Subject: Future uncollectable computers...

From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 10:34:00 2003

Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought just occured to me
about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in the
future, which aren't classics yet.  It seems that many of the newer
computers have been designed with uncollectability, as well as a high
degree of user-annoyance, in mind.  Somehow, either some marketing
idiots, or clueless enginers, got the idea to design computer
equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off shape... the iMacs
and some Compaq PeeCees (e.g. Presario 4814) come to mind.  Is anyone
going to be seriously interested in collecting computer equipment that
can't be stacked, and does anyone actually find equipment that can't
be stacked, or have anything stacked on top of it (not even a monitor
or books, etc), to be other than an annoyance?

-- 
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: 
All Rights Reserved            an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & 
[email-masked]  410-744-4900  her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org         beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 11:08:01 2003

Being stackable has nothing to do with being collectible.

The only major problem with collecting newer computers 10+ years from now is
that they are made so crappy that finding one in usable condition will be a
problem. The Imac tends to have power supply and overheating problems. Most
of the newer processors run very hot and will tend to die quicker then older
processors.

Apple found that if they made colorfull rounded computers people would buy
them because they were tired of beige boxes, then the other computer makers
followed. Its just like ford and the rounded taurus.

I like whats under the hood, not what it looks like. If its nice looking and
has interesting hardware thats a plus.

---

From: steve <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 11:42:01 2003

I don't see the connection, many 70's computers aren't
stackable, including all the single board "no case"
computers. In addition, you can make any unstackable
computer stackable by putting it in a box. Personally,
none of my computers are stack, so its not a problem
for me, my computers are all on their own shelfs (Home
Depot adjustable shelves, from 5 to 12 shelves from
floor to ceiling to accommodate various sized
computers). Manuals and books are stack in boxes
though.

---

From: Mail List <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 15:04:01 2003

Hello Robert,

 > due to its rounded-off shape

This design style has come into practice in the design of many products like
portable boom boxes, etc. and even more recently designed automobiles have
more rounded, and less angular or rectangular, designs. Doesn't do much for
me either.

Best Regards

---

From: "Bill Sudbrink" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 15:22:05 2003

> Is anyone going to be seriously interested in collecting
> computer equipment that can't be stacked, and does anyone
> actually find equipment that can't be stacked, or have
> anything stacked on top of it (not even a monitor or books,
> etc), to be other than an annoyance?

Well, a lot of the early integrated keyboard designs (my own
favorite, Ohio Scientific, C1, C2 and C4 models), even though
you can put a monitor on them, are still a pain.  Fortunately,
the OSI integrated keyboard models have flat sides and will
balance nicely on them, so you can store them on a shelf in
that orientation.  The pain is that, in factory configuration,
there are no external connectors on the floppy cables.  You
have to disassemble the unit to detach the floppy drives.  I
sometimes daydream about some kind of shelving/storage system
that could efficiently accommodate all of the odd sizes and still
provide better access than packed-in-a-box. (I also daydream
about renting/owning a floor of an office building and having
everything set up and running.)

---

From: Fred Cisin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 15:43:00 2003

> more rounded, and less angular or rectangular, designs. Doesn't do much for

They don't stack well either.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Duell)
Date: Thu Jul 17 18:37:48 2003

> future, which aren't classics yet.  It seems that many of the newer

It does worry me that there's not a single microcomputer system made 
today that I actually want to own....

> equipment that's unstackable due to its rounded-off shape... the iMacs

This is a problem, albeit a minor one (you can always fit shelves, etc 
round the stupidly-shaped machines so as to put other things on top). I 
do wonder, actually, if the shape is designed to prevent the user from 
stacking stuff on top of the machine and blocking the cooling vents, etc.

More of a problem is that modern machines are plain unrepairable. Spares 
are unavailable even now (when the machine is in production -- you try 
getting an ASIC for an Imac or similar...), so %deity knows what it'll be 
like in 10 years time. Technical manuals don't exist. The chances of 
being able to keep these machines running is minimal :-(

-tony

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu Jul 17 20:14:00 2003

> today that I actually want to own....

There is one microcomputer I would love to have.  The Power Mac G5.

Peace...  Sridhar

---

From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 20:43:01 2003

> There is one microcomputer I would love to have.  The Power Mac G5.

One of those certainly would be useful for the music and sound
synthesis software that won't run on my fastest, older, Power Mac,
although the machine would be more enjoyable if it resembled a
PDP-11/45, was built mostly from TTL ICs and came with schematics,
firmware sources and OS sources.  If I ever acquire one of those Power
Mac G5s, I'll probably apply a hacksaw to the handles on the top of
the case so that it will be a stackable machine upon which other
equipment, books, papers, tools, etc. can be stacked while it's in
use. :-)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu Jul 17 21:04:00 2003

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, R. D. Davis wrote:

> One of those certainly would be useful for the music and sound synthesis
> software that won't run on my fastest, older, Power Mac, although the
> machine would be more enjoyable if it resembled a PDP-11/45, was built
> mostly from TTL ICs and came with schematics, firmware sources and OS
> sources.  If I ever acquire one of those Power Mac G5s, I'll probably
> apply a hacksaw to the handles on the top of the case so that it will be
> a stackable machine upon which other equipment, books, papers, tools,
> etc. can be stacked while it's in use. :-)

If it were built from TTL IC's, would it still be a microcomputer?

Peace...  Sridhar

---

From: Cameron Kaiser <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 21:25:01 2003

> There is one microcomputer I would love to have.  The Power Mac G5.

Me too. Need some bucks though, and a good excuse to dump the dual G4
I already own. ;-)

-- 
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
 Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * [email-masked]
-- FORTUNE: You're wise, but not wise enough not to read this sort of drivel. -

---

From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Jul 17 21:51:00 2003

> Me too. Need some bucks though, and a good excuse to dump the dual G4

Just tell us which dumpster you're going to dump it into!  To save you
the trouble of dumping it somewhere, surely someone on the list will
make a free pickup. :-)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu Jul 17 23:09:00 2003

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Cameron Kaiser wrote:

> > > > Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but a thought just occured to
> > > > me about computers that some may, or may not, want to collect in
> > > > the future, which aren't classics yet.  It seems that many of the
> > > > newer
> > >
> Me too. Need some bucks though, and a good excuse to dump the dual G4 I
> already own. ;-)

As far as I'm concerned, the G5 is enough excuse to sell a G4.  8-)  It's
schweeeeet.

Peace...  Sridhar

---

From: "John Allain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 07:58:00 2003

> There is one microcomputer I would love to have.  The Power Mac G5.

Can you convince the rest of us?  Does OS/X render all the earlier 
Macs obsolete?  Why would somebody need a G5?

John A.

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 08:36:00 2003

It will make g4 machines dirt cheap as the herd sells them off to buy the
G5.

---

From: "John Allain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 09:36:00 2003

> It will make g4 machines dirt cheap as 
>         ** the herd **
> sells them off...

Wasn't it Apple themselves that made the "Lemmings" 
commercial featuring people marching off a cliff in unison?
Things change... Oh Well.
I like to think that I think for myself and so far nobody 
has made (much) of a case for the G5.

John A.

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 10:09:00 2003

If your a current mac user the g5 WILL be alot faster then what you have, if
your an Intel user I dont see a rush to buy anything made by apple. If your
a unix geek you might want a G5 just to say you own one and make fellow
geeks unworthy of your presence.

The funny thing is mac users who laugh at PC guys upgrading their hardware
every year are now doing the same thing, except its alot more costly for
them buying complete new machines while PC users just chuck the
motherboard/ram/video card in their old rig. This upgrade cycle of hardware
will eventually kill the mac market because only the very rich can keep up.
What percentage of mac owners are using OSX? What percentage will upgrade to
a current OSX running machine anytime soon?

---

From: "Zane H. Healy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 10:15:00 2003

>has made (much) of a case for the G5.

For those of us with the very early G4's and older, a G5 would be an awsome upgrade.  Like I mentioned in a previous post, I have one of the original G4/450's, it's almost 4 years old, and it's starting to feel a bit slow.  I mainly have speed problems in Adobe Photoshop, Adobe InDesign, and when compiling something.  Actually I wouldn't mind speeding up mailbox operations in Eudora either (the OS X version is a lot slower than the old classic version I was using).

On the G5, the combination of Hypertransport, faster RAM (PC3200 DDR vs. PC100 SDRAM), AGP 8x vs. AGP 2x, SATA vs. ATA66, USB 2.0 vs. USB 1.1, a 4x DVD-R/W drive, and lastly a significantly faster processor (or two significantly processors) make for a very good case for me upgrading.  However, I'll be limping along with my G4/450 for probably at least another year.

			Zane

-- 
--
| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| [email-masked] (primary)    | OpenVMS Enthusiast         |
|                                  | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
|     Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing,    |
|          PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum.         |
|                http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/               |

---

From: "Erik S. Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 10:53:00 2003

> If your a current mac user the g5 WILL be alot faster then what you
have,
>if your an Intel user I dont see a rush to buy anything made by apple.
If 
> your a unix geek you might want a G5 just to say you own one and make
> fellow geeks unworthy of your presence.

> motherboard/ram/video card in their old rig. This upgrade cycle of
> hardware will eventually kill the mac market because only the very
rich
> can keep up.  What percentage of mac owners are using OSX? What
percentage 
> will upgrade to a current OSX running machine anytime soon?

There was an article in the San Jose Monkey News yesterday about this
very thing.  It seems that all of the Apple commercials featuring people
who have switched (most of whom seem unqualified to monitor their own
shoelaces) have had no impact on their market share.  It has stayed
virtually unchanged.  The only think keeping the company alive is that
the pool of Apple users spends more per capita then the pool of PC
users.

This is just my opinion, but that's not a sustainable business model. .
.

   Erik Klein
   www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum
   The Vintage Computer Forum

---

From: "Zane H. Healy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 13:03:00 2003

>a current OSX running machine anytime soon?

I don't think this is a valid point.  The *average* PC user doesn't do incremental Upgrades, just like the average Mac user doesn't.  Granted you can't replace the Motherboard on your Mac (at least not easily).  However you can replace anything else. 

Also, how often does the *average* person replace their system?  Last I checked it's every 3+ years.  It's the same for the OS.

You have to remember that computer companies make their money from average user, not from the PC users that build their own systems and are in a constant upgrade cycle.

What is a problem with the current G5 offerings, is that the prices are all whacked out.  Normally the sweet spot is the midrange system.  With the G5's the sweet spot is the high-end.  Also, they really need to shave $200-400 off the price of the systems.

			Zane

---

From: "Antonio Carlini" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 13:51:00 2003

> today that I actually want to own....

But that just leaves space for the stuff you *do* want :-)

> getting an ASIC for an Imac or similar...), so %deity knows 

This has been true for quite a while now and it's only going to
get worse. 10 years ago DEC used its own fab to churn out
custom chips (but at least docs were available for these).
Now there are plenty of custom fabs that will knock out as
asic cheaply  if you need them in large quantities. Everyone
else uses an fpga. I cannot see this trend changing: the
economics will dictate this.
 
> being able to keep these machines running is minimal :-(

The chances probably would not be much better even with a technical
manual! Reworking those smt devices is a skill I've not yet needed
to acquire (but, hey, how hard can it be!) but a 768 ball(pin?) BGA
is probably something that needs a specialist (i.e. expensive)
workstation (and even then the success rate seems not to be
that high).

But as long as there is plenty of old stuff kicking around, I'm
not too bothered about the modern stuff. I suppose if my Ultra 5
goes belly up, I'll become more bothered!

Antonio
 
-- 

---------------
Antonio Carlini             [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri Jul 18 17:37:24 2003

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, John Allain wrote:

> Can you convince the rest of us?  Does OS/X render all the earlier Macs
> obsolete?  Why would somebody need a G5?

I *do not* use MacOS classic.  I find it terribly annoying.  I have
earlier Macs, but I run NetBSD on them.  They do it rather well.  I *like*
OSX, though.  Works well.  Never had trouble with it.  Does everything I
expect of it the way I expect of it, with a couple of minor exceptions
(like case insensitivity -- but that's more of a filesystem issue).

But you could use OSX with a G3 just as easily.  With the G5, it's not a
question of *need*.  It's a question of *want*.

Peace...  Sridhar

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Duell)
Date: Fri Jul 18 17:41:01 2003

> If it were built from TTL IC's, would it still be a microcomputer?

IMHO No. It would be a minicomputer. 

-tony

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Duell)
Date: Fri Jul 18 17:43:51 2003

> But that just leaves space for the stuff you *do* want :-)

I ran out of space about 10 years ago...

> This has been true for quite a while now and it's only going to

Is it any wonder I don't own a computer less than 10 years old....

> The chances probably would not be much better even with a technical

But they might be slighlty better. A tech manual can't do any harm...

> workstation (and even then the success rate seems not to be

In 10 years time hackers might be able to do this at home. They certainly 
won't be able to do it if the chip (or the specs of said chip) are 
unavailable.

-tony

---

From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Jul 18 18:57:00 2003

> This is just my opinion, but that's not a sustainable business model. .

Why not?  Who says that businesses have to expand?  All of this
foolishness about an economy based on constant growth (greed) is
ruining this nation, our quality of life, and the world.  The problem
is the businesses that can't survive without constant growth, they're
the poorly run ones.  More growth needs more people (more
overpopulation), more houses, more highways, more schools, etc., which
all, in turn, require more growing companies and sources or goverment
revenue to keep the lunacy growing.  A dangerous cycle.  Stable
companies and a stable zero-growth based economy would surely be a
better business model, but one can't expect most monkey-brained
biz'droids, politicians, or most people, whose minds are rotting from
immersion in dogma and propaganda, to understand something so sensible
and simple.

Of course, I'm not saying that Apple isn't making any big mistakes...

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat Jul 19 04:47:01 2003

Zero groath economy means young people would have to wait for an employee to
die or retire to get a job. Wages would be the same (except a slight
increase for inflation) since there is no groath. New industries cant come
up unless and old established one dies.

Maybe what you meant to say was a slow long term groath instead of 100%
increase in sales veery year.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat Jul 19 06:17:01 2003

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, TeoZ wrote:

> Zero groath economy means young people would have to wait for an
> employee to die or retire to get a job. Wages would be the same (except
> a slight increase for inflation) since there is no groath. New
> industries cant come up unless and old established one dies.

Not necessarily.  That only applies if you don't have ZPG, which is a
pretty good condition in and of itself in many cases.

Peace...  Sridhar

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Jul 20 12:29:00 2003

> or books, etc), to be other than an annoyance?

Let's see:

AT&T Unix PC
Intertec SuperBrain
Commodore PET
PDP-8 (original)

...to name but a few.

All classics.  None lend themselves well to stackability.  But they are
certainly worth collecting.

-- 

Sellam Ismail                                        Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger                http://www.vintage.org

 * Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Jul 20 13:02:00 2003

> being able to keep these machines running is minimal :-(

And all of the programming will have been sourced out to low-paid
workers in India and other developing nations, adding another element
of the unknown to picture.

--

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Jul 20 13:05:00 2003

> There is one microcomputer I would love to have.  The Power Mac G5.

That and the G4 Cube and the "iLamp".

--

---

From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Jul 20 14:13:00 2003

> AT&T Unix PC
[...]
> All classics.  None lend themselves well to stackability.  But they are

Not stackable, but the monitor does at least have a flat ridge on
which books, papers, parts, etc. can be placed. :-)

---

From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Jul 20 14:20:00 2003

> of the unknown to picture.

Shucks... that's just one of those important necessities needed for
the U.S. to be on its way to becoming a third-world communist
totalitatian nation... we're getting close... just a few more nitwits
in chief (presidents) away from it, methinks... by that time, what
will anything historical matter?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun Jul 20 23:45:01 2003

> That and the G4 Cube and the "iLamp".

I wouldn't mind having a G4 cube sometime, but my brother has a G4 iMac
and I'm not impressed by it.  I think I'd rather have an AIO G3 with a G4
upgrade.

Peace...  Sridhar

---

From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 03:34:00 2003

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Zane H. Healy wrote:

> I don't think this is a valid point.  The *average* PC user doesn't do
> incremental Upgrades, just like the average Mac user doesn't.
Indeed; they lack the skills to do so.  Which is usually why they call
upon their (more) geeky friends to do that for them.

> Also, how often does the *average* person replace their system?  Last
> I checked it's every 3+ years.  It's the same for the OS.
Down here, I see people change their hardware at least once every year,
and the really geeky ones even more often.  The lost ones are in a
coninuous cycle of upgrade-and-expand, and then, they sell the box
and buy a new one (usually in parts) and start over :)

> You have to remember that computer companies make their money from
> average user, not from the PC users that build their own systems and
> are in a constant upgrade cycle.
Here, we see four markets:

- business user: complete A-brand systems, no upgrades, replacements every
                 2 to 4 years.

- home user: complete systems, either brand (A/B class) or clone. They
             sometimes build their systems from parts, or just ask a
             tech friend to do so for them.

- techie user: get parts, build system. then slowly replace parts to
               go with the (speed/features) flow of the market.  sell
               the box eventually, and start over.

- lost geek: same as above, but much shorter cycle.

And then there's also the 'schools' and 'government' user markets- the
schools here usually depend on aftermarket sales (new, but older models
of A/B class brand systems) and sometimes clones, and the government
usually does like the business user market, with a 2 or 3 year cycle,
and buy in bulk from mfcts'.

Companies typically live off the business users (where price is less
important than reliability), with the home-user buying systems being
a good second market (if you have good products.)

The parts stuff is mostly a fair stream of income for parts suppliers,
not as much for the manufacturers, given that the profit margin is
set/maintained by the resellers mostly.

I do see a tendency towards quality, though... in the past, the self-
built home boxes were usually made of cheap parts.  Now, I see people
buying the more expensive parts (better brands, or "higher" models of
a part) at the expense of having to sit on it for a while longer.

(example: I see VERY few Realtek cards sold here, as opposed to the
better 3Com and intel-based cards)

Cheers,
	Fred

---

From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 10:55:01 2003

[...]

Something about all of this upgrade mania makes no sense to me.
Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading seems rather pointless.  If I
need more disk space, I'll just add another drive, or another file
server.  If speed becomes an issue, which it rarely does (I'm talking
about UNIX, not Windoze with all of it's super-duper crash-happy
bloatware), I'll do processing on a faster system on the network, find
a faster system at a hamfest, replace a PC's CPU with a faster CPU,
etc... whatever's cheapest.  A 200 MHz CPU on a PC running FreeBSD,
for example, is plenty fast for most things, from compiling large
programs to the kind of processing needed for LaTeX (when writing
manuscripts hundreds of pages long), Csound and Lilypond.  Peripherals
such as keyboards, monitors and laser printers go for many, many,
years without being replaced, unless they become unrepairable or
higher-resolution is needed... 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768 displays
have been available for many years.  Tape drives - those only get
replaced with higher-capacity drives as storage needs increase.
Network cards... well, those old 10MBit/s cards from a decade or so
ago still work fine. 

To get this thread more on topic for the list, I can also think of
many programs that run, with very satisfactory performance, on many
classic systems, from 1MHz Z80 systems, to various PDP-11s, C-64s,
Sun-4/110, and assorted MicroVAXen, etc. :-)

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 12:06:00 2003

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "R. D. Davis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Future uncollectable computers...

> Network cards... well, those old 10MBit/s cards from a decade or so

Alot of people use their computer as a status symbol just like people who
sell a perfectly good 3 yr old car at a loss to buy the newest model.
There are different hardware requirements for each age of PC's (IBM
compatible). The dos era programs ran fine of xt/at/386 systems, windows 3.x
on 386/486 systems and windows 9x on high end 486 to today. The main reason
people upgrade alot is because of computer gaming, especially the 3d games
of the last 5+ years.

My last job I was using a p200 compaq and it worked fine for the programs
and computations I had to run. A newer computer would have been nicer/faster
but wasnt manditory. The CAD guy made use of a dual p2-300/512mb ram/some
old expensive video card/9gb uwscsi system that is ancient but ran autocad
just fine on windows nt4.

I am building a nice collection of original 68k mac software that is still
fast and usefull even today on upgraded 68k machines (fast scsi hd's and max
memory) even though I have a xp1500 amd 512mb ddr and an ati 9000 video card
on my main game pc. If you have any boxed software for the 68k macs you dont
want let me know.

---

From: "Zane H. Healy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 12:21:00 2003

>Network cards... well, those old 10MBit/s cards from a decade or so

Congratulations, you just did a good job of showing why it doesn't make any sense to you, and proved you're not a typical user.  Most people (that's most people not on this list) don't have a network of various speeds of computers, so finding a faster system on their network isn't an option, just like adding another file server really doesn't make sense in a home environment.  As for a 200Mhz PC running FreeBSD being plenty fast for most things, it totally depends on what you do with the computer, and how much time you have to waste waiting on it.  I maintain that surfing on a system that slow is painful, it takes way to long to render the webpages.  Also, you can forget gaming, graphics, and video (well you can run older games and graphics apps, but video is still out). 

Basically my point is it's all in what you're using the computer for, as to if it's to slow or not.  There are other issues to consider as well, by upgrading, do you get something that is quieter, generates less heat and uses less power? 

Oh, and how many typical users have tape drives at home :^)

Still a lot of those upgrades are pointless.  Is it really worth upgrading to get a 5-10% increase in performance?  In certain cases, yes, but in most, no.

			Zane

---

From: "Ernest" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 13:12:53 2003

Does the new Commodore-One count as vintage, or is it considered new? That
is a system that I consider to be collectable already. Also the round little
iMac with the flat screen.

---

From: "George Leo Rachor Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 13:13:26 2003

As a totally dedicated Intel user my roots were with the Apple ][.

My meager collection includes a Lisa and Next ...

Then I bought a G4 Cube just for the novelty and love it.  It's quiet
fan-less design is an engineering masterpiece.  It is too bad that Intel
PC's just can't be that elegant (or afford to be)...

George Rachor

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 15:27:00 2003

>              tech friend to do so for them.

I think the typical home user is much more like the business user, with a
bit lower system specs and a longer replacement cycle (3-6 years).  Fewer
and fewer people have the time, or more importantly the skills, to build
their own systems these days, and unless they really want performance,
there is no longer any cost advantage to building your system from parts
as their was 6-10 years ago.

--

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 15:44:35 2003

> iMac with the flat screen.

Not vintage, but like the eMate or the iMac or the G4 Cube (as examples)
it is definitely an "instant collectible" :)

--

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 15:44:58 2003

> PC's just can't be that elegant (or afford to be)...

It's also too bad that the system tends to overheat and self-destruct
because of fan-less design :(

--

---

From: Mike Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 16:32:01 2003

>today that I actually want to own....

Actually this is sort of an exciting time to be a collector. This is the 
last decade that I suspect computers will "look" like computers, as 
reductions in size and the push for lower costs force more and more 
integration of functions, and the CRT slowly fades away to flat panel 
technology. The last of a generation must have a few gems worth preserving.

Three possible items off the top of my head are:

Apple Cube

Tricked out lucite case lan party PC with all the lights and fans and leds.

A Generic tower systen, since that is what will be gone.

---

From: Mike Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon Jul 21 19:44:01 2003

>Things change... Oh Well.

The catch is that many Apple users actually make money fairly directly 
related to the performance of their computers, so they do tend to grab the 
latest greatest as soon as they can get one in there hands. I remember 
talking to a graphic arts person back when the Apple Cinema display came 
out at like $3499, and she expected it to pay for itself within a couple 
months.

---

From: "George Leo Rachor Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue Jul 22 18:35:56 2003

Greetings Sellam,

Our cube has been running for a long time.  Are we just lucky or was there
a specific problem that we ought to know about?

George Rachor

=========================================================
George L. Rachor Jr.		[email-masked]
Hillsboro, Oregon               http://rachors.com
United States of America        Amateur Radio : KD7DCX

---

From: "Keys" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue Jul 29 21:41:00 2003

I have one of each in the collection (except for 2 different versions of the
iMac). And they are pretty cool to look at and use.