I'm much apealed by Brian's answer, as my feelings are much the same. I mean, after all, a 386 is modern wizardry, in't it? No use for such power and even less any history there :)))) On an equally serious side, he touches a very important issue - what younger consider 'old' is future technology to old farts like me. Still, their view is as valid as mine. So we may need to be somewhat welcome to such questions (Im not asking to cheer for or being less critical at all).
Dr.Sheldons's answer is a great attempt for a more systematic approach. Still, the criteria are even more debatable - to start with the first, 'State of the Art' is a more than just vague term. Try to apply that to the wheel and come again :)) Similar the next one, as presence of an original manufacturer, or author, does not hold any relevance to the item - even more so when talking about software or protocols. And last but not least, the third may need as well refinement, as 'willingness' may not be a great criteria. Some of the examples given do already underline the inherent problems. So if at all, my collection here would go more like this:
Does the question target a product/software/protocol still in commercial/public use
Is the question not tied to a specific historic issue.
Is there another (prefered SE) sitewheresite where it is clear on topic (not just willing to accept)
I'm much apealed by Brian's answer, as my feelings are much the same. I mean, after all, a 386 is modern wizardry, in't it? No use for such power and even less any history there :)))) On an equally serious side, he touches a very important issue - what younger consider 'old' is future technology to old farts like me. Still, their view is as valid as mine. So we may need to be somewhat welcome to such questions (Im not asking to cheer for or being less critical at all).
Dr.Sheldons's answer is a great attempt for a more systematic approach. Still, the criteria are even more debatable - to start with the first, 'State of the Art' is a more than just vague term. Try to apply that to the wheel and come again :)) Similar the next one, as presence of an original manufacturer, or author, does not hold any relevance to the item - even more so when talking about software or protocols. And last but not least, the third may need as well refinement, as 'willingness' may not be a great criteria. Some of the examples given do already underline the inherent problems. So if at all, my collection here would go more like this:
Does the question target a product/software/protocol still in commercial/public use
Is the question not tied to a specific historic issue.
Is there another (prefered SE) sitewhere it is clear on topic (not just willing to accept)
I'm much apealed by Brian's answer, as my feelings are much the same. I mean, after all, a 386 is modern wizardry, in't it? No use for such power and even less any history there :)))) On an equally serious side, he touches a very important issue - what younger consider 'old' is future technology to old farts like me. Still, their view is as valid as mine. So we may need to be somewhat welcome to such questions (Im not asking to cheer for or being less critical at all).
Dr.Sheldons's answer is a great attempt for a more systematic approach. Still, the criteria are even more debatable - to start with the first, 'State of the Art' is a more than just vague term. Try to apply that to the wheel and come again :)) Similar the next one, as presence of an original manufacturer, or author, does not hold any relevance to the item - even more so when talking about software or protocols. And last but not least, the third may need as well refinement, as 'willingness' may not be a great criteria. Some of the examples given do already underline the inherent problems. So if at all, my collection here would go more like this:
Does the question target a product/software/protocol still in commercial/public use
Is the question not tied to a specific historic issue.
Is there another (prefered SE) site where it is clear on topic (not just willing to accept)
I'm much apealed by Brian's answer, as my feelings are much the same. I mean, after all, a 386 is modern wizardry, in't it? No use for such power and even less any history there :)))) On an equally serious side, he touches a very important issue - what younger consider 'old' is future technology to old farts like me. Still, their view is as valid as mine. So we may need to be somewhat welcome to such questions (Im not asking to cheer for or being less critical at all).
Dr.Sheldons's answer is a great attempt for a more systematic approach. Still, the criteria are even more debatable - to start with the first, 'State of the Art' is a more than just vague term. Try to apply that to the wheel and come again :)) Similar the next one, as presence of an original manufacturer, or author, does not hold any relevance to the item - even more so when talking about software or protocols. And last but not least, the third may need as well refinement, as 'willingness' may not be a great criteria. Some of the examples given do already underline the inherent problems. So if at all, my collection here would go more like this:
Does the question target a product/software/protocol still in commercial/public use
Is the question not tied to a specific historic issue.
Is there another (prefered SE) sitewhere it is clear on topic (not just willing to accept)
Especially the last should be of prime concern, as they are meant to eliminate generic issues for which specialized sites exist. I have to give that the first one is somewhat debatable, as out of mainstream use and not used is a wide topic - even more for items that never became as mainstream. Think Gopher here - there's still a good number of such servers. Or the underlaying board system for usenet.
- Now, when it comes to API or protocols, then it gets complete blurry. Sure, the Apple II's Monitor ROM API is a clear yes (*1), but already the IBM PC's BIOS API can be questioned - ast it's basically supported all the way up to today - including floppy calls an PCs where no floppy has been installed for more than a decade.
So I would prefer to take such questions with a lot of scaptizism about bein on topic at all. It only becomes a clean yes when not tied to the API/protocol in general, but a specific implementation that itself will be on topic.
Now, somewhat unrelated to the core question, but it was touched by it:
Which leads to me being uneasy with the term "retro" at all. retro is a zeitgeisty fashion word, not anything marking serious interaction. And it's more toward interaction than history. It's retro to wear a bowler hat to a party, but historic to wear a 1890s outfit (*2) (even with a smartphone instead of a pocket watch)
I do believe that, while the name is catchy - like all fashionable terms until they go out of fashion, it is as well misleading and producing some of the irritations/off-topic-votes/clashes we have. RC.SE did basically suck up Computing History, so much is true, And I would say rightful, as it offers a lower hurdle. At the same time it creates the issue discussed here. People coming here for products still up to date, just because they believe them to be old. Like asking about a new kitchen knife on a site for medival swords.
In a few years from now Retro will be as outdated to cathegorize this as nowadays youth language of the 90s is (wont even mention the one I picked in the 70s :))
And quite frankly, I have no proposition to solve this ...
*1 - Thinking of it, that's just by feeling. not really by a hard definition.
*2 - Unlike Hollywood told us, not the ten gallon hat was the standard headwear for out west (and back then), but the bowler. It was not only fashionable, but a durable protection gear made for riding and other hard work - the victorian version of a hard hat.