Can you believe this made CNN?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/17/tech/30- ... index.html
Having over 90+ vintage computers myself (MOST of them working and 6-7 Apple IIe's), I find this story laughable.
Maybe I'm the odd duck here. But I've seen people with even larger collections than me.
I just found it funny that CNN thinks that the entire world put these old machine out to pasture and never looked back.
OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
Cat; the other white meat.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
If it gets the clicks, they feel they've told the story the right way.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
At least they got "Apple II".. The UK red-tops called it a 30-year old Apple Mac.. 
-Gordon
-Gordon
--
Gordon Henderson.
See my Ruby 6502 and 65816 SBC projects here: https://projects.drogon.net/ruby/
Gordon Henderson.
See my Ruby 6502 and 65816 SBC projects here: https://projects.drogon.net/ruby/
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
drogon wrote:
At least they got "Apple II".. The UK red-tops called it a 30-year old Apple Mac..
-Gordon
-Gordon
However, my wife asked me if I bought my Commodore 5150 one time....LOL
But she's not a computer nerd like me.
Cat; the other white meat.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
These will probably be the same breed of journalists who can't tell the difference between an A320 and a 747, or between an F-16 and an A-10 - or for that matter, between a HST in GWR colours and a freight train on the ECML. They will then proceed to use a photo of one to illustrate a story about the other. It's not as if the differences are subtle, and there's decades worth of reference material to draw from in case of doubt. It's usually even possible to locate a good photo of any individual aircraft or locomotive by its registration code.
And to be fair, if you have a computer that's 30 years old in 2019, and it has a coloured apple logo on it, it's actually a reasonable assumption that it's a Mac, as the Mac II and LC series were well established by 1989. Unless, of course, you happen to be staring at a photo of said computer which is clearly emblazoned "Apple IIe", has an integrated keyboard and enormous black 5.25" floppy drives, and looks nothing like any Macintosh ever made!
And to be fair, if you have a computer that's 30 years old in 2019, and it has a coloured apple logo on it, it's actually a reasonable assumption that it's a Mac, as the Mac II and LC series were well established by 1989. Unless, of course, you happen to be staring at a photo of said computer which is clearly emblazoned "Apple IIe", has an integrated keyboard and enormous black 5.25" floppy drives, and looks nothing like any Macintosh ever made!
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
Well, I'm probably over sensitive to all things "computer history". I spend much of my time studying computer history and I sometimes get annoyed when things are just blatantly wrong. For example, there is a Discount Tire store near my house and in their lobby is a sign that has the company history. A timeline.
On that timeline, they refer to other famous events. One of those events is "the first Apple computer". Which is shown as a classic Mac. And the timeline is 1984. Whoever did that sign probably knew the word "Macintosh" but probably never heard of the Apple II or Apple I. So he/she goes out and looks up when the Mac was introduced. The key mistake there is thinking the Mac was the first.
On that timeline, they refer to other famous events. One of those events is "the first Apple computer". Which is shown as a classic Mac. And the timeline is 1984. Whoever did that sign probably knew the word "Macintosh" but probably never heard of the Apple II or Apple I. So he/she goes out and looks up when the Mac was introduced. The key mistake there is thinking the Mac was the first.
Cat; the other white meat.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
I think you can draw two things out of this.
One is, if you see that a news source, or a reference work, has rather inaccurate coverage of a topic you're expert in, you might realise that coverage of other topics might also be inaccurate to the same degree.
The other is, that the ostensible purpose of a business may not be what it seems - the classic example being search engines whose purpose is to sell adverts, and social networks whose purpose is to sell adverts. I suppose there have long been television channels whose purpose is not so much to "inform, educate, and entertain" but to sell adverts. And now we have websites whose purpose is to sell adverts: collecting views, trying to produce viral content, selling the huge and carefully segmented audience to the advertisers.
There are one or two news organisations seeking to survive by donation or subscription, perhaps a model that's more likely to deliver news.
One is, if you see that a news source, or a reference work, has rather inaccurate coverage of a topic you're expert in, you might realise that coverage of other topics might also be inaccurate to the same degree.
The other is, that the ostensible purpose of a business may not be what it seems - the classic example being search engines whose purpose is to sell adverts, and social networks whose purpose is to sell adverts. I suppose there have long been television channels whose purpose is not so much to "inform, educate, and entertain" but to sell adverts. And now we have websites whose purpose is to sell adverts: collecting views, trying to produce viral content, selling the huge and carefully segmented audience to the advertisers.
There are one or two news organisations seeking to survive by donation or subscription, perhaps a model that's more likely to deliver news.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
Ya know what? If the report tickles someone's fancy to go out and google "Apple II" and someone follows enough links to end up here or VCF or anywhere else, what's the harm?
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
There's no real harm in the CNN article. They at least managed to identify the computer correctly.
I'm much more annoyed by the tabloids who called it a Mac. Sloppy journalism like that is what helps to get people riled up in unhelpful directions about stuff that *actually* matters. (I'm deliberately not quoting examples to avoid degrading this thread into a political rant - I'm sure you can think of some yourselves.)
I'm much more annoyed by the tabloids who called it a Mac. Sloppy journalism like that is what helps to get people riled up in unhelpful directions about stuff that *actually* matters. (I'm deliberately not quoting examples to avoid degrading this thread into a political rant - I'm sure you can think of some yourselves.)
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
whartung wrote:
Ya know what? If the report tickles someone's fancy to go out and google "Apple II" and someone follows enough links to end up here or VCF or anywhere else, what's the harm?
Chromatix wrote:
There's no real harm in the CNN article. They at least managed to identify the computer correctly.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
Oh, I don't believe there is any real harm. I just like poking fun at the modern news media. I listen to NPR almost every day and I have a long list of gripes about them too. I guess I'm just an old man at heart. lol
Now, the flip side to this story....I recently found a video on YouTube while searching for TI-99/4A and one of the highest ranking videos is some stupid kid smashing one with a bat. Click-bait at it's finest. People like that disgust me. I'm sure the CNN article was also click-bait but in a much more innocent way. In fact, it leans on a more positive slant. That kid busting up a TI is garbage and the sad fact is that many people like watching it.
Now, the flip side to this story....I recently found a video on YouTube while searching for TI-99/4A and one of the highest ranking videos is some stupid kid smashing one with a bat. Click-bait at it's finest. People like that disgust me. I'm sure the CNN article was also click-bait but in a much more innocent way. In fact, it leans on a more positive slant. That kid busting up a TI is garbage and the sad fact is that many people like watching it.
Cat; the other white meat.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
cbmeeks wrote:
I just like poking fun at the modern news media.
But, this was rather egregious.
"History" Channel running a short series on Presidents in WWII.
During the segment about the Eisenhower, and the invasion of Italy (1943), showing, you know, "wartime footage", they have film of a B-52 over Vietnam dropping bombs.
Seen one bomber, you've seen them all I guess.
But...honestly.
"History" channel.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
Ha! Yeah, no complaints from me. This topic was an OT anyway. 
I love the History Channel for the most part. But I do get annoyed when they air shows that really have nothing to do with history. Shows that are clearly designed to compete with The Walking Dead or GoT.
Anyway..back on topic...being off topic.
I love the History Channel for the most part. But I do get annoyed when they air shows that really have nothing to do with history. Shows that are clearly designed to compete with The Walking Dead or GoT.
Anyway..back on topic...being off topic.
Cat; the other white meat.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
Yeah, they could have pulled up pretty much any random clip of a B-17, B-25, or Lancaster in action, and it would have been more appropriate than showing the quintessential 8-engined *jet* bomber of the late 20th century. It doesn't take much effort to at least check whether the plane has visible propellers.
Re: OT: CNN really doesn't do their homework
Speaking of Apple //e's...
I'm still kind of miffed at my sister. When I got a Mac SE/30, I gave her family my //e. With 2 floppy drives, 300 baud modem, parallel printer and a whopping 5MB hard drive. Then a couple years later when they got a new IBM compatible, they just threw it away w/o asking me if I wanted it back.
I'm still kind of miffed at my sister. When I got a Mac SE/30, I gave her family my //e. With 2 floppy drives, 300 baud modem, parallel printer and a whopping 5MB hard drive. Then a couple years later when they got a new IBM compatible, they just threw it away w/o asking me if I wanted it back.