Re: What constitutes "Vintage"?

[Ecnerwal]

In article <kk-0FC7D8.12...@167-253-251-66-GOV.emcbc.doe.gov>,
kenji <k...@everyblock.com> wrote:

> is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?

It appeared on my server (or finally got noticed as a new group by my
reader) all of two days ago. Might be a bit soon for a FAQ...

Offhand I'd say anything from OS1 to OS10.7 and processors Mot-68K -
PPC-G5 for sure, and many an intel is effectively vintage at this point
too. When the next thing comes out, the present things become vintage.

No need to get all exclusive in the first week...

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Please don't feed the trolls. Killfile and ignore them so they will go away.

[D Finnigan]

kenji wrote:
> is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?
>

Not yet, but anyone is welcome to prepare one.


Here is the charter for this newsgroup:


The newsgroup comp.sys.mac.vintage is intended for discussions regarding
the use, maintenance, and programming of Macintosh computers which are
no longer current. This classification includes the following systems:

- All Motorola 680x0 series computers
- All PowerPC series computers
- Any Intel computer declared by Apple as either vintage or obsolete
- All Mac OS Systems prior to Mac OS X
- Any Mac OS X version no longer supported by Apple

Discussions of Macintosh clones, as well as alternative operating systems,
are also on-topic and welcomed in this newsgroup.

Requests for hardware and software should be posted in the
comp.sys.mac.wanted newsgroup.

Posters to this newsgroup are asked to refrain from harassment, personal
attacks, and disruptive communication. Articles containing binary computer
files including, but not limited to, programs or images, are forbidden. All
articles should be plain-text only.

Users should exercise their best judgement and use consideration for the
copyright laws of their country. If in doubt, ask.


--
]DF$
Apple II Book: http://macgui.com/newa2guide/
Usenet: http://macgui.com/usenet/ <-- get posts by email!
Apple II Web & Blog hosting: http://a2hq.com/

[dorayme]

In article
<MyNameForward-250...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ecnerwal <MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <kk-0FC7D8.12...@167-253-251-66-GOV.emcbc.doe.gov>,
> kenji <k...@everyblock.com> wrote:
>
> > is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?
>
> It appeared on my server (or finally got noticed as a new group by my
> reader) all of two days ago. Might be a bit soon for a FAQ...
>
> Offhand I'd say anything from OS1 to OS10.7 and processors Mot-68K -
> PPC-G5 for sure, and many an intel is effectively vintage at this point
> too. When the next thing comes out, the present things become vintage.
>
> No need to get all exclusive in the first week...

Surely that is too inclusive? It would seem more reasonable to make
the outer limit something like machines that have difficulty going
beyond OS9.

--
dorayme

[David Empson]

dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article
> <MyNameForward-250...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ecnerwal <MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <kk-0FC7D8.12...@167-253-251-66-GOV.emcbc.doe.gov>,
> > kenji <k...@everyblock.com> wrote:
> >
> > > is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?
> >
> > It appeared on my server (or finally got noticed as a new group by my
> > reader) all of two days ago. Might be a bit soon for a FAQ...
> >
> > Offhand I'd say anything from OS1 to OS10.7 and processors Mot-68K -
> > PPC-G5 for sure, and many an intel is effectively vintage at this point
> > too. When the next thing comes out, the present things become vintage.
> >
> > No need to get all exclusive in the first week...
>
> Surely that is too inclusive?

Ecnerwal's list is certainly too inclusive.

The point of this group is to have a place to talk about older OSes and
Mac models where the details are starting to differ significantly from
current/recent systems, and/or where it is becoming difficult to find
hardware support and compatible software from the original vendors.

PowerPC Macs running Mac OS X certainly qualify. A Mac bought new a year
or two ago which happens to be running 10.7 is not "vintage".

> It would seem more reasonable to make the outer limit something like
> machines that have difficulty going beyond OS9.

As stated in the charter of the group (which D Finnigan has posted in
this thread), on-topic discussion includes Mac OS X versions which are
"no longer supported" by Apple, and for Macs it includes all models
decared vintage or obsolete by Apple.

For those who want to be pedantic about the cut-off:

At present Mac OS X 10.6 and later are off-topic for this group, since
Apple is still selling 10.6 and supplying security updates for it. Mac
OS X 10.5.8 and earlier are definitely on-topic, and 10.6.x will become
on-topic once Apple stops supporting it (probably around the time 10.9
is released).

For hardware, Apple's cutoff for "vintage" is approximately five years
after the model is discontinued, so at present that includes most Intel
Mac models introduced in 2006, and some introduced in 2007, which were
discontinued in April 2008 or earlier. Apple's official list is here:

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1752

Based on that list, the cutoff isn't exactly five years, since the list
was updated in March 2013 but doesn't include several models that were
discontinued in February 2008.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <slrnko0ud9....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <dorayme-A2C247...@news.albasani.net>

> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> > Surely that is too inclusive? It would seem more reasonable to make
> > the outer limit something like machines that have difficulty going
> > beyond OS9.
>

> Why?

It doesn't matter. This was discussed during the proposal stage. The
issue is that things change over time. What's all current and exciting
now, is not later. And the reverse: what's NOT vintage now *will* be in
a few years when it's replaced by a later thing. We don't want to have
to revise the newsgroup charter every N years. So the group was defined
to cover all Macintosh computers up to but not including anything
currently supported by Apple. That's a moving target, and so will not
require revision of the charter. I expect people may discuss
non-Macintosh Apple machines here too, though I expect they already have
their own newsgroups, and are all vintage by definition.

So, want to discuss the Macintosh XL (Lisa)? G'head. How about a 680x0
machine? Sure. Want to discuss a PPC-based Mac? Those count too,
being unsupported. Even a few of the first Intel-based Macs might be
considered "included", though I personally wouldn't come here for them
yet.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <howard-C0BA05....@news.individual.net>, Howard S

I agree with this entirely. The charter for the group is well written for
the reasons that you outline above, not least of all that it recognises
that what is not vintage *right now* will very soon be so. It also
provides really good guidance on what is on or off topic and why.

On a practical level, different people will have different opinions, some
will take the purist stance and only consider OS9 or earlier as "vintage",
others will insist that only the 68K machines are vintage, others still
will insist that discussion on how to emulate classic OS on 10.8 is
on-topic. The charter is flexible enough to accomodate all of these points
of view, and that's a good thing.

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
-------------------

[dorayme]

In article <slrnko0ud9....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <dorayme-A2C247...@news.albasani.net>
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Why?

Because including more degrades a particularly useful and
understandable idea.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.134>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> The charter for the group is well written for
> the reasons that you outline above, not least of all that it recognises
> that what is not vintage *right now* will very soon be so. It also
> provides really good guidance on what is on or off topic and why.
>
> On a practical level, different people will have different opinions, some
> will take the purist stance and only consider OS9 or earlier as "vintage",
> others will insist that only the 68K machines are vintage, others still
> will insist that discussion on how to emulate classic OS on 10.8 is
> on-topic. The charter is flexible enough to accomodate all of these points
> of view, and that's a good thing.

There is no reason not to have a group that has clearly defined
boundaries (to do with what Apple cease to support). Perhaps the name
is not quite apt though. comp.sys.mac.abandoned might be better for
this? <g>

The charter, btw, does not "accommodate" differing points of views any
more than it accommodates people of different skin colour, religion
etc. This is a category mistake. The charter simply says what is on or
off topic.

--
dorayme

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

You're right in what you say re the charter, that it merely states what is
on-topic, but the charter is precise enough in pointing out the scope of
its coverage that it can easily accommodate many different viewpoints on
what "counts" as vintage. In a nutshell, the group can be different things
to different people. You want to talk about the first Macintosh? Great,
that's on topic. You want to talk about browser support in Tiger? Terrific,
that's also on topic!

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[Hauke Fath]

dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> There is no reason not to have a group that has clearly defined
> boundaries (to do with what Apple cease to support).

Well, the original motivation for creating the group was that postings
about old Macintoshes in csm.* tended to go unnoticed in a sea of MacOS
X related contributions.

Questions about, say, Tigger or Leperd will be answered perfectly well
in csm.!vintage, thank you - no need to make this a copy of csm.misc, I
think.

hauke

--
Now without signature.

[D Finnigan]

Hauke Fath wrote:
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> There is no reason not to have a group that has clearly defined
>> boundaries (to do with what Apple cease to support).
>
> Well, the original motivation for creating the group was that postings
> about old Macintoshes in csm.* tended to go unnoticed in a sea of MacOS
> X related contributions.

Also, I speak for myself, and probably others too, but there was a lot of
doubt whether I should post topics about the old Macs into the mainline
csm.* groups because 99% of the discussion is on OS X. Would it be
off-topic? Would it even get a decent response?

Now we have a dedicated newsgroup to talk about whether System 6 or System 7
is better, how to do XYZ on an old Mac, how to transfer data from old MFS
disks to a USB flash drive, and so on.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <dog_cow-1...@macgui.com>, D Finnigan

<dog...@macgui.com> wrote:

>
> Also, I speak for myself, and probably others too, but there was a lot of
> doubt whether I should post topics about the old Macs into the mainline
> csm.* groups because 99% of the discussion is on OS X. Would it be
> off-topic? Would it even get a decent response?
>
> Now we have a dedicated newsgroup to talk about whether System 6 or System 7
> is better, how to do XYZ on an old Mac, how to transfer data from old MFS
> disks to a USB flash drive, and so on.

I posted a few Mac OS questions to the apple2 group as well as the Mac
groups and, whilst I did receive some good responses, it clearly wasn't
what was on the minds of the groups' users and the threads were quickly
lost.

I, for one, love this new group! :)

[Rudy]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.134>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> -------------------
> Stephen Thomas Cole
> -------------------

you have three first names? That's hillbillyx2 right?

[PhillipJones]

Why be insulting. The man asked the question the subject. Although he
should have repeated in main area.

as for asking the question: To me Vintage is any thing the G4/G5 Tower
series on down for Desktop and PowerBook (LapTops) on down.

I have a G4-500 Tower and the the newest OS That will run reasonably
fast and efficient is X.4.11. It doesn't have the power (though I have
the most RAM it will accept) to Run OSX.5.8 Or X.6.8.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjon...@comcast.net

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <Roodee-62FB50....@remote5bge0.ripco.com>, Rudy

In the UK, "Cole" is almost exclusively used as a surname (derived from
the German family name "Kohl, I believe"). "Thomas" is my middle name
which, in the UK, are almost always picked from the pool of first names.
Indeed, a commom practice in England for choosing a middle name is to use
the first name of a (often deceased) relative that you wish to honour.
Mine came from an uncle who died in infancy.

I hope that that has cleared things up for you!

--

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <knk6s3$jjb$1...@news.albasani.net>, pjon...@comcast.net wrote:

> The man asked the question the subject. Although he
> should have repeated in main area.

I don't think that I started this thread...

--

[Mike Dee]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <knk6s3$jjb$1...@news.albasani.net>, pjon...@comcast.net
> wrote:
>
>> The man asked the question the subject. Although he
>> should have repeated in main area.
>
> I don't think that I started this thread...

Correct, you didn't. It was begun by a person calling himself
"kenji", in Message-ID:
<news:kk-0FC7D8.12...@167-253-251-66-GOV.emcbc.doe.gov>

The rude poster, Rudy, hasn't gotten about too much if he
hasn't come across the surname "Cole" before.

--
dee

[Mike Dee]

Lewis wrote:

> Cole isn't a first name, regardless of the nincompoops who try to
> name their kids that.

The fans of Cole Porter will be very dissapointed in this news ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Porter

--
dee

[nospam]

In article <slrnkptjjj....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> -------------------
> >> Stephen Thomas Cole
> >> -------------------
>
> > you have three first names? That's hillbillyx2 right?
>

> Cole isn't a first name, regardless of the nincompoops who try to name
> their kids that.

it most certainly is a first name, and a popular one at that. it has
been in the top 100 for the past 15 years or so:
<http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-cole-1073.htm>

quite a bit more popular than lewis:
<http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-lewis-2813.htm>

[PhillipJones]

Lewis wrote:
> In message<Roodee-62FB50....@remote5bge0.ripco.com>

> Cole isn't a first name, regardless of the nincompoops who try to name
> their kids that.
>
>

IT can be. Depends upon person doing naming.
People name people all kinds of Names

I went to school with a person named Shirley. You say that's not
unusual. Excepet the person that was named Shirley was Boy. He stayed in
Trouble all the time. You made a crack about his name you were seeing
Stars, laying on the Ground and trying to put their jaw back into place.
His parents had a mean streak in them when they named him that.

[Ant]

Is my old 15" PowerBook G4 1 Ghz, from 2002 with Mac OS X 10.2.8,
considered a vintage? :P
--
Quote of the Week: Have I told you how much I like ants, huh? Especially
fried in a subtle blend of mech fluid and grated gears?" --Rampage to
Inferno, "Transmutate" (S2E10) in Transformers (Beast Wars)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[David Empson]

Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:

> Is my old 15" PowerBook G4 1 Ghz, from 2002 with Mac OS X 10.2.8,
> considered a vintage? :P

Yes. The charter of this group covers any Mac that is old enough so
Apple won't supply service parts any more (which includes all PowerPC
Macs), and Mac OS versions that are no longer supported (which includes
all versions up to Mac OS X 10.5.8 so far).

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[D Finnigan]

Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <1l3h499.1w6gcen1bj3zr1N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

> What about applications?
>

Yes. Everything to do with old Macs can be discussed in this group. Even the
Mac clones from the 1990's are OK to discuss here!

[David Empson]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <1l3h499.1w6gcen1bj3zr1N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>

> What about applications?

The charter for this group covers "use" of older Macs and OS versions,
therefore it also covers applications running on those Macs or OS
versions.

If the application in question still runs on recent OS versions, I'd be
inclined to discuss it in comp.sys.mac.apps, or a more specific group if
one exists (e.g. comp.mail.eudora.mac or comp.databases.filemaker).

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1l26t16.iw33i01wd8d04N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> PowerPC Macs running Mac OS X certainly qualify. A Mac bought new a year
> or two ago which happens to be running 10.7 is not "vintage".

Bought 3 years ago and 10.6.8? Belike many have stopped here to avoid
iOSification.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 04.06.2013 04:05, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <1l26t16.iw33i01wd8d04N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
>> PowerPC Macs running Mac OS X certainly qualify. A Mac bought new a year
>> or two ago which happens to be running 10.7 is not "vintage".
>
> Bought 3 years ago and 10.6.8? Belike many have stopped here to avoid
> iOSification.
>

+1


--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

[David Empson]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <1l26t16.iw33i01wd8d04N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > PowerPC Macs running Mac OS X certainly qualify. A Mac bought new a year
> > or two ago which happens to be running 10.7 is not "vintage".
>
> Bought 3 years ago and 10.6.8? Belike many have stopped here to avoid
> iOSification.

That's not on-topic for this group (yet) because both the hardware and
operating system are still supported by Apple, therefore they fall
outside the charter of this group.

The hardware isn't classified as "vintage" by Apple until the model was
discontinued at least five years ago. All PowerPC Macs qualify on this
basis, as do early Intel Macs, but not models from 2010.

Snow Leopard is still getting security updates, which classifies as
support. For that matter, Apple is still selling it from their online
store.

Once Apple stops supporting Snow Leopard, some discussion specific to
Snow Leopard would be on-topic for this group, but much of it would
still be more appropriate on comp.sys.mac.system, if it is relating to
features in common with later versions.

Educated guesswork based on historic patterns suggests that Snow Leopard
will stop getting security updates later this year, probably around the
time 10.9 is released.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Gavin]

That, dear boy, is because you are a Merkin!

--

Gavin.