Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!dali!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Apple II Obsolete? Message-ID: <12808@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 8 May 90 18:33:18 GMT References: <3960@pluto.dss.com> <12792@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3962@pluto.dss.com> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Lines: 22 In article <3962@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >In article <12792@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >> The IBM 360 architecture is considerably older, yet IBM mainframes >are you claiming 360's arent obsolete? Why don't you read what I said? The 360 *architecture* is far from obsolete. Certain *realizations* can certainly be considered obsolete, but newer, compatible models are still extremely important. >> The SR-71 is another example of a venerable design that was never >> surpassed. >the sr-71 was just retired. But not from technical obsolescence, which is what we were discussing. The SR-71 was not replaced by a superior newer design; it retired while still champ. (In fact there were many upset people in the intelligence community when the SR-71 operational funding was eliminated, which was viewed as a short-sighted budgetary decision. Its capabilities cannot be adequately replaced by satellites, which take too long to shift in situations where timeliness is critical.)