Re: Apple II obsolete???

[shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford)]

In article <337C8AE8.1880@library.ucla.edu>,  <pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>However, based on my definition, the '486 is not obsolete.  Folks,
>before the advent of computers the word "obsolete" has always had
>a very strong connotation.  It literally means "next to useless."
>Are '486 and GS computers "next to useless?"  Of course they aren't.
>Therefore, they are not obsolete.

I jumped on Merriam-Webster online and found this entry for "obsolete":

Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obsoletus, from past participle of obsolescere to grow old, 
become disused, perhaps from ob- toward + solEre to be accustomed
Date: 1579
1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful b : of a kind or style no longer 
current : OLD-FASHIONED
2 of a plant or animal part : indistinct or imperfect as compared with a 
corresponding part in related organisms : VESTIGIAL
synonym see OLD

This definition certainly applies to Apple IIs, aside from the no longer 
useful part. Obsolescence and usefulness are not directly related in my 
opinion. My own notion is that obsolescence is a function of the "distance"
between one thing and the current state of the art, i.e. the amount of stuff
the object in question cannot do which the newest example of the same thing
can do. By this definition, Apple IIs are quite obsolete, and even my Quadra
is on its way there. But in one sense, you could also say that my ROM 3 will
never be obsolete since there will never be a newer Apple II.
-- 
Randy Shackelford                                 
shack@frii.com