Reorganization of 'Genres' Category

[3lectr1c]

I don't know if you're the only one that feels that. But I do find the "extra sub categories" useful for browsing, because it works a lot better than, say, a search for "VIC-20."

The post you quoted as me was not me - it was @Torch

 

[3lectr1c]

True. That sounds like a good reason to me to entirely exclude x86 32-bit systems, though I expect there are many people who will disagree with me on that

Again, why does it matter? What is the PROBLEM with including newer systems (eg Pentium 4)? How will that harm the forum?

I feel that that's an utterly irrelevant point. I do not think we should be categorising things by speed because there can massive differences in speed on what's essentially the same platform.

I agree.

 

[vwestlife]

I also don't get the disdain for considering 2000s systems to be vintage. It's not like we're fixed to a 30-year timespan, and thus allowing in PCs from 2005 will automatically cause your 1975 Altair to be forgotten.

And it's not like it would lead to a massive influx of new users here anyway, as the younger generation is more likely to be using Discord and other platforms. If anything, it will mainly go to help existing forum members, as many of us have computers from the 2000s as well as "truly vintage" ones from the '80s and '90s.

 

[ajacocks]

Perhaps update the Later Apple subcategory to include up to the G4? G4 computers first released in 1999 - around the same time the Pentium III did.

Agreed and done. The last G5 will be 20 years old next year, so I think that’s quite fitting, as well. I always leave it up to folks as to what “vintage” is, as opinions are so varied.

My thought is that “vintage” is whatever people are nostalgic about, with no particular date cut-off. If folks want to talk about it, knock yourselves out!

I am definitely willing to create whatever sub-forums folks want, if a consensus is achieved.

- Alex

 

[JamieDoesStuff]

Lots of people believe Pentium 4s and the AMD equivalents to be vintage, and if vintage is to be defined as functionally obsolete for modern tasks, then yes they are. But then how do we define modern tasks? If it's by the Windows version that a system can run reasonably well (so, no Windows 10 on a P4 or 7 on a P3) then I'm all for adding a P4/Athlon XP or 64 section maybe.

I don't watch many videos on computers in general, but I reckon 720p in a "modern" codec such as h265 would be attempted murder on a P4. Maybe it could work on a very late one, dunno. Of course, DVD playback works perfectly, but that's not a real benchmark here since it does on a PII 300MHz too.

Even on Linux, the biggest hurdle on any of these systems are the modern web and browsers, and it's the thing most people use on their machines for most of the day, myself included. PIII and Athlon XP can't even run any modern ones due to lack of SSE2 support, without compiling them yourself of course. P4+ is very okay for sites like forums and ones which aren't chock full of JavaScript, so that excludes pretty much all of big tech. Not like you'd want to use those sites anyway. I was doing these tests with Firefox 115.whatever ESR, on Slackware 15.0 on a ThinkPad A31, btw.

I say there should be a P4 section, and think it would be quite fitting since then the original Pentium lineup would be all here, in one place.

 

[3lectr1c]

My thought is that “vintage” is whatever people are nostalgic about, with no particular date cut-off. If folks want to talk about it, knock yourselves out!

That's how I view it too - everyone has their own personal definition of what matters to them. And thank you!

I say there should be a P4 section, and think it would be quite fitting since then the original Pentium lineup would be all here, in one place.

I agree - but I will say I think it would probably be a better idea to extend the P2/P3 section rather than creating a new one.

 

[JamieDoesStuff]

I think P4 is a bit too new to be categorized in the PII/III sections, and the P4 content would very easily get buried by these older generations. On the other hand, if it did have its section, it would easily be the most empty of all and would stay that way for a long time. In the end I do believe splitting these two sections would be beneficial because of the sheer performance difference between them alone.

 

[3lectr1c]

Pentium 4 on its own (or P4 and period AMD hardware) wouldn't active enough on its own I feel. I feel like doing it based on activity (with a balance of sensibility w/ regard to performance) makes the most sense in this case. Performance isn't really that black and white either - it took the P4 a while before it could truly be said that it performed better than the fastest Tualatin PIII systems. And on that note, the Tualatin is in a league of its own when compared to the first Pentium II.

Oh - and also, The Pentium 4 actually launched BEFORE the PIII Tualatin did. They coexisted for some time, especially in the case of mobile where it took until 2002 for P4 laptops to show up. (P4 Willamette launched in Nov. 2000, PIII Tualatin in June 2001).

There's a million different ways you could organize it.

 

[JamieDoesStuff]

I guess you're right. If P4 is separate, so should be PII and III. I guess the P4 is a lot more modern only in my mind. There's still lots of machines from that generation floating around over here, some still being used with Windows 7, but PIII and earlier ones can be quite the chore to find - desktops at least, laptops from all generations are still quite common.

 

[3lectr1c]

One way I could see a new section making sense is if you included some additional CPUs directly in the title - Pentium D, Pentium M, maybe even Core Duo (although that's pushing it a bit).

Pentium 4 hardware is so darn common right now because it's in the "worthless junk" phase - they sold a LOT of them, mostly cheap junky systems rather than nice ones, and yes, they can technically do "ok" at running Windows 7 so they saw a longer service life than PIIIs did. PIIIs also have more of a cool factor right now thanks to stuff like dual CPU Tualatin boards and such. The value of them, especially nice ones, will probably rise when the ewaste flood ends and nostaglia grows, which I'd argue is just starting to happen now. I suspect the ewaste flood is moving onto Core 2 Duo and the likes.

 

[JamieDoesStuff]

I agree about the ewaste flood: so many Core 2 CPUs can be found for less than 10$ on AliExpress, and motherboards go for right about that price as well on local used market sites. For me, it's only a matter of time until I pick up a cheap PGA478 motherboard from the flea market.

 

[3lectr1c]

I should build a nice one now while prices are super cheap. I do have an Athlon 64 X2 system already though, it might be redundant.

 

[seaken]

All,

I have done a bit of reorganization in the 'Genres' category, and added an 'IBM, not-PC' forum. Please let me know your thoughts.

- Alex

I'm not sure I understand. I don't even see an IBM or PC or DOS category under Genres. I do see IBM PC and Clones under Companies. So this is assuming all "Clones" are in the IBM "Company" for discussion purposes.

I have read thru the thread. And I don't get why it matters what we discuss as long as it is in the spirit of using and preserving our "old computers" that are now considered "eWaste" by society in general. I guess the "Companies" and "Genres" are based on popularity but that doesn't mean there can't be an "Other" category in each main section. If someone has a question about an "old" P4 system they can put it in the "Other" section. It doesn't matter if us old guys don't think the P4 is "vintage" or not. We'll be talking about DEC, Heathkit, PET, and PC's and probably won't even notice.

It all gets skewed when the younger generations come here in search of the same feeling we old guys and gals get about CP/M or DEC or some old IBM workstation. The younger folks DO think of the P4 or the MAC as "vintage" and get excited about them. We shouldn't just "ho hum" them and tell them to get off our lawn. We want to encourage talk and knowledge about all "old" computers.

When the "Other" sections start getting the most threads and posts then it will be time to give them their own categories.

Seaken

 

[3lectr1c]

When the "Other" sections start getting the most threads and posts then it will be time to give them their own categories

I can agree with this, but there are two issues I can think of.
First, it’s currently unclear what other exactly is for - I think it could use a better descriptor if that’s one of the things it is for. It will also likely discourage such discussion as P4 being omitted from the main PC area will lead many to think it isn’t covered here at all - or else it would be there.
The other problem is that when a P4 section is eventually created, then suddenly old threads are scattered all about and most likely won’t ever be moved over, which is a pain. Creating a section now gets ahead of that.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

I can agree with this, but there are two issues I can think of.
First, it’s currently unclear what other exactly is for - I think it could use a better descriptor if that’s one of the things it is for. It will also likely discourage such discussion as P4 being omitted from the main PC area will lead many to think it isn’t covered here at all - or else it would be there.
The other problem is that when a P4 section is eventually created, then suddenly old threads are scattered all about and most likely won’t ever be moved over, which is a pain. Creating a section now gets ahead of that.

I thought I saw an idea somewhere to do "PII And Later", thus lumping PIIs, IIIs, and IVs all in one place. I think this works very well and we can throw later AMDs in there as well. Personally I think anything with an AGP slot can all be put together in one nice little area.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

Some quick research says "Pentium II/AMD K6 and Later" should cover everything past 1997. We already routinely discuss AMDs and argue about core2duos in the "PII & III" section, so it seems reasonable.

 

[Brown]

Agreed and done. The last G5 will be 20 years old next year, so I think that’s quite fitting, as well. I always leave it up to folks as to what “vintage” is, as opinions are so varied.

My thought is that “vintage” is whatever people are nostalgic about, with no particular date cut-off. If folks want to talk about it, knock yourselves out!

I am definitely willing to create whatever sub-forums folks want, if a consensus is achieved.

- Alex

It would be easier to open a new site dedicated only to 64 bit systems, but with an obligatory retro section on transitional 32 bit computers.
With each new release of Windows, there are more unclaimed old 64 bit computers, which also have the right to live on the forums.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

It would be easier to open a new site dedicated only to 64 bit systems, but with an obligatory retro section on transitional 32 bit computers.
With each new release of Windows, there are more unclaimed old 64 bit computers, which also have the right to live on the forums.

Why would we need a separate website? 8, 16, and 32 bit systems happily live together here. And lest we forget that the 64 bit Itanium is from 2001, jus as old as the P3s we happily consider "vintage".

 

[Eudimorphodon]

I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic about additional Tandy forums, but I guess not.

Oh, I got it. I just didn't really think the support for your argument against them was entirely sound, because the only forum you listed out as examples of how there was insufficient interest in said genre to bother dividing up that actually existed in its divided form of any amount of time (IE, prior to the reorg) was the "early Apple" one. Yes, the Commodore subforums look sad, but that's because only a very few threads have either been moved or started in either one since they were added; the vast bulk of the posts that *would* fit into one of the machine specific subgenres are still sitting in the parent container, and probably won't get moved. And, sure, that problem would be replicated if you added Tandy subforums.

Anyway. The fact that it would be a *huge* link-breaking hassle to sort all the existing content certainly is a bummer. Which is why I again bring up the possibility of some kind of tagging system. Looking through the XenForo community site it looks like this software has several different options (and extensions) available for implementing tagging. I know tags aren't perfect in the fact that they rely people to use them intelligently and consistently, but having them could potentially be a huge help in trying to search for content relevant to the exact type of computer you're interested in within a mixed forum. Just try searching for a phrase like "Model I" and see how well that works for you. By contrast, if people were *reasonably* consistent about using standardized tags like #model1, #model3, #whatever (which could be added at leasure to older threads with little effort and not breaking links) and there was a "common tags" display then things could be *much* easier to navigate without having to perfectly guess now exactly what categories might be common enough in the future to justify a subgenre.

 

[cjs]

The fact that it would be a *huge* link-breaking hassle to sort all the existing content certainly is a bummer.

Does changing the forum break links? The only thing I could see that could change would be the thread ID, and changing that wouldn't make sense because then you'd also need to change the thread ID in whatever table holds the thread ID to sub-form ID link.