PDA

View Full Version : What is vintage? (Open discussion)



carlsson
April 27th, 2006, 03:29 AM
There are even four areas in the 'Completely off Topic' area for any discussion that doesn't relate to vintage machines.
Is there a definite definition on what this forum considers vintage? Which of the following systems would be considered on-topic:

A) Macintosh IIcx running System 6.x
B) Macintosh LC475 running System 7.5 or newer
C) PowerMac 7200 running System 8 or newer
D) Amiga 500 running AmigaOS 1.3
E) Amiga 1200 running AmigaOS 3.1
F) Amiga 1200 w/ PPC603 running a post-Commodore AmigaOS version
G) 386 compatible running Windows 3.0
H) 486 compatible running Windows 95
I) Pentium 66 MHz running MS-DOS
J) Pentium 133 MHz running Windows 98
K) Acorn Archimedes something
L) ABox, BeBox etc
M) Sun SPARCstation anything running SunOS 4
N) Sun ditto running Solaris 2.x
O) Any other workstation (HP, digital, SGI, IBM etc) manufactured post 1990

Yes, I am serious by pulling up this long list, to get a good picture where the far end of vintage is, and as discussed in other off-topic threads, will the "frontier" extend/slide over time, or will another forum (90s-computer.com) take that role?

vbriel
April 27th, 2006, 04:32 AM
Erik, that was so funny I almost fell out of my chair. Evan, you just took one for the team.

Can you really define which computers are vintage and which aren't? 5 years ago, if the machine ran Win 3.1 it wouldn't be vintage, today it might be considered vintage. If you think it is old, then it probably is vintage. It is a pesonal interpretation in my opinion.

my $.02

Vince

Vlad
April 27th, 2006, 04:37 AM
I agree with anything Manufactured 1990 of before. That would pretty much make it 133MHz and older. There will always be a gray area on where the broder is, but I think a good chunk of that list could be considered Vintage. I still think anything 1990 or older would be a good point. I'd like to hear Evan's thoughs on this though. :)

-VK

Erik
April 27th, 2006, 04:41 AM
Is there a definite definition on what this forum considers vintage?

There is no definiative definition here. It's as much up to the community as anything else.

I will say that most (not all) consider windows machines to be unexciting and, therefore, not vintage. That exact same machine running GEM or UCSD-P or something else would be.

For whatever reason virtually any version of Mac OS other than the latest is generally given consideration, at least.

Almost any of the other non-mainstream systems (Amiga, BeBox, Acorn, workstations, etc.) will become vintage in 10 years or sometimes even less.


Evan, you just took one for the team.

Sorry. I just had to! :D

I know Evan's a good sport, though. ;)

vbriel
April 27th, 2006, 05:14 AM
I will say that most (not all) consider windows machines to be unexciting and, therefore, not vintage. That exact same machine running GEM or UCSD-P or something else would be.



I agree. Except I do see Win 3.1 becoming vintage before long. This is why most 286 and up PC's aren't vintage. They are blan, generic, and boring. No personality=non-vintage :)

Vince

CP/M User
April 27th, 2006, 05:28 AM
vlad wrote:

> I agree with anything Manufactured 1990 of before.
> That would pretty much make it 133MHz and older.

Oh dear, so the poor ol' Amstrad PCW 16 (circa 1994)isn't so
vintage by your standards!

1990 is certainally no cut off point in terms of the Amstrads
- the NC100/NC200 certainally should have a spot here as well.
Some kind of rule should apply that allows lesser known
machines to be discussed freely within this forum. Does this
mean that more common machines (e.g. C64s) be denied? Course
not, however how far do discussions about C64 enhanced
hardware go? A standard (without the bells & whistles) C64
discussion should be the focus.

> There will always be a gray area on where the broder
> is, but I think a good chunk of that list could be
> considered Vintage. I still think anything 1990 or
> older would be a good point. I'd like to hear Evan's
> thoughs on this though. :-D

To make this easier - I think it's safe to say that if someone
wants to write a story about their 1994 Amstrad PCW 16 - it
should be allowed. If they want to talk about their C64, then
that's fine to, but if they want to talk about this new
hardware which accelerates their C64 with 16bit processing &
faster games, enhancements like those are designed to change
what the machine is. Or perhaps it's a popularity contest -
this is allowed, but just how much should it be allowed - will
it be bigger than the Internet & C64s come back with far much
more power - will users swamp this forum with news of an
Vintage machine is back from the brink! It's all merely a big
case of "What if's?"

CP/M User.

CP/M User
April 27th, 2006, 05:35 AM
vbriel wrote:

> I agree. Except I do see Win 3.1 becoming vintage
> before long. This is why most 286 and up PC's aren't
> vintage. They are blan, generic, and boring. No
> personality=non-vintage :-D

I disagree with that on the basis that everyone doesn't use
Win 3.1 on their 386s for instance. Doesn't mean I'm not using
my machine to it's full potential - 386s can cater for
standard alone programs which tweak though into it's inards -
pull out an instruction or two. The OSes I use in conjunction
with them are Vintage themselves in the form of CP/M-86 & PC-
DOS 5.

So in a world full of Windows machines, how can DOS not be
Vintage?

CP/M User.

Vlad
April 27th, 2006, 05:37 AM
True. This appears to be a debate with out an end. :)

Things like C64's and Amstrads are fine, but PII and PIII class is a little out of the range. I guess we'll all have to use good sense to determine what is good and what isn't. But when it comes to OS's, thats a whole other subject. Windows 3.1 was 4 versions ago, is that far back enough? What about Win 3.0? I do agree however, that Windows 95 isn't quite old enough to be considered vintage just yet.

CP/M User
April 27th, 2006, 05:50 AM
vlad wrote:

> True. This appears to be a debate with out an end.

> Things like C64's and Amstrads are fine, but PII and
> PIII class is a little out of the range. I guess
> we'll all have to use good sense to determine what is
> good and what isn't. But when it comes to OS's, thats
> a whole other subject. Windows 3.1 was 4 versions
> ago, is that far back enough? What about Win 3.0? I
> do agree however, that Windows 95 isn't quite old
> enough to be considered vintage just yet.

Generally with Windows 3.0 & 3.1 it depends on what sort of
processor you throw at it. 286s I feel offers a somewhat
limited restricted version of Windows 3.x - which is why
personally I see it more as a DOS or GEM box or indeed
anything else which can access upto whatever amount of memory
you can put into a 286 - 4Mb isn't it I believe standard.
According to my book sources a 286 can have upto 16Mb (same as
a 386SX!).
Interesting to note too that Win 3.x isn't in the truest sense
an Operating System & even 95 tries to cover this up a bit -
but it's connection with DOS is still strong.
Windows 3.1 on a 386/486 based computers can have things added
to it, which makes it look & feel more like Win95. Win32S is
one such product & Calmira (a freeware shell designed for Win
3.1x to make it look more like 95!). Sounds a bit serious in
my book! ;-)

CP/M User.

mbbrutman
April 27th, 2006, 06:03 AM
And the quiet but heavy hand of the moderator intervenes, and moves all of the 'What is Vintage?' discussion to a new thread ...

mbbrutman
April 27th, 2006, 06:21 AM
Maybe the issue is that besides being older, it should also be interesting.

- Any 8 bit machine is ok in my book.
- Most 16 bit machines are ok as well. This includes the 8088/8086 PCs and clones, as well as the 80286 based ones. While many people might think that a bog standard IBM PC AT is not interesting, it is pretty crude and primitive to work with. And the less standard the hardware, the more interesting it becomes.
- 386s/486s are not terribly interesting. While not pre-historic and interesting, I still use mine and it is used for supporting the older machines. So depending on the topic, it probably belongs. But the focus shifts from the machine to the software. I guess that it is not the 386 that is interesting, but what you are trying to do with it. (Mine is a DOS development platform for PCjr projects and my homebrew TCP/IP stack.)
- Pentium class hardware in general is just not interesting. (Yet)

Vlad's comment about 1990 killed me... There were no 133Mhz machines in 1990. Back then the fastest hotrod you could get was a 486 running at around 25Mhz.

I remember reading a review of an HP machine with one of the first clock doubled 486DX2-66s in 1992 - there was some concern that without proper shielding that the clock generator would intefere with airplane avionics! (It was Byte or something reputable like that.) Pentiums didn't come along until 1994 or so, and 133Mhz machines were quite a bit later.

To put things in perspective, when I had to upgrade the original IBM PC AT (6Mhz) that I had to run Turbo C++ 3.0 in 1993, I had to choose between a 386DX-40 (AMD) with 128K cache, or a low end 486DX/2-25. That 386DX is the DOS development machine referenced above, and it's still in use today.

dpatten
April 27th, 2006, 06:49 AM
I think the root of the trouble is that defining something as vintage is completely subjective. Also, what interests one person doesn't necessarily interest another. CP/M doesn't interest me at all, (although, now that I have a C-128...) But I dig playing around with flavors of OS/2 and pre 4.0 DOS.

If you over constrain the forum, a lot of people won't read/post. Also, a lot of machines are now out of the price range of collectors. Have you priced an IMSAI on Ebay lately? Hardware snobbery is costly these days

The young guys here who grew up with Pentiums on the desktop think that 286-386 machines are relics and a bit interesting and want to tinker with them. I think that's fine. It makes me feel old, but its OK. Some of the guys who grew up in the 70's and 80's like me, enjoy the older stuff. Some of the really old farts long for the days of their youth when the mechanical relays clicked their sweet song and tubes warmed the night. That's cool too.

I think that the breakpoint should probably be 1994-1995 with the advent of the PPC and the Pentium. Sure, those machines aren't even close to being vintage, But they are often times capable of running vintage software in a quick fashion.

Ahh, screw it, I'm babbling. my point is this. Please don't turn the forum into some sort of old computer cabal where the price of entry is high. Let some of the newer stuff stay. maybe create a new topic list for it so that the purists don't get knotted knickers from having to read about "modern" 386 machines.

mbbrutman
April 27th, 2006, 07:08 AM
I don't think we are in danger of restricting the set of allowable machines to talk about. There is plenty of room here for all types, although I do notice that the big iron guys generally hang out on the ClassicCmp mailing list and not here.

The discussion stems from the guideline which says 'stay on topic'. We want people to choose an appropriate area in which to make their post. The guideline was more directed at people posting about DSL problems, PC vs. Mac ranting, etc. Those are all fine .. but they belong in the four 'off-topic' areas.

carlsson
April 27th, 2006, 07:27 AM
Yeah, I was a bit sarcasting in posting that message. But I felt it was an important time to bring it up, after that AMD vs Intel thread where one of our members stated that a 486 computer per se was off-topic for this forum. I wonder if that would be due to its age, how common it is or that it is no "fun" working with. If vintage equals age, the '040 based Macs, Amigas etc would also be off-topic, and certainly anything newer, both Pentium, PPC and various RISC architechtures developed in the early 1990s.

Nobody yet claimed that Pentium II/Celeron architecture would be within the VC scope, so that's not a problem. One of my definitions of vintage computing hardware would be that you can barely find replacement parts for the system, and then only by specialized dealers, other collectors or a lucky auction/flea market find. The PC aftermarket still supports the "AGP/ATX generation", but to a lesser extent the early PCI/AT machines.

Another definition of vintage computing would be systems so old that no documentation or easily acquired information is available. You need to ask other people questions, because no online or printed books can be found. In the case of PCs, I'd think the line is drawn at 386 or early 486, in terms of disk interfaces not being bog standard EIDE, memory modules at best 30 pin SIMM and instead of ROM BIOS, you need a configuration floppy.

On the topic of extending old computers with new hardware being on-topic or not, I don't think it is a problem. I believe most such discussions take place elsewhere on specialized forums, newsgroups or mailing lists, where die-hard enthusiasts of a particular system hang out. I would not hesitate to talk here about SuperCPU applications on the C64, but I don't know how many of the other who would bother. I wrote it before; to me VCF is a bit of jack of all trades rather than in-deep into one or two systems in particular.

Thanks for splitting the thread to a new topic though. I realized there would be a lot of answers.

Terry Yager
April 27th, 2006, 10:28 AM
In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "

To carry the porn analogy even further, I think the definition should be based on "community standards" and/or "redeeming value..."

--T

Micom 2000
April 27th, 2006, 11:57 AM
I think the general cut-off date should be 15 years.
A, D, K would be acceptable. 386's maybe if they are interesting machines. I consider my IBM model 80 definitely acceptable as it initiated many changes. Most of the older MCAs as well. Bland wintel 486's aren't altho I consider my Dauphin DTR sub-compact 486 vintage.
Machines such as the BeBoxes, and Nexts are instant vintage in my view while the PPCs are not. I know nothing about the Suns or SGIs. I have an Amiga 3000 which I would hesitate to consider vintage, while the Commodore 128s and Atari STs are. Game machines, especially the newer post 90 machines should be in the off-topic.

A lot of it depends on the members community standards.
But without some sort of rule we risk sliding into some sort of FixMycomputer type of forum, as has been happening more and more lately.

Lawrence



Is there a definite definition on what this forum considers vintage? Which of the following systems would be considered on-topic:

A) Macintosh IIcx running System 6.x
B) Macintosh LC475 running System 7.5 or newer
C) PowerMac 7200 running System 8 or newer
D) Amiga 500 running AmigaOS 1.3
E) Amiga 1200 running AmigaOS 3.1
F) Amiga 1200 w/ PPC603 running a post-Commodore AmigaOS version
G) 386 compatible running Windows 3.0
H) 486 compatible running Windows 95
I) Pentium 66 MHz running MS-DOS
J) Pentium 133 MHz running Windows 98
K) Acorn Archimedes something
L) ABox, BeBox etc
M) Sun SPARCstation anything running SunOS 4
N) Sun ditto running Solaris 2.x
O) Any other workstation (HP, digital, SGI, IBM etc) manufactured post 1990

Yes, I am serious by pulling up this long list, to get a good picture where the far end of vintage is, and as discussed in other off-topic threads, will the "frontier" extend/slide over time, or will another forum (90s-computer.com) take that role?

Nevyn
April 27th, 2006, 12:06 PM
It seems to be that the issue of collectability might play into this a bit as well as age. I might considered certain things vintage even if it is of a "newer" class. I have a NexGen Pentium 90 processor. The first Pentium clone before it was rebranded as IBM and then later bought by AMD. It identifies itself as a 386 for compatibility... and has no floating point built in like other Pentium class chips. It was just a weird piece of hardware.

Not to mention there were a IBM PS/2 Pentium 90 based machines. I'd definately consider PS/2 MicroChannel PCs vintage.. VISA Local Bus machines less so. I'd also guess that there are probably some odd early Pentium class machines that might end up in the vintage catagory relatively quickly... *edit* Ohh and I completely forgot about the Pentium Pro processor... that dead end definately will end up as vintage if it isn't already */edit*

I think what interests people in vintage machines is the distinctiveness of the machine. So things are of a more modern "vintage" have to be more distinctive. The fact that they aren't made anymore or there is nothing else like them plays into it as well.

CP/M User
April 27th, 2006, 02:49 PM
This is stupid - this topic (as always) is only going around
in circles & I for one think it's a discussion which shouldn't
be discussed out amost the members - it's an Internal
discussion which should be discussed internally & resolved
internally - use discretion, if it doesn't sound like it's in
the right spot move it.

It's just a wonder you haven't attrated people from other
types of Computer systems, like Minicomputers, Mainframes or
even ol' Supercomputers. Surely their old as well, though also
pack a punch in terms of power!

CP/M User.

Erik
April 27th, 2006, 03:10 PM
this topic (as always) is only going around
in circles

I figured it would, but that in and of itself makes a point, don't it?

Per Terry, as Potter Stewart once said, "I'll know it when I see it" - I think that's going to have to be our definition 'round here.

It's up to the mods, for sure, but anyone can "report" a post as OT for an area or the boards and we can go from there.

CP/M User
April 27th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Erik wrote:


> I figured it would, but that in and of itself makes a
> point, don't it?


Do media debates ever get resolved?

> Per Terry, as Potter Stewart once said, "I'll know it
> when I see it" - I think that's going to have to be
> our definition 'round here.


That's all good & well - but what -I'm- saying (which I for
one shouldn't be) is this is an internal issue.

> It's up to the mods, for sure, but anyone can
> "report" a post as OT for an area or the boards and
> we can go from there.

Well I'm doing this right now - which I shouldn't be - so that
also needs to be discussed, along with dealing with Issues of
Internal discussion.

CP/M User.

EvanK
April 27th, 2006, 03:47 PM
Well since ya'll asked for my opinion... :)

In general (there are always exceptions to every rule), I define "vintage" in the computer collecting sense by asking two questions: 1., is it architecturally obsolete, and 2., was it unique when it was new?

That basically eliminates anything mainstream from the 286 generation and newer.

I see a HUGE difference between "antique" (or classic or retro or vintage or whatever) and merely "old / used". Just because something is old / used does not make it antique.

A 1957 Chevy epitomizes an antique car. A 1975 Chevy epitomizes an old/used car. Yet there are surely people who collect 1970s cars, just as there are surely people who collect 3/4/586-class computers. I can't fathom WHY :) but it happens. That still does not make the latter category appropriate for this forum, or classiccmp, or old-computers.com/forum/, or any other vintage computing hobby forum that I'm forgetting right now.

The bottom line is that our hobby is about ANTIQUE computing. We don't use that word often enough and I don't know why that is. Perhaps it's because there is some stigma associated with "antique" as in "old junk you find in a village store where old ladies shop after church." But antique does convey "really old and classic" vs. "from last decade."

One more thought: as much as the 10-year-rule is completely obsolete, if people are having trouble getting out of the chronological mindset, then let's at least define the vintage by "what's antique based on the average age of people in our hobby." Toss out the 75-year-olds and the 15-year-olds, and you'll find the mean age of vintage computer collectors to be approximately 30-60 -- which means antique by our scale is (duh!) what we already all know it is -- systems from the pre-x86 generation and anything older.

Since this is a web forum, more numbers of young folks are likely to find it than would find classiccmp. So, Erik, if you and the moderators feel utterly compelled to allow x86-and-newer threads here, then I ** URGE ** you to have that be an entirely distinct forum category and ** STRICTLY ENFORCE ** proper posting categorization.

And have a FAQ. A good one. Heck, I volunteer to write it. Then post it wide and often.

mbbrutman
April 27th, 2006, 03:58 PM
This is a good discussion. And I'd like to keep it open for people to comment on. As long as nobody starts to get rude there is no problem. People who don't want to particpate in this particular thread have lots of other options.


Since this is a web forum, more numbers of young folks are likely to find it than would find classiccmp. So, Erik, if you and the moderators feel utterly compelled to allow x86-and-newer threads here, then I ** URGE ** you to have that be an entirely distinct forum category and ** STRICTLY ENFORCE ** proper posting categorization.

There is an "PC and Clones" area for discussion "Older PC architectures from IBM and others". So yes, we are compelled to allow posts about x86 machines, and we do have a place for them.

Terry Yager
April 27th, 2006, 04:00 PM
I saw on TV the other day (don't remember which show), this senior lady was window shopping outside some antique store, and she commented to her companion, "It's amazing what they're calling antiques these days. Why, I remember buying this stuff new."


--T

EvanK
April 27th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Until the kids and their x86 systems represent the majority of our hobby, which I don't see happening for another 10-20 years if ever, then they'll have to adapt to our definitions -- not the other way around. I mean, you won't see a 17-year-old show up at an antique car show in a 1981 Datsun and be accepted just because it's 25 years old and from a defunct car company name.

mbbrutman
April 27th, 2006, 04:30 PM
MobileMaster,

You have to trust that we are not going to let this place be overrun, either by 'kidz' with P2s or 'kidz' with Datsuns. We had a spate of what I like to call 'content free' posts lately, but I think that is behind us and if we keep beating the horse, we're going to be just as content free.

As for the x86 boxes, I like my 5150 with the Oct 81 BIOS and my True Blue PC ATs. I think those are clearly on topic for 'IBM PCs and Clones'. We'll keep the wackos (myself included) from spilling over into the handheld area - I wouldn't want a rumble between some HP handheld and a PCjr.

Cheers ..

Erik
April 27th, 2006, 05:35 PM
And I like my original AT with the CMI Hard Drive. Just the story (and artificial reef) around those makes that particular version of that otherwise boring machine "vintage" in my eyes.

I'm quite confident that our mods can keep the worst of the OT in check and that the ballance of the "lesser" OT will at least be entertaining.

And that, in the end, is why we're all here.

Terry Yager
April 27th, 2006, 05:55 PM
For me, the 'Awe Factor' is important too. IOW, If I look at sum'n and *don't* go "Awwww...keeweelll!!!", then it probly ain't worth bothering with...

--T

EvanK
April 27th, 2006, 07:08 PM
Only gave me opinion since it was asked for. Otherwise I'm a very shy and neutral fellow. :rolleyes: :bomb:

Starshadow
April 27th, 2006, 07:18 PM
the Pentium Pro processor... that dead end definately will end up as vintage if it isn't already */edit*


i though the Pentium Pro evolved into the P-II :confused:

Also using the 70's model cars 4 example, you're saying a 1972 Buick Riviera Boatail isn't a classic/Vintage car?

Terry Yager
April 27th, 2006, 07:26 PM
My next-door-neighbor used to have one (he inherited it from his father). He only took it out of the garage every Saturday, to take it to the car wash (even though it didn't have a speck of dust on it). I used to hate the damn things, but I have a whole 'nother respect for 'em now, after seeing the way SJ revered his...

--T

Starshadow
April 27th, 2006, 08:03 PM
theres just something about a car thats longer than an El Dorado, yet still has such sleek lines. My Grandfather had one.

CP/M User
April 27th, 2006, 10:34 PM
mbbrutman wrote:

> This is a good discussion. And I'd like to keep it
> open for people to comment on. As long as nobody
> starts to get rude there is no problem. People who
> don't want to particpate in this particular thread
> have lots of other options.

No, I certainally didn't imply I won't particpate in this
thread, it's a matter for the moderators letting me particpate
in this thread (which they are) ;-)

Like everyone else though I have my thoughts & ideas, though
unlike everyone else - I feel they are uncalled for.

CP/M User.

carlsson
April 28th, 2006, 03:19 AM
It is better to vent everyone's opinions once and for all - write a charter (like the newsgroups), a FAQ, everyone are fairly agreed what this forum is about. Otherwise people will hold their thoughts within themselves and suddenly burst when they had it.

If the board software supported linking of two or more forums - not only subsections, but daughter forums - there could be one classic Vintage forum and one relating to a bit newer (but still commercially obsolete). Those who loathe 32-bit computers could ignore the daugher forum, and vice versa for new enthusiasts who never saw a 8080 computer anyway, and don't have anything to contribute about it. Practically this could be solved anyway by setting up a second forum and depending on people's interests, point them in the other direction, but my idea would be to keep everyone - from those interested in 1960's mainframes to early 1990's workstations and PCs - under one roof. If nothing else, it would promote to keep and advance knowledge about computing history among younger generations (unless you a bit older guys are planning to live forever?)

Nevyn
April 28th, 2006, 04:36 AM
i though the Pentium Pro evolved into the P-II :confused:

Actually you're right. My choice of words was poor. It's a oddball chip though in a lot of ways. First of a kind often are.

I think the issue as I see it is collectability vs. vintage. A NeXT Cube or a BeBox may not be thought of as strictly vintage as they have a lot in common with contemporary x86 and PowerPC based machines... but they definately are collectable. Rare.. odd.. out of production. Where as a C64 is definately vintage... but it's not exactly hard to come by.

Erik
April 28th, 2006, 05:17 AM
Those who loathe 32-bit computers could ignore the daugher forum, and vice versa for new enthusiasts who never saw a 8080 computer anyway, and don't have anything to contribute about it.

I like the thought but can't see why a separate forum is required. We've got subforums here that allow for that and folks can simply ignore what they aren't interested in.

With proper moderation (which we have) you can safely avoid anything in PCs and Clones, for instance, if it's not your thing.

Granted your idea would further divide the groups and topics, but is that needed at this level?

mbbrutman
April 28th, 2006, 05:19 AM
CPM User:

My line 'People have other options' means that anybody who gets upset at the content or doesn't want to participate has 40+ other areas and unnumerable other threads to look at.

This discussion should not make anybody upset. If we can't discuss this openly, then there is no number of FAQs or moderators that will keep this place sane.

CP/M User
April 28th, 2006, 02:08 PM
mbbrutman wrote:

> My line 'People have other options' means that
> anybody who gets upset at the content or doesn't want
> to participate has 40+ other areas and unnumerable
> other threads to look at.

> This discussion should not make anybody upset. If we
> can't discuss this openly, then there is no number of
> FAQs or moderators that will keep this place sane.

Okay.

Micom 2000
April 28th, 2006, 05:42 PM
I'm quite happy that this discussion has opened. I enjoy the VCF because it doesn't view DOS machines as some sort of abberration and generally doesn't allow itself to be a vehicle for the newest whoopee-shit marketing of some new developments by the big companies. We can leave that to slash/dot or the many other forums which don't deal with what I call vintage computers.

Unless there are some guidelines however, or dilligence by the moderators it's essence would change, and I for one would not bother frequenting it.

Lawrence

Dreamcast270mhz
May 10th, 2009, 09:54 AM
I see vintage as any 8-bit computer manufactured before '92, and any 16-bits before '91. As for 32-bit, 486 is max for x86 compatible, Pentiums below 200mhz are pushing it very far. The entire M68k line is vintage, but still surprisingly in embedded use. Low-end PPC, below 250mhz is the max I would say... but that's my opinion