi', and if I didn't make that 
adjustment (I think because the backup battery is dead) it would wipe out rje 
current OS.
 On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 02:05:19 PM EST, Bill Degnan via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 Chris,
That was me saying after 1990, within the context that one should start
thinking "is this on topic" if the thing is any newer, and I gave some
examples of then it would be and not so much be in my opinion.  I also
mentioned that to high school kids interested in vintage computers, their
*start* point is 1990 many of them based on what I have seen at Kennett
Classic museum.  They're interested in much newer stuff.  Also, smartphones
and devices, not just computers.

But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
computer hobbyist.

b

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  So Jay West doesn't own the list anymore? Since when was the cutoff
> declared to be 1990? No one is in charge here? What if a revolution takes
> place? Who will martial the forces to put ot down and hang all the
> imsurgents?
  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

Chris,
That was me saying after 1990, within the context that one should start
thinking "is this on topic" if the thing is any newer, and I gave some
examples of then it would be and not so much be in my opinion.  I also
mentioned that to high school kids interested in vintage computers, their
*start* point is 1990 many of them based on what I have seen at Kennett
Classic museum.  They're interested in much newer stuff.  Also, smartphones
and devices, not just computers.

But for this list, as we are today, we're vintage of the 8-bit era vintage
computer hobbyist.

b

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  So Jay West doesn't own the list anymore? Since when was the cutoff
> declared to be 1990? No one is in charge here? What if a revolution takes
> place? Who will martial the forces to put ot down and hang all the
> imsurgents?

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[steve shumaker via cctalk]

OK..    Now that you mention it, I do have a CBM PET question.  I'm 
searching for replacement key tops for the chicklet keyboard.  There are 
stems available (apparently 3d printed) on EPay but no caps. Any 
suggestions on where to look?    I have the keyboard and it seems a 
little silly to spend $300 on EPay if I only need 3 keys


Steve

On 12/20/22 10:19 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:

On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist

As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet 
another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these 
machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't 
ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about 
these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 So Jay West doesn't own the list anymore? Since when was the cutoff declared 
to be 1990? No one is in charge here? What if a revolution takes place? Who 
will martial the forces to put ot down and hang all the imsurgents?  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

Old 8-bits are fun. All you need is a television generally and you're ready
to go. Power it up, drop into BASIC, and start doing stuff.

With a PC you need a keyboard, a monitor, a mouse probably, a desktop, some
software, etc. How cumbersome. And uninteresting. And boring.

Maybe not the greatest comparison but that's why I don't come to the
ClassicCmp maillist expecting PC discussions.

Sellam

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 11:22 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  Ok for cbm and atari yes I'm familiar with most of those. I meant in
> general. And specifically where would you go for server related discussions
> for pII through socket 771? Every classic/vintage forum seems to adhere to
> a classic in it's own right (but perhaps totally valid) definition of
> obsolete hardware and software. Remember before this stuff was classic it
> was overwhelmingly considered to be obsolete junk. Win98/2000/XP has been
> moderately collectible for a while. Don't care what category it falls into.
> Socket 775 stuff is more or less just obsolete junk. There's a grouping
> between and contemporary somewhat with those 2 and that's the early-ish
> server class, which no one may _ever_ care much about, because it's
> comparitively rare (few can relate) and lacks agp, so less then ideal for
> gaming. So where do I go for those discussions?
>
> As an aside 2000+\- beige boxes have become pretty collectible, and the
> larger server cases like an Inwin A500 has a chassis that slides out. Real
> nifty. It'll take a full size ssi-eeb mobo, and standard atx. If someone
> gets their hands on 1 they'll likely toss the serverboard and replace it
> with something more appropriate for gaming.
>
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 01:49:24 AM EST, Jim Brain via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/2022 12:28 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> > I keep hearing allusions to many forums. I think there are very few. I
> don't do FB.
>
> There are many web forums. Just for CBM, there's lemon 64, vcforum,
> atariage (yes, CBM on atariage), denial, Everything 64, and 6502.org
> handles a few things. If you can grok German, there's forum64.de
>
> Mailing lists include cbm-hackers.
>
> Apple, TI, Atari all have similar. AtariAge handles all of them
> nominally. Retro Hackers also handles multiple.
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Mike Katz via cctalk]

After seeing way more than a dozen messages about what is on topic I 
question whether this topic is on topic.


Tongue firmly planting in cheek.

Maybe we should apply some topical antiseptic and kill off this topic.

On 12/21/2022 1:39 AM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:

On 12/21/2022 1:22 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
  Ok for cbm and atari yes I'm familiar with most of those. I meant 
in general. And specifically where would you go for server related 
discussions for pII through socket 771?


I admit Pentium and newer forums are a bit harder to find, but some 
stuff is at:


https://forums.tomshardware.com/

https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?forums/pentium-2nd-and-3rd-generation-class-machines.1230007/ 



https://forums.anandtech.com/categories/hardware-and-technology.27/

The first two are probably closer to what you're looking for, though I 
don't see server-specific groups.


Jim

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 12/20/22 20:51, Chris via cctalk wrote:

  Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has 
thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.

I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near equivalent 
based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite sure you could find 
someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. Of course that's the 
discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at least 1 opinion for every 
ahole attached to the person who types on this board. Whateber. The way I see 
it dang obsolete shouldd be open for discussion.


We inherited an expensive piece of gear from a different 
department in our university.  It came with an ISA-bus 
computer that ran DOS 3.1  That computer was very cranky and 
finally died.  I tried putting the hard drive in one of my 
old computers, and it showed the instrument was working.  
So, we bought an industrial PC with ISA slots that was 
guaranteed to run software as far back as DOS.  Then, we 
installed DOS 6.2 on it, and had to put in some fancy 
drivers to get the ancient ANSI graphics the software 
required to show up on the screen.  This thing doesn't even 
use a mouse, you click the arrow keys and it highlights 
boxes on the screen, then you hit F keys to activate options.


I bought a Quad QSA30A pick and place machine, made around 
2000.  It runs a Celeron 733 MHz CPU and has one ISA slot 
that interfaces to a dual port memory card that connects to 
a 68040 VME processor that runs the whole machine.  The PC 
is just the user interface, and how you set up the assembly 
job and deal with errors. The software runs under Win 95, 
and needs to be 95 or 98 since the software goes directly to 
the hardware. There is an "optimizer" that reorders the part 
placement sequence and nozzle changes for faster production, 
and it was (occasionally) screwing up the placement file.  I 
got a slightly newer version of that program, and so far it 
SEEMS to not cause the scrambling, but it was intermittent.  
So, maybe that was a case of "bit rot".


So, I still use some old PC systems by necessity.

I also use an electronic design program (Protel 99 SE) that 
originally ran on Win 95, then Win2K, and now I run it under 
VirtualBox with Win XP on my Linux system.


Jon

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Andrew Diller via cctalk]

There is also TinkerDifferent- which is growing in size quickly (covers all 
systems, but is skewed a bit towards apple):

https://tinkerdifferent.com/forums/pentium-6x86.185/ 




> On Dec 21, 2022, at 2:39 AM, Jim Brain via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 12/21/2022 1:22 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
>>  Ok for cbm and atari yes I'm familiar with most of those. I meant in 
>> general. And specifically where would you go for server related discussions 
>> for pII through socket 771?
> 
> I admit Pentium and newer forums are a bit harder to find, but some stuff is 
> at:
> 
> https://forums.tomshardware.com/
> 
> https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?forums/pentium-2nd-and-3rd-generation-class-machines.1230007/
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/categories/hardware-and-technology.27/
> 

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

I typically change the subject header when I reply to a post that I
consider OT with the hopes that the original poster gets my point that
way...

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:46 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> This is really funny.  Do you all realize how many times we've gone over
> this over the past 25 years?
>
> As Bill poignantly explained, maybe instead of trying to establish a
> cut-off date, we instead think outside of the box:
>
> If enough people object to a topic, it stops.  Let's call it three
> objections.  If three different people reply to a post objecting to it then
> whoosh, off it goes into the bit bucket, never to be spoken of again.
>
> Example:
>
> Someone A: Hey, is it OK if I talk about Windows 11?
> Someone B: Objection.
> Someone C: Objection.
> Someone D: Objection.
> Someone A: Ok, sorry [bashfully skulks away]
>
> Food for thought.
>
> Sellam
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:33 PM Tony Jones via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Traffic on the list is so low I'm not seeing the issue.I'm also not
> > seeing complaints about threads being off topic.Seems like solution
> > seeking a problem.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:28 PM Chris via cctalk 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:11:27 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk
> <
> > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I was not disagreeing with you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok. Wonderful. I guess we've sufficiently established that from
> > henceforth
> > > anything dang-old is totally on topic. Any detractors? :)
> > >
> > > Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
> > > entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
> > > processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary.
> > Certainly
> > > not an expert. But I should think older hardware would be very very
> slow.
> >
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Raymond Wiker via cctalk]

>From the headers of your message (and most likely the one you responded to):

To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 

List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 


Seems like this is the list for on-topic and off-topic discussions?

Further,

List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Unsubscribe: 


> On 21 Dec 2022, at 12:44, Peter Coghlan via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Windows 2003 and XP is about as obsolete now as the IBM PC was in 1995.
>> Probably more so. XP is popular on Vogons but I'm sure considerably less
>> then 5% of computers actually host it.
>> 
>> There's also the issue of beating a dead horse. There will always and
>> forever (and forever...) be some esoteric issue to discuss about some
>> bizzare and mostly unknown 8 bit system that 3 people on the whole of
>> planet earth own (now not to brag, but chances are there are a dozen or
>> less Northstar Dimension owners (never mind users) out there. And I'm
>> proud to be 1). Who am I going to discuss that with?? And a larger issue
>> is what? An even larger issue is why? Well I got plans ...
>> 
>> Lists of this sort are about tech and used by people who love it. Windows
>> 11 is not germain to these conversations. But what about, and I'm just
>> putting this out there, making pre UEFI shtuff -on-? I don't even know
>> how I personally feel about such a delineation. But the suggestion is
>> there. Nostalgic weirdos like older tech. Yes often dang old. Now a
>> Thinkpad T60p doesn't exactly seem dang old. But it's pretty much dang
>> obsolete (can't remember what sort of firmware it has but the processor,
>> though 64 bit, is part of that hazy quasi transitional grouping that had
>> more similarities to a 32 bit chip). On Tuesday, December 20, 2022,
>> 10:05:06 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk  wrote:  
>> 
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:
>>> Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has 
>>> thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.
>>> I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near 
>>> equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite 
>>> sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. 
>>> Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at 
>>> least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this 
>>> board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for 
>>> discussion.
>> 
>> To summarize:  "On-Topic" == "Dang obsolete"
>> 
> 
> 
> It seems that the previous list owner lost interest in this mailing list
> and turfed us over to someone else who doesn't really say anything some
> time ago.  At least I think that's what happened.  Nobody really said
> anything.
> 
> So, can someone enlighten me on how to stop receiving mail from the list
> until the holidays and/or this discussion are over under the new regime?
> 
> Regards,
> Peter Coghlan

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Peter Coghlan via cctalk]

>
> Windows 2003 and XP is about as obsolete now as the IBM PC was in 1995.
> Probably more so. XP is popular on Vogons but I'm sure considerably less
> then 5% of computers actually host it.
>
> There's also the issue of beating a dead horse. There will always and
> forever (and forever...) be some esoteric issue to discuss about some
> bizzare and mostly unknown 8 bit system that 3 people on the whole of
> planet earth own (now not to brag, but chances are there are a dozen or
> less Northstar Dimension owners (never mind users) out there. And I'm
> proud to be 1). Who am I going to discuss that with?? And a larger issue
> is what? An even larger issue is why? Well I got plans ...
> 
> Lists of this sort are about tech and used by people who love it. Windows
> 11 is not germain to these conversations. But what about, and I'm just
> putting this out there, making pre UEFI shtuff -on-? I don't even know
> how I personally feel about such a delineation. But the suggestion is
> there. Nostalgic weirdos like older tech. Yes often dang old. Now a
> Thinkpad T60p doesn't exactly seem dang old. But it's pretty much dang
> obsolete (can't remember what sort of firmware it has but the processor,
> though 64 bit, is part of that hazy quasi transitional grouping that had
> more similarities to a 32 bit chip). On Tuesday, December 20, 2022,
> 10:05:06 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk  wrote:  
> 
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:
>> Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has 
>> thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.
>> I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near 
>> equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite 
>> sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. 
>> Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at 
>> least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this 
>> board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for 
>> discussion.
>
> To summarize:  "On-Topic" == "Dang obsolete"
>


It seems that the previous list owner lost interest in this mailing list
and turfed us over to someone else who doesn't really say anything some
time ago.  At least I think that's what happened.  Nobody really said
anything.

So, can someone enlighten me on how to stop receiving mail from the list
until the holidays and/or this discussion are over under the new regime?

Regards,
Peter Coghlan

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Jim Brain via cctalk]

On 12/21/2022 1:22 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

  Ok for cbm and atari yes I'm familiar with most of those. I meant in general. 
And specifically where would you go for server related discussions for pII 
through socket 771?


I admit Pentium and newer forums are a bit harder to find, but some 
stuff is at:


https://forums.tomshardware.com/

https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?forums/pentium-2nd-and-3rd-generation-class-machines.1230007/

https://forums.anandtech.com/categories/hardware-and-technology.27/

The first two are probably closer to what you're looking for, though I 
don't see server-specific groups.


Jim

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Ok for cbm and atari yes I'm familiar with most of those. I meant in general. 
And specifically where would you go for server related discussions for pII 
through socket 771? Every classic/vintage forum seems to adhere to a classic in 
it's own right (but perhaps totally valid) definition of obsolete hardware and 
software. Remember before this stuff was classic it was overwhelmingly 
considered to be obsolete junk. Win98/2000/XP has been moderately collectible 
for a while. Don't care what category it falls into. Socket 775 stuff is more 
or less just obsolete junk. There's a grouping between and contemporary 
somewhat with those 2 and that's the early-ish server class, which no one may 
_ever_ care much about, because it's comparitively rare (few can relate) and 
lacks agp, so less then ideal for gaming. So where do I go for those 
discussions?

As an aside 2000+\- beige boxes have become pretty collectible, and the larger 
server cases like an Inwin A500 has a chassis that slides out. Real nifty. 
It'll take a full size ssi-eeb mobo, and standard atx. If someone gets their 
hands on 1 they'll likely toss the serverboard and replace it with something 
more appropriate for gaming. 

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 01:49:24 AM EST, Jim Brain via cctalk 
 wrote:


On 12/21/2022 12:28 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> I keep hearing allusions to many forums. I think there are very few. I don't 
> do FB.

There are many web forums. Just for CBM, there's lemon 64, vcforum,
atariage (yes, CBM on atariage), denial, Everything 64, and 6502.org
handles a few things. If you can grok German, there's forum64.de

Mailing lists include cbm-hackers.

Apple, TI, Atari all have similar. AtariAge handles all of them
nominally. Retro Hackers also handles multiple.

Jim


  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Jim Brain via cctalk]

On 12/21/2022 12:28 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

  I keep hearing allusions to many forums. I think there are very few. I don't 
do FB.


There are many web forums. Just for CBM, there's lemon 64, vcforum, 
atariage (yes, CBM on atariage), denial, Everything 64, and 6502.org 
handles a few things.  If you can grok German, there's forum64.de


Mailing lists include cbm-hackers.

Apple, TI, Atari all have similar.  AtariAge handles all of them 
nominally.  Retro Hackers also handles multiple.


Jim

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 I keep hearing allusions to many forums. I think there are very few. I don't 
do FB.

Incidentally is selling allowed here? I really can't recall. On Wednesday, 
December 21, 2022, 01:19:35 AM EST, Jim Brain via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist
>
As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet 
another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these 
machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't 
ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about 
these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.


  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Jim Brain via cctalk]

On 12/21/2022 12:03 AM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist

As much as I enjoy these machines, I ask that we do not create yet 
another list for them.  There are many fine forums for all of these 
machines.  The occasional PET or VIC question in here surely won't 
ruffle too many feathers, and those of us who know quite a bit about 
these machines can redirect the OP elsewhere if needed.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 When I was considerably younger I told my mother that I was going to a Hamfest 
today. She replied "Oh how nice". Needless to say the woman enjoyed ham.

As to the "odious objection", I think it was sent to me directly. Never mind. 
And Odious Objector LOL LOL a joke, cut me some slack, will ya.
 On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 01:08:48 AM EST, Tony Jones via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 10:03 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  Why?


b/c Old people are a bit like old computers?  Starting to slowly break down?

Usually when I see such crankiness there is a ham call sign present :-)
  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Tony Jones via cctalk]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 10:03 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  Why?


b/c Old people are a bit like old computers?  Starting to slowly break down?

Usually when I see such crankiness there is a ham call sign present :-)

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Why? Create another list becauae a minority of subscribers consider their 
opinions paramount? Don't read what isn't of interest to you. Somewhat of a 
majority of topics don't interest me. Should I complain that some topics are 
about stuff that is too old and irrelevant (and annoying, in actuality, yes 
it's so) to some of us?

My intent isn't to force my will on anyone. Nor even alter what is appropriate. 
My post posed a question. Some said go for it. I went for it. And 1 odious 
objection was raised. Somebody just keep an accurate tally.
 On Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 12:40:29 AM EST, ben via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 On 2022-12-20 4:36 p.m., Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk  wrote:
>>
>> Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing discussion, 
>> what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I have some 
>> questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604. Something tells me 
>> that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.
> 
> The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10 years was 
> on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these days a 10 
> year old system isn’t that much different from a current one.  I think at one 
> point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.
> 
> Zane
> 
  I think a sublist , for 8 and 16 bit micros might be a good idea. 
Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist
and Soviet PDP 11  might be on say the rare sublist. Ben.

  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[ben via cctalk]

On 2022-12-20 4:36 p.m., Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:

On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk  wrote:


Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing discussion, 
what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I have some 
questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604. Something tells me 
that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.


The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10 years was 
on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these days a 10 
year old system isn’t that much different from a current one.  I think at one 
point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.

Zane

 I think a sublist , for 8 and 16 bit micros might be a good idea. 
Apples and Coco's and C64's would be the common sublist

and Soviet PDP 11  might be on say the rare sublist. Ben.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Jim Brain via cctalk]

Well, that's one nay for this topic. :-)

Jim

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

So long as we don't talk about what is or isn't allowed, the list traffic
is low enough not to need specific rules...

Except maybe not talking about what is vintage. :p

Warner

Ps :p is retro emoji :).

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 9:58 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  Nah. The nays would habe to outnumber the yays. You can always find 3
> malcontents who hate everything. But that sucks as well because you get
> involved with runoffs. And subsequently voter fraud,
> hangimg/dimpled/pregnant chads, storming of the capitol server. Holey moley
> let's end this topic now.
>
> Voting doesn't work anyway when you live imside a caliphate. We have yet
> to hear from the Big Kahuna.
>  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:46:06 PM EST, Sellam Abraham via
> cctalk  wrote:
>
>  This is really funny.  Do you all realize how many times we've gone over
> this over the past 25 years?
>
> As Bill poignantly explained, maybe instead of trying to establish a
> cut-off date, we instead think outside of the box:
>
> If enough people object to a topic, it stops.  Let's call it three
> objections.  If three different people reply to a post objecting to it then
> whoosh, off it goes into the bit bucket, never to be spoken of again.
>
> Example:
>
> Someone A: Hey, is it OK if I talk about Windows 11?
> Someone B: Objection.
> Someone C: Objection.
> Someone D: Objection.
> Someone A: Ok, sorry [bashfully skulks away]
>
> Food for thought.
>
> Sellam
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:33 PM Tony Jones via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Traffic on the list is so low I'm not seeing the issue.I'm also not
> > seeing complaints about threads being off topic.Seems like solution
> > seeking a problem.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:28 PM Chris via cctalk 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:11:27 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk
> <
> > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I was not disagreeing with you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok. Wonderful. I guess we've sufficiently established that from
> > henceforth
> > > anything dang-old is totally on topic. Any detractors? :)
> > >
> > > Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
> > > entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
> > > processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary.
> > Certainly
> > > not an expert. But I should think older hardware would be very very
> slow.
> >
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Nah. The nays would habe to outnumber the yays. You can always find 3 
malcontents who hate everything. But that sucks as well because you get 
involved with runoffs. And subsequently voter fraud, hangimg/dimpled/pregnant 
chads, storming of the capitol server. Holey moley let's end this topic now.

Voting doesn't work anyway when you live imside a caliphate. We have yet to 
hear from the Big Kahuna.
 On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:46:06 PM EST, Sellam Abraham via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 This is really funny.  Do you all realize how many times we've gone over
this over the past 25 years?

As Bill poignantly explained, maybe instead of trying to establish a
cut-off date, we instead think outside of the box:

If enough people object to a topic, it stops.  Let's call it three
objections.  If three different people reply to a post objecting to it then
whoosh, off it goes into the bit bucket, never to be spoken of again.

Example:

Someone A: Hey, is it OK if I talk about Windows 11?
Someone B: Objection.
Someone C: Objection.
Someone D: Objection.
Someone A: Ok, sorry [bashfully skulks away]

Food for thought.

Sellam


On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:33 PM Tony Jones via cctalk 
wrote:

> Traffic on the list is so low I'm not seeing the issue.    I'm also not
> seeing complaints about threads being off topic.    Seems like solution
> seeking a problem.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:28 PM Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> >  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:11:27 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
> > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I was not disagreeing with you.
> >
> >
> > Ok. Wonderful. I guess we've sufficiently established that from
> henceforth
> > anything dang-old is totally on topic. Any detractors? :)
> >
> > Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
> > entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
> > processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary.
> Certainly
> > not an expert. But I should think older hardware would be very very slow.
>
  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:
Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly 
entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of 
processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary. 
Certainly not an expert. But I should think older hardware would be very 
very slow.


Nothing fancy, and hardly ever doing any editing.   Slow is OK
Mostly just making MP4s from DVDs, for the added convenience of access, 
and eliminating risk of damaging the DVD.  Multi-terabyte drives hold an 
amazing amount.  And, yes, I do own and keep the DVDs.
Doctor Who, 
Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, One Step Beyond, 
Blake's 7, Red Dwarf,

britcoms,
movies, mostly comedy, old SciFi, and classics
currently a totaal of about 4TB of MP4s.

My volume is such that I just batch process; I rip using ANYDVD, usually 
on an XP machine, and then use Handbrake on Win7 to make MP4s.  I start up 
a queue, and walk away.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

This is really funny.  Do you all realize how many times we've gone over
this over the past 25 years?

As Bill poignantly explained, maybe instead of trying to establish a
cut-off date, we instead think outside of the box:

If enough people object to a topic, it stops.  Let's call it three
objections.  If three different people reply to a post objecting to it then
whoosh, off it goes into the bit bucket, never to be spoken of again.

Example:

Someone A: Hey, is it OK if I talk about Windows 11?
Someone B: Objection.
Someone C: Objection.
Someone D: Objection.
Someone A: Ok, sorry [bashfully skulks away]

Food for thought.

Sellam


On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:33 PM Tony Jones via cctalk 
wrote:

> Traffic on the list is so low I'm not seeing the issue.I'm also not
> seeing complaints about threads being off topic.Seems like solution
> seeking a problem.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:28 PM Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> >  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:11:27 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
> > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I was not disagreeing with you.
> >
> >
> > Ok. Wonderful. I guess we've sufficiently established that from
> henceforth
> > anything dang-old is totally on topic. Any detractors? :)
> >
> > Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
> > entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
> > processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary.
> Certainly
> > not an expert. But I should think older hardware would be very very slow.
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Mike Stein via cctalk]

Agreed (FWIW ;-)

Admittedly there are many alternate sources out there for information (and
misinformation) about relatively 'modern' systems, but there's also a lot
of informed, reliable and, dare I say, mature folks here with much to
contribute; it'd be a shame not to take advantage of their experience,
regardless of the age of the issue in question.

m

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:33 PM Tony Jones via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Traffic on the list is so low I'm not seeing the issue.I'm also not
> seeing complaints about threads being off topic.Seems like solution
> seeking a problem.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:28 PM Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> >  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:11:27 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
> > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I was not disagreeing with you.
> >
> >
> > Ok. Wonderful. I guess we've sufficiently established that from
> henceforth
> > anything dang-old is totally on topic. Any detractors? :)
> >
> > Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
> > entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
> > processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary.
> Certainly
> > not an expert. But I should think older hardware would be very very slow.
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Tony Jones via cctalk]

Traffic on the list is so low I'm not seeing the issue.I'm also not
seeing complaints about threads being off topic.Seems like solution
seeking a problem.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:28 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:11:27 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
> I was not disagreeing with you.
>
>
> Ok. Wonderful. I guess we've sufficiently established that from henceforth
> anything dang-old is totally on topic. Any detractors? :)
>
> Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly
> entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of
> processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary. Certainly
> not an expert. But I should think older hardware would be very very slow.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:11:27 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk 
 wrote:


I was not disagreeing with you.


Ok. Wonderful. I guess we've sufficiently established that from henceforth 
anything dang-old is totally on topic. Any detractors? :)

Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly entirely 
useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of processing h.p. to 
be efficient. And no transcodimg is necessary. Certainly not an expert. But I 
should think older hardware would be very very slow.  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 The point is Vadem made cpu's and I was unaware of that.

The distinction between the v30/v40/80188/80186 is blurry. Non intel or nec 
versions perhaps habe additional idiosyncrasies. On Tuesday, December 20, 
2022, 11:04:36 PM EST, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk  wrote: 
 
 
 > > Something like the HP LX series or even the portable ZEOS DOS palmtops
would probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent
of an 80186.
>  Vadem made 186 clones? They made dense glue for V40 based Ampro sbc's. Never 
>knew they made cpus. Not saying they didn't, but if so that's a shocker to me.

It has a VG230 in it which apparently is a NEC V30HL variant. My mistake, it's
an 8086 clone, not an 80186.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- NEWS ITEM: Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery --

  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 I don't think I've ever even heard of Innovasic.

I guess given the degree to which it was utilzed, the 80188/80186 and their 
variants would naturally have many manufacturers. 

And I say this with all the warmth and cuddliness I can muster, the suggestion 
that the 80188 is off topic is just plain nuts. Sbc's and particularly 
80188/80186 based sbc's are a huge and fascinating topic. 

I have to conclude there are spies embedded on this list who have been working 
to take it down, by suggesting early pc's should be considered off topic. 
 On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 11:02:33 PM EST, Doug Jackson via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 Off topic - but interesting.

I had a very frustrating experience with an 80188 made by Innovasic.

The SBC188 BIOS would halt if the chip was used because its power on
behaviour was different to the Intel 80188.

http://www.vk1zdj.net/?p=551

That's *many* hours of my life I won't get back.

Kindest regards,

Doug Jackson

em: d...@doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878

Check out my awesome clocks at www.dougswordclocks.com
Follow my amateur radio adventures at vk1zdj.net



On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 14:53, Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  Vadem made 186 clones? They made dense glue for V40 based Ampro sbc's.
> Never knew they made cpus. Not saying they didn't, but if so that's a
> shocker to me.
>
>
>      On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 10:22:18 PM EST, Cameron Kaiser via
> cctalk  wrote:
>
>  > I agree that we should probably use the intent of a specific era.
> >
> > I believe that the world certainly dropped out of my personal definition
> of
> > 'Classic' when the 386 came in.
> >
> > I have an interest in things up to and including 80186, and they
> certainly
> > are not run of the mill.
>
> Something like the HP LX series or even the portable ZEOS DOS palmtops
> would
> probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent of
> an
> 80186.
>
> --
>  personal:
> http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
>  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
> ckai...@floodgap.com
> -- Beware the Lollipop of Mediocrity: lick it once, and you suck forever!
> -
>
>
  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I was not disagreeing with you.
I thought that "dang obsolete" was an amusing wording; and applies to most 
of my interests.


These days, doing web browsing, email, and transcoding video, I use a 
bunch of XP and Win7 machines, but my heart, and nostalgia, are with older 
stuff.


in the process of having to downsize considerably, I gave away my N* 
Horizon, my TRS80s, and most of everything else.

Soon, I will pack up my Poqets and OQOs.
I am soon going to give the rest of my Leicas and large format cameras to 
an old friend.


I doubt that any "definition" could really be adequate to pin down the 
topics to the fun stuff.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:


Windows 2003 and XP is about as obsolete now as the IBM PC was in 1995. 
Probably more so. XP is popular on Vogons but I'm sure considerably less then 
5% of computers actually host it.

There's also the issue of beating a dead horse. There will always and forever 
(and forever...) be some esoteric issue to discuss about some bizzare and 
mostly unknown 8 bit system that 3 people on the whole of planet earth own (now 
not to brag, but chances are there are a dozen or less Northstar Dimension 
owners (never mind users) out there. And I'm proud to be 1). Who am I going to 
discuss that with?? And a larger issue is what? An even larger issue is why? 
Well I got plans ...

Lists of this sort are about tech and used by people who love it. Windows 11 is not 
germain to these conversations. But what about, and I'm just putting this out there, 
making pre UEFI shtuff -on-? I don't even know how I personally feel about such a 
delineation. But the suggestion is there. Nostalgic weirdos like older tech. Yes 
often dang old. Now a Thinkpad T60p doesn't exactly seem dang old. But it's pretty 
much dang obsolete (can't remember what sort of firmware it has but the processor, 
though 64 bit, is part of that hazy quasi transitional grouping that had more 
similarities to a 32 bit chip). On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 10:05:06 PM EST, 
Fred Cisin via cctalk  wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:

Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has
thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.
I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near
equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite
sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386.
Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at
least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this
board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for
discussion.


To summarize:  "On-Topic" == "Dang obsolete"

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

> > Something like the HP LX series or even the portable ZEOS DOS palmtops
would probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent
of an 80186.
>  Vadem made 186 clones? They made dense glue for V40 based Ampro sbc's. Never 
> knew they made cpus. Not saying they didn't, but if so that's a shocker to me.

It has a VG230 in it which apparently is a NEC V30HL variant. My mistake, it's
an 8086 clone, not an 80186.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- NEWS ITEM: Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery --

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Doug Jackson via cctalk]

Off topic - but interesting.

I had a very frustrating experience with an 80188 made by Innovasic.

The SBC188 BIOS would halt if the chip was used because its power on
behaviour was different to the Intel 80188.

http://www.vk1zdj.net/?p=551

That's *many* hours of my life I won't get back.

Kindest regards,

Doug Jackson

em: d...@doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878

Check out my awesome clocks at www.dougswordclocks.com
Follow my amateur radio adventures at vk1zdj.net



On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 14:53, Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

>  Vadem made 186 clones? They made dense glue for V40 based Ampro sbc's.
> Never knew they made cpus. Not saying they didn't, but if so that's a
> shocker to me.
>
>
>  On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 10:22:18 PM EST, Cameron Kaiser via
> cctalk  wrote:
>
>  > I agree that we should probably use the intent of a specific era.
> >
> > I believe that the world certainly dropped out of my personal definition
> of
> > 'Classic' when the 386 came in.
> >
> > I have an interest in things up to and including 80186, and they
> certainly
> > are not run of the mill.
>
> Something like the HP LX series or even the portable ZEOS DOS palmtops
> would
> probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent of
> an
> 80186.
>
> --
>  personal:
> http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
>   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
> ckai...@floodgap.com
> -- Beware the Lollipop of Mediocrity: lick it once, and you suck forever!
> -
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Vadem made 186 clones? They made dense glue for V40 based Ampro sbc's. Never 
knew they made cpus. Not saying they didn't, but if so that's a shocker to me.


 On Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 10:22:18 PM EST, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 > I agree that we should probably use the intent of a specific era.
> 
> I believe that the world certainly dropped out of my personal definition of
> 'Classic' when the 386 came in.
> 
> I have an interest in things up to and including 80186, and they certainly
> are not run of the mill.

Something like the HP LX series or even the portable ZEOS DOS palmtops would
probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent of an
80186.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Beware the Lollipop of Mediocrity: lick it once, and you suck forever! -

  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Windows 2003 and XP is about as obsolete now as the IBM PC was in 1995. 
Probably more so. XP is popular on Vogons but I'm sure considerably less then 
5% of computers actually host it.

There's also the issue of beating a dead horse. There will always and forever 
(and forever...) be some esoteric issue to discuss about some bizzare and 
mostly unknown 8 bit system that 3 people on the whole of planet earth own (now 
not to brag, but chances are there are a dozen or less Northstar Dimension 
owners (never mind users) out there. And I'm proud to be 1). Who am I going to 
discuss that with?? And a larger issue is what? An even larger issue is why? 
Well I got plans ...

Lists of this sort are about tech and used by people who love it. Windows 11 is 
not germain to these conversations. But what about, and I'm just putting this 
out there, making pre UEFI shtuff -on-? I don't even know how I personally feel 
about such a delineation. But the suggestion is there. Nostalgic weirdos like 
older tech. Yes often dang old. Now a Thinkpad T60p doesn't exactly seem dang 
old. But it's pretty much dang obsolete (can't remember what sort of firmware 
it has but the processor, though 64 bit, is part of that hazy quasi 
transitional grouping that had more similarities to a 32 bit chip). On 
Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 10:05:06 PM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk 
 wrote:  
 
 On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has 
> thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.
> I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near 
> equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite 
> sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. 
> Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at 
> least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this 
> board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for 
> discussion.

To summarize:  "On-Topic" == "Dang obsolete"


  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

Has anyone here been to the Kennett Classic museum?  There is what was
originally called the "post vintage" room that has stuff like NeXT, Sun,
SGI, PS/2's, Windows 3.1, 386/486 laptops,  GridPad/IBM Thinkpad, Go Pad,
DEC Alphas workstations, etc.  Now it's referred to as the "32-bit GUI
workstation collection".

I learned real fast that when highschool kids come to the museum they don't
even know what a Commodore 64 was, not to mention anything older.  So each
era has it's vintage-of-that-era things.  It's not our place because we're
mostly experts in the older vintages to really have as much of a say in
what is vintage for the late 90's early 2000's.  Would it really be PCs, or
is this the era of smart phones, IP networking dial up ISP, etc.

It's not time yet for the XP/Win server 2003, not yet.  But save these
things and your ipADs and google glasses, and your blackberries and palm
handhelds.  Their day is coming in a few years.  We have to avoid thinking
it's just the next PC as "vintage"  - the day of the desktop is kind of
done except for gaming machines, as far as sales go.


b



On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:05 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:
> > Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has
> > thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.
> > I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near
> > equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite
> > sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386.
> > Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at
> > least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this
> > board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for
> > discussion.
>
> To summarize:  "On-Topic" == "Dang obsolete"
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

> I agree that we should probably use the intent of a specific era.
> 
> I believe that the world certainly dropped out of my personal definition of
> 'Classic' when the 386 came in.
> 
> I have an interest in things up to and including 80186, and they certainly
> are not run of the mill.

Something like the HP LX series or even the portable ZEOS DOS palmtops would
probably be on-topic. The OmniGo 100LX behind me has a Vadem equivalent of an
80186.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Beware the Lollipop of Mediocrity: lick it once, and you suck forever! -

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:
Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has 
thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.
I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near 
equivalent based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite 
sure you could find someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. 
Of course that's the discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at 
least 1 opinion for every ahole attached to the person who types on this 
board. Whateber. The way I see it dang obsolete shouldd be open for 
discussion.


To summarize:  "On-Topic" == "Dang obsolete"

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Chris via cctalk]

 Well there doesn't seem to be a great deal of activity these days, I has 
thought the suggestion about relaxing the rules might need discussing.

I know there are people still using Windows 2003 puters, or a near equivalent 
based on XP? But that's entirely irrelevant, as I'm quite sure you could find 
someone out there still utilizing an 8088/286/386. Of course that's the 
discretion of the sysop. As it stands there's at least 1 opinion for every 
ahole attached to the person who types on this board. Whateber. The way I see 
it dang obsolete shouldd be open for discussion.  

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Doug Jackson via cctalk]

I agree that we should probably use the intent of a specific era.

I believe that the world certainly dropped out of my personal definition of
'Classic' when the 386 came in.

I have an interest in things up to and including 80186, and they certainly
are not run of the mill.

Just my thoughts.

Doug Jackson






On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 13:13, Mike Loewen via cctalk 
wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing
> discussion, what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I
> have some questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604.
> Something tells me that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.
> >
> > The original rule, back around ?96/97 was anything older than 10 years
> was on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these days
> a 10 year old system isn?t that much different from a current one.  I think
> at one point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.
>
> I'm going to play the old fogey card and suggest that we should use a
> specific year as a cutoff, rather than a floating limit. Something like
> 1986,
> or possibly a little later. As has been mentioned, there are many other
> outlets for discussions about Windoze machines and i386+ systems.
>
>
> Mike Loewen mloe...@cpumagic.scol.pa.us
> Old Technology  http://q7.neurotica.com/Oldtech/
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Tony Jones via cctalk]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 6:13 PM Mike Loewen via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> I'm going to play the old fogey card and suggest that we should use a
> specific year as a cutoff, rather than a floating limit. Something like
> 1986,
> or possibly a little later. As has been mentioned, there are many other
> outlets for discussions about Windoze machines and i386+ systems.
>

When was the Transputer discontinued?  I know I have a ISA card from 1989.

>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Mike Loewen via cctalk]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:


On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk  wrote:


Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing discussion, 
what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I have some 
questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604. Something tells me 
that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.


The original rule, back around ?96/97 was anything older than 10 years was 
on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these days a 10 
year old system isn?t that much different from a current one.  I think at one 
point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.


   I'm going to play the old fogey card and suggest that we should use a 
specific year as a cutoff, rather than a floating limit. Something like 1986, 
or possibly a little later. As has been mentioned, there are many other 
outlets for discussions about Windoze machines and i386+ systems.



Mike Loewen mloe...@cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology  http://q7.neurotica.com/Oldtech/

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

I would suggest anything that introduced a new feature that was somewhat
significant.  So that fits the OQO because it was (at least one of) the
first handheld PCs that could run Windows XP.

But as someone else pointed out, there are a zillion PC forums where any
question relating to any PC or Mac from the past 15-20 years can be
answered.  And then there's the simple web search for the same.

Sellam

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 4:50 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk 
wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
> > Not true, I observed someone beating that dead horse within the past
> year.
>
>
> Howzbout: INTERESTING, and olde enough to not be like the current stuff,
>
> I'd like to think that OQO might qualify, but not anything Dell or
> Gateway.
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Not true, I observed someone beating that dead horse within the past year.



Howzbout: INTERESTING, and olde enough to not be like the current stuff,

I'd like to think that OQO might qualify, but not anything Dell or 
Gateway.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

Not true, I observed someone beating that dead horse within the past year.

Sellam

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 4:44 PM Van Snyder via cctalk 
wrote:

> > On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing
> > > discussion, what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for
> > > imstance I
> > > have some questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604.
> > > Something tells me that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.
> > >
> > > The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10
> > > years was
> > > on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these
> > > days a 10
> > > year old system isn’t that much different from a current one.  I
> > > think at
> > > one point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.
>
> Maybe it should be "Before Moore's Law was over." Processors hit 3 GHz
> about twenty years ago, and haven't gotten any faster.
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Van Snyder via cctalk]

> On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing
> > discussion, what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for
> > imstance I
> > have some questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604.
> > Something tells me that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.
> > 
> > The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10
> > years was
> > on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these
> > days a 10
> > year old system isn’t that much different from a current one.  I
> > think at
> > one point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.

Maybe it should be "Before Moore's Law was over." Processors hit 3 GHz
about twenty years ago, and haven't gotten any faster.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10 years was
on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these days a 10
year old system isn’t that much different from a current one.  I think at
one point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.


On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

I am going to ditto Zane because I basically could've written that same
exact message like an infinite monkey on an infinite typewriter.


Many have argued that any specific "rule" would merely result in arguments 
about the exact boundary.
I thought that the "10 year rule", (if it was ever official or 
acknowledged) advanced every year, so that now it would be about 40 years.


If so, then by now, even the Osborne 1 (WCCF 1981), the 5150 
(August/11/1981), and the Kaypro (WCCF 1982) are all now On-Topic.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

I am going to ditto Zane because I basically could've written that same
exact message like an infinite monkey on an infinite typewriter.

Sellam

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:41 PM Zane Healy via cctalk 
wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk 
> wrote:
> >
> > Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing
> discussion, what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I
> have some questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604.
> Something tells me that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.
>
> The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10 years was
> on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these days a 10
> year old system isn’t that much different from a current one.  I think at
> one point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.
>
> Zane
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

On Dec 20, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Chris via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing discussion, 
> what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I have some 
> questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604. Something tells me 
> that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.

The original rule, back around ’96/97 was anything older than 10 years was 
on-topic.  I think the idea behind that is still valid, but these days a 10 
year old system isn’t that much different from a current one.  I think at one 
point someone suggested it should be shifted to 20+ years.

Zane

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk]

Chris,
We used to have two lists , cctech  for on-topic & cctalk which mirrored cctech 
and allowed off-topic,  but the level off off-topic traffic was low, so if I 
understand things we now only have one and it allows both on and off-topic..
Dave

> -Original Message-
> From: Chris via cctalk 
> Sent: 20 December 2022 22:27
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Cc: skogkatt...@yahoo.com
> Subject: [cctalk] what is on topic?
> 
> Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing discussion, 
> what
> exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I have some questions
> pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604. Something tells me that
> doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.

[cctalk] Re: what is on topic?

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

We used to shun anything newer than and including the IBM PC but
time.marches on.  You're safe if you discuss systems produced before 1990.
After that put an OT in the front of your subject so as not to offend the
purists.  Personally I think anything built after 1995 is too new for
cctalk, but thats just me.  There are plenty of facebook groups for win
95/95+.  Newer SGI, Amiga and Sun systems seem to be accepted compared to
Mac and Wintel of the same year.  There is a bias and it's very subjective.
Bill Degnan
Kennettclassic.com

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:27 PM Chris via cctalk 
wrote:

> Specifically as pertaining to old/vintage/classic/retro compuing
> discussion, what exactly is on topic? On top of my head as a for imstance I
> have some questions pertaining to Windows 2003 and socket 603/604.
> Something tells me that doesn't qualify, so it behooves me to ask.
>