On July 1, 2016 11:58:18 AM PDT, couryho...@aol.com wrote: > >Actually we want this Packard Bell >http://www.smecc.org/itemsklkljl;_3.jpg > for the computer display at SMECC! > >Also want any promo material, artwork, manuals etc etc etc.... > >drop me a line offlist with a title of SMECC Packard Bell please >to _couryhouse@aol.com_ (mailto:couryho...@aol.com) > >thisis what we are looking for >http://www.smecc.org/itemsklkljl;_3.jpg > > > >In a message dated 7/1/2016 10:49:36 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, >j...@cimmeri.com writes: > > >Computers don't (yet) have voting >rights. :-) > >But you're defining "spirit" and listing >criteria by which a machine is >appropriate or not. A PS/2 with an >80386 running Windows 3.1 is acceptable, >whereas a Packard Bell with an 80386 >running Windows 3.1 is not. Yeah, you >and I would cringe at a PB being >discussed, but maybe there's someone out >there who really is fond of their PB. > >So as Terry ("Tezza") acknowledges, >terms like "landmark," "classic," >"collectible" are subjective (but I >don't think "vintage" is subjective -- >that term is usually set by age alone). > >This is why it's just easier to use a >single criteria -- age -- and leave it >at that. Why is age acceptable >everywhere else in collecting, but not >here? Otherwise, someone (the list >owner?) has to pontificate over a list >of acceptable computers. Good luck with >that. > >- J.
It seems that museums have traditionaly sought the best artifacts. I feel they should also exhibit crap from time to time to remind visitors of history's wrong turns. -- David Griffith d...@661.org