From: uhclemLOSE.nov05@nemesis.lonestar.org   
      
   Daniel Hamilton  wrote:   
   : It is extremely difficult to find any information about any kind of   
   : Tandy Desktop machines, especially the later ones like the 386s and   
   : 486s.  Do people here collect these?  Surely they do?   
   :   
   : I'm a native of the comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware group, were we try to   
   : carry on the IBM PS/2 (and other IBM beeds) of older computers.  Do   
   : people here do the same?  Just curious about these, wonder if maybe   
   : anyone has some pictures, a site, etc.  Cannot find anything about 386   
   : and 486 Tandys...   
      
   This is probably a reasonable place.  However, let me be blunt and say that   
   there just isn't much interest in the 386/486/Pentium computers from   
   anybody.   There are few of these that have obtained what you might call   
   "Classic" or collectable computer status, and in my opinion few ever will.   
   That's mainly because of three traps caused by so-called IBM-PC   
   compatibility.   
      
   One, with everybody churning out machines that were sometimes identical   
   down to the markings on the circuit boards and the case screws used, few of   
   these machines made by different vendors were distinct from one another   
   (except in bad ways).  Will the 37-cent postage stamp of the US flag on   
   it be a classic?  Probably not, because there are zillions of them.   
   Now, the inverted airplane stamp, while compatible in some ways with other   
   stamps (it could be used to send a letter), it is unique and therefore   
   classic and very collectable.   
      
   The second problem that prevents these older machines from rising to   
   "classic" status is the fact that you can get a machine today that is   
   over 350 times faster in raw processor performance, more reliable, works   
   better and will run most of the old software that anyone would care to   
   run just fine, and the case plastics haven't turned nicotine-yellow yet   
   and the keys on the keyboards don't stick.  Only certain games and   
   perhiperals (like those using ISA cards) require a loyalty for these old   
   PC-clone machines, and necessity does not necessarily create a "Classic"   
   status.  I keep a manual can/bottle opener because in a pinch it works,   
   not because it is the "Classic" design or worth thousands.   
      
   It is the one-of-a-kindness of things that help make a given computer   
   become a classic or collectable, or at least unique enough or useful   
   enough so that one could tolerate having them hanging around the house,   
   despite the domestic strife that the presence of such infrequently-used   
   and bulky objects can cause.   
      
   You will see far more talk here about the machines made by Tandy and sold   
   under a variety of names (Radio Shack, TRS-80, Tandy, GRiD, Digital   
   Equipment, Victor, Matsushita/Panasonic) that had something unique about   
   them or that are software incompatible with the modern PC and can't be   
   easily used on the Internet than you will see about machines from the same   
   assembly lines that did little more than copy almost every aspect of what   
   everybody else in the industry was doing.   
      
   I've got boxes and boxes of motherboards and related parts for Tandy   
   made/sold 386 and 486 systems (plus some AST Pentium stuff), that nobody   
   wants, despite trying to sell the parts for the price of the postage   
   for years.  (Much of these items are now in sacks awaiting a trip to a   
   scrap house.)   
      
   Meanwhile, small plastic covers for a TRS-80 Model I with no functional   
   value are bought, sometimes within hours of listing them.   This just   
   enforces my opinion that most PC-clones will never achieve the status   
   already granted to the Z-80/8085/680x/680x0 based Tandy computers, or even   
   the mostly-compatible Tandy 1000/2000 machines.   
      
   Finally, the third trap of compatibility making it hard for a machine   
   to become classic is their ability to work on the Internet, and their key   
   software vendor, which for the PC-clone is Microsoft.   These days, the   
   newer operating systems from MS set minimum platform specifications for   
   their use, even if the software could run on the machine but just run   
   slower.  Microsoft has used this practice since Windows ME, which refused   
   to let itself be installed on a machine with a CPU slower than 166MHz.   
   (You could install the OS on a faster machine and then move the drive to   
   a slower machine with no problems, which demonstrated that it was an   
   arbitrary cut-off point, not a technical platform issue like new opcodes   
   in the processors or something.)   
      
   Vista, which may come out next year, wants only SATA hard disk and DVD   
   drives (look at all the IDE/EIDE-based systems going out at fire sale   
   prices this Christmas!), 512Meg minimum of RAM, specific video card   
   requirements and who knows what the minimum CPU speed requirements are.   
   Yet moving to these newer versions of operating systems are pretty much   
   essential for a computer that is going to be connected to the Internet   
   at all and subject to the hazards available there.  If not for the   
   in-built security issues of Windows, you would see more people continuing   
   to use the older machines, but with people wanting to use PCs on the   
   Internet as well, it's just too dangerous to have an older Windows release   
   running.  (Not using Windows largely avoids falling into this trap,   
   because BSD-derived UNIX, and UNIX clones usually do not make the processor   
   or its speed an entry requirement for PC-clone platforms.)   
      
   For machines never connected to the Internet, a lack of a newer OS is no   
   big deal, as long as there are no Y2K issues or anything like that.   
   So for this situation, the third trap may not apply, but for most cases,   
   trap #3 does get in the way of the desire to make a PC-clone a   
   collectable or classic system.   
      
   When a machine becomes useless just because the OS vendor draws a line in   
   the sand and says that some machines are okay and some are not for future   
   use, those machines in the "not" category are less likely to become   
   classics than a machine that simply became imbearably slow by comparison   
   but still can do what it originally did fine.   
      
      
   So, classic/collectable computer status generally requires these things:   
   (1) enough were sold to the common man (or many had access to them in   
   school or in the workplace) when they were new to develop a following,   
   (2) there is no modern "drop-in" replacement that doesn't lose some   
   positive aspect of what the original could do or how it did it, and   
   (3) it wasn't side-lined from future use due to an arbitrary performance   
   decision by the OS vendor or by wide-spread change in use expectations,   
   such as changing what it takes for the machine to co-exist with modern   
   and changing network hazards.   
      
      
   Frank Durda IV - only this address works:|"I got my Windows Beta Tester T-shirt   
     | in August 1995, and can't understand   
   You must remove the "LOSE" to mail me.   | why the other 400 million Windows   
           http://nemesis.lonestar.org      | Beta Testers out there haven't   
   Copr. 2005, ask before reprinting.       | received their shirts yet."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)