Based on personal observation and responses from most everybody on this forum and others when the question comes up, and my own older family members. I would say the standard definition of "vintage" is a metaphor for "childhood" or "first experience" (for those old enough to have not used a computer early in life).

To me a vintage computer is an XT 286 (and clones), C64, etc.. Using that you can probably guess what decade my first PC experiences were contained in.

If I ask my father the same question you get anything from a PDP-11 up to an Apple II. Can you guess what decade he first encountered computers?

It's not perfect, but I think it's a nice general definition.

My philosophy is something along these lines:
software 'x' -> can't be run on modern off the shelf hardware
vintage hardware -> used to run software 'x'

Vintage I usually refer to systems from the 80s and earlier. As far as PCs go, my general definition for a retro system is anything that doesn't have DDR RAM.

Anything with DDR RAM and above is just "old" for me as they're pretty much still useful modern systems for light office type purposes and many can even run Windows 10.

With regards to Macs, anything not Intel based is retro to me. Vintage would probably be only the very early Mac machines.

When it comes to PC systems, I think anything with proper ISA slots with dma support is retro.

I generally tell people "pre-Windows XP" when describing the stuff I'm into. After Windows XP\2001 it has to be a pretty specific or rare piece of hardware to be of any real interest, for example, high end or unusual video cards, top of the line motherboards, motherboards with unusual features etc. Where basically any generic pre-Socket 7 motherboard or accessory has value, and a lot of boards up to the Pentium 3 Tualatin era are useful or sought after, generic 2001-2010 boards are still very common and don't really get you anything special for playing games that don't also work on a newer, faster system.

Generally, no ISA slots, Socket A, Socket 478, DDR memory... it would be hard for me to call these "vintage". Parts seemed to get very unreliable through this time period as well, due to heat, exposed CPU dies and bad capacitors. Maybe they'll be highly sought after some day...

I would just like to add in these definitions. I'm not saying they should be followed. Maybe we should invent a new word!

vintage adjective (HIGH QUALITY)
​
of high quality and lasting value, or showing the best and most typical characteristics of a particular type of thing, especially from the past:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vintage

retro
​
similar to styles, fashions, etc. from the past

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/retro

I really don't do any distinction between retro and vintage, probably a question of me not understanding the finer nuances of the English language, but to me, a system is retro when it's built around obsolete parts and OSes, specifically to do tasks a modern system can't. There's an age aspect to it too, even if a Core i7 gen 3 system with XP can play a few old games a new system with W10 can't, I don't consider it retro. P4, C2D and XP is in the borderlands. PIII, W98 and anything with ISA slots is definitely retro.

I guess to me it's just about trying to run games. If a game won't run on a current PC (e.g. for me right now that's Windows 10 x64) and I have to use another computer running an old operating system, I guess that's vintage/retro hardware/software.

Cyrix200+ wrote:

I would just like to add in these definitions. I'm not saying they should be followed. [..]

These make sense to me. 😀

An original SNES is a classic or a vintage item, while the SNES Classic Mini is a retro piece.

- Just like these fake antique radios with plastic shells, tiny speakers and built-in DRM reveivers.
They look similar in appearance, but don't have that oldschool soul.

Replicas are something different, though. They are somehow inbetween.
I guess they can described by both terms.

I'm thinking of AdLib replicas and these XT kits..

Cyrix200+ wrote:

Maybe we should invent a new word!

Sounds cool. 😀

Moogle! wrote:

what do you consider the break between vintage and modern hardware?

To me, this question doesn't make sense. I consider vintage to be fairly old, and modern to be new, with a gray area between these of many years.

For me, a vintage system has ISA slots on the motherboard. A modern system supports a 64-bit OS. There's a large gap between those two.

kaputnik wrote:

I really don't do any distinction between retro and vintage, probably a question of me not understanding the finer nuances of the English language

Exactly, retro and vintage are the same for me, indeed I only use the term retro.

brostenen wrote:

Obsolete is when it no longer can run the newest new software. Then comes retro, and finally vintage.

But I agree, more or less, with brostenen opinion. 'Vintage' sounds like antique, more aged than 'retro'.

BeginnerGuy wrote:

Based on personal observation and responses from most everybody on this forum and others when the question comes up, and my own […]
Show full quote

Based on personal observation and responses from most everybody on this forum and others when the question comes up, and my own older family members. I would say the standard definition of "vintage" is a metaphor for "childhood" or "first experience" (for those old enough to have not used a computer early in life).

To me a vintage computer is an XT 286 (and clones), C64, etc.. Using that you can probably guess what decade my first PC experiences were contained in.

If I ask my father the same question you get anything from a PDP-11 up to an Apple II. Can you guess what decade he first encountered computers?

It's not perfect, but I think it's a nice general definition.

In my opnion 'retro' is for 16 bits computers and older , and 'obsolote' since 'retro' to 'actual'.
I think that retro is not a relative time from the person, it's a era. But obsolete it's relative from the nowadays.

But, what is actual? 😵

In any case, I'm old to play the new games. 🤣

Anything that has drivers for Windows 98 and run windows 98 games and at least late dos games.

Anaxagoras wrote:

Exactly, retro and vintage are the same for me, indeed I only use the term retro. […]
Show full quote

kaputnik wrote:

I really don't do any distinction between retro and vintage, probably a question of me not understanding the finer nuances of the English language

Exactly, retro and vintage are the same for me, indeed I only use the term retro.

brostenen wrote:

Obsolete is when it no longer can run the newest new software. Then comes retro, and finally vintage.

But I agree, more or less, with brostenen opinion. 'Vintage' sounds like antique, more aged than 'retro'.

If it says "vintage" on it, it's not. (I dare you to tag a system you actually consider vintage with a sticker. 😵) But it probably is retro; see the Sega Genesis Flashback, NES Classic, SNES Classic, etc.

Thinking about it, for me vintage is pre 1980, retro is 1980-2000. Everything after that is just stuff 😉

firage wrote:

If it says "vintage" on it, it's not. (I dare you to tag a system you actually consider vintage with a sticker. 😵) But it probably is retro; see the Sega Genesis Flashback, NES Classic, SNES Classic, etc.

Yes, the word 'retro' seems to be commercial and fashion too.

I guess to me (from DOS PC standpoint, which is my favorite field) "retro" ends with the disappearance of ISA slots for proper DOS sound, from then on (like late K7, P4) it's just... outdated? Obsolete? Semi-modern? Whatever.
And "vintage" may begin where half of the 32 bits fade away, with the 286. Yup, I guess anything older than a 386 falls into this category.

Of course every 8-bit home computer too. Amiga, on the other hand... I really don't know. Maybe not that vintage.

I give up.

Probably the PC99 standard. As soon as ports got colored, that's when it becomes "modern" to me. And then there's the Y2k rush of website corporate dorkery and the brief period of Apple imitation designs....

I echo the jumpers sentiment. Anything that predates plug-and-play is probably what I'd consider vintage.

firage wrote:

About 20-25 years is when stuff becomes "vintage" in general, maybe less if it was something tied to a very brief period. Windows 95 Pentiums are at that border right now.

2K, XP and even Vista systems are retro machines by now, but still a long way from vintage. Old, classic, what have you. I think "modern" starts loosely at Core 2 + Windows 7.

My sentiments exactly. The goal posts continue to move.

Vintage is old hardware > 20-25 years old, so pre-Windows 98 era for now. For me, vintage also tends to indicate rarity. The AT 486 and Socket 5/7 stuff has become pretty rare as of late. PII and newer stuff is much more plentiful.

Retro is anything that isn't currently modern and usable for common day-to-day tasks, or capable of running the latest operating systems smoothly. Arguably I'd say Core 2 / Athlon 64 X2 are probably the borderline for this, or ~10 years old. A single core Athlon 64 or Pentium 4/D is definitely retro in 2018.

Edit: I also feel that each person's personal experience tends to affect their opinion of vintage. I'm 29, so my first memorable computing experiences happened on a 486 and Windows 3.1, and mt first family PC was a Pentium 90. So that era and anything earlier is easy for me to call vintage because it's genesis for me. Folks who were tinkering around with computers in the 8088-era have a very different personal experience.

Personally the point in time for me is 1994. 3- and 486'es were common and the mystical Pentium had matured.

It makes no sense since I was 6 years old and had no idea of computers back then.