Reorganization of 'Genres' Category

[Eudimorphodon]

Does changing the forum break links?

I honestly don't know if it does or not, someone said it in another thread complaining about it being hard to find old threads about pre-PC IBM products even though there's now a category for those and I took it as read.

Brass tacks, I think the allure of going with a tagging system instead is it doesn't necessarily have to be up to the mods to determine the categories or move threads around, they could essentially emerge organically and provide a self-organizing basis for searches.

 

[Torch]

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.

That reply wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

As to the Commodore and Apple areas, was there ever a time you posted something and then the next day (or even the following week) had to search through several pages to find that topic again? I've never noticed that kind of traffic on this site. I'm pretty sure they went back months on the first page before the split up...and in the Commodore area, that also included 1084 monitor tech help. Personally I'm not into the Commodore systems, but I always liked clicking on that area and possibly finding an interesting topic and maybe learning something new about a VIC-20, 16 or Amiga right on the front page.

The kind of activity that practically scrolls in real time occurs on the latest game console forums. The systems discussed on this site last saw that kind of activity in a 1985 CompuServe SIG...and we were paying $6 an hour at 300 baud. Even the traffic on the Orchestra 90 side was crazy.

Also, if a general section is still available, nearly all new posts will end up there and it'll be up to mods to sort them out. Or if it's like most other forums I belong to, the mods won't bother and new members will post in the "correct" section and be ignored because the regulars rarely check in there.

I think one way to attract (or KEEP) new members to this site would be to do away with the moderated first 10 posts.
Not only is it a pita to the new guy, but also the regulars when trying to give tech help. When I signed up I recall some of my posts taking 2 days to get approved...and I had no idea how long the moderation was going to last. By the 7th post I was ready to delete this site from my favorites.
It shouldn't take more than one or two posts tell whether you have a spammer or bot.

 

[RetroAND]

I honestly don't know if it does or not, someone said it in another thread complaining about it being hard to find old threads about pre-PC IBM products even though there's now a category for those and I took it as read.

Brass tacks, I think the allure of going with a tagging system instead is it doesn't necessarily have to be up to the mods to determine the categories or move threads around, they could essentially emerge organically and provide a self-organizing basis for searches.

The issue with the articles in the pre-PC systems is mostly solved now. Hadn't it been an IBM category, everything would have gone to "others", but at it existed threads were going to early PCs; as Datamasters are labelled as System/23 and its basic is compatible with the S/34 other people (including me) placed the article in "Midranges and minis", others were placed at "others"... I asked for the category only to end with this particular fragmentation problem. Old threads have been moved (copied?) and new ones will easily find their place. I think this will eventually pay off.

In any case, sorry for this chaos my request has involved. Restoration isn't only about bringing old computers back to life or giving them a better appearance, but also ensuring information about them is easily accessible. For anyone reading, it never was favoritism in any way - having the quantity of computers I have at home I cannot afford it.

About your tag system, I think it would be a great idea. It could even help the thread to self-organize itself.

Regarding the initial limitation, here come my five cents. I've been in forums whose level of protection from newcomers was at the level of a nuclear missile launch site, and at the same time I have been at ones without that kind of measures. The one with the silo security had its users easily burned while the others enjoyed a lot better the forums. This site sits in the middle. In my humble opinion what would beneffit more the site would be the removal or the diminishment of the initial, moderated posts. I think this place is worth and attracting new members should be a priority, especially among the young ones.

 

[VileR]

Does changing the forum break links?

I don't think so. I've browsed a few threads that were recently moved around between forums, and I can still access them through the old URLs in my history.

It shouldn't take more than one or two posts tell whether you have a spammer or bot.

That's my take too, but there's always someone attempting to engaging seriously with what looks like an obvious spambot to me.

Then again... the average post by an 'MVP' at Microsoft Answers *also* makes me think "obvious spambot", but to my horror they're utterly real, so what do I know.

 

[ajacocks]

Unfortunately, folks, we have a constant stream of spammers, and the load is decently heavy on the mods, even with the current restrictions. We also have folks who join the forums with the intent to conduct scams, and the 10-post minimum makes that more work.

- Alex

 

[hunterjwizzard]

Unfortunately, folks, we have a constant stream of spammers, and the load is decently heavy on the mods, even with the current restrictions. We also have folks who join the forums with the intent to conduct scams, and the 10-post minimum makes that more work.

- Alex

Have you guys considered employing a honeypot system for spambots? They can be shockingly effective. There's a forum I'm on thats ran for 17 years with a single(very lazy) mod and he deflects 99% of spambots by employing a simple "first post here" method.

 

[Brown]

Apple PowerMac G5 64-bit computer!

https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?forums/apple-powerpc-macs-600-series-g3-g4-and-g5.1230010/

64-bit computers have no place on our forum.

 

[3lectr1c]

64-bit computers have no place on our forum.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it - I’m curious - why does it matter to you? If you don’t care for the G5, just ignore the subforum?

 

[Brown]

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it - I’m curious - why does it matter to you? If you don’t care for the G5, just ignore the subforum?

This site is vintage 8 and 16-bit computers, the administration has supplemented it with 32-bit computers that are not vintage, but support on a technical and programmatic level, vintage computers. 64-bit computers are not compatible with vintage computers.
All that's left is to take a sledgehammer and smash my vintage computers, maybe then the administration will have a conscience!

 

[3lectr1c]

You're stating your opinion on what's vintage and what isn't as fact - everyone has their own definition, and you're welcome to yours just the same as I'm welcome to mine.

What you're stating on what this site is "officially" for isn't consistent with what administration has said:

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!

All that's left is to take a sledgehammer and smash my vintage computers, maybe then the administration will have a conscience!

Adding topics for newer computers does absolutely nothing to take away from older ones. It doesn't affect anything.

 

[RetroHospital]

it's unclear to me where to post about peripherals
(printers, externals cdroms, zipdrives, etc)

I would add such a category,

If anyone wants other sub-categories, feel free to suggest them.

- Alex

 

[Eudimorphodon]

64-bit computers are not compatible with vintage computers.

People talk about DEC Alpha, MIPS R4000, and UltraSparc systems on this forum in the UNIX and DEC sections, and all of those are 64 bit computers from the mid-90’s.

The fact that *all* PowerPC Macintoshes were completely discontinued at the end of 2006 (and the last new OS with any support for them came out only a year later) to me suggests the G5 a much more apropos candidate for a “vintage” computer than any x86 machine of similar vintage.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

64-bit computers have no place on our forum.

Interesting take. Oh wait...

People talk about DEC Alpha, MIPS R4000, and UltraSparc systems on this forum in the UNIX and DEC sections, and all of those are 64 bit computers from the mid-90’s.

And an even more salient point:

The fact that *all* PowerPC Macintoshes were completely discontinued at the end of 2006 (and the last new OS with any support for them came out only a year later) to me suggests the G5 a much more apropos candidate for a “vintage” computer than any x86 machine of similar vintage.

I feel like there's no one criteria for "vintage", but if there were, word-size would not be it.

 

[cjs]

I feel like there's no one criteria for "vintage", but if there were, word-size would not be it.

Well, certainly not 32- versus 64-bit! I feel that "vintage" should stop at 8-bit, and we should kick out all these folks with their super-modern 16-bit machines, hundreds of kilobytes of memory, and sometimes even hard disks. :-)

So, all you anti-64-bit guys, will you join up with me and stick to the real vintage computers?

 

[hunterjwizzard]

So, all you anti-64-bit guys, will you join up with me and stick to the real vintage computers?

You know what, I think ya'll are going to far including these fancy, new-fangled electronic computers. Anything more sophisticated than the abacus is too new!!!

 

[Eudimorphodon]

Well, certainly not 32- versus 64-bit! I feel that "vintage" should stop at 8-bit, and we should kick out all these folks with their super-modern 16-bit machines, hundreds of kilobytes of memory, and sometimes even hard disks.

Yes!!!!

I feel like there's no one criteria for "vintage", but if there were, word-size would not be it.

I'm not going to pretend that what I *personally* feel like is "vintage" involves particularly rigorous scientific criteria but, yes, word size isn't it. This might sound odd considering I *was* proposing it as a vaguely viable cutoff for x86 machines, but let me explain why I think it is at least plausible in that one case: to my mind "extinction" counts for a lot. Obviously no computer platform can every really be declared extinct as long as at least some critical mass of people are still using it production and developing new software for it, and by that measure 32-bit x86 is still going to be with us for a long time, but you can at least argue pretty reasonably that from a hardware manufacturing standpoint it's dead and gone (not counting a few obscure imbedded industrial SoCs) and has been for over a decade. (For mainstream personal computers is was effectively dead by 2009, the Atom netbook fad was its last hurrah.)

So... yeah, I guess maybe I would call "extinction" the best criteria. PowerPC macintoshes of every sort are extinct, so it seems like a no brainer to let G5s into the club if you've already let PowerMacs in generally. I suppose where this gets tricky is someone might argue that as of about ten months ago Intel Macintoshes are also technically extinct from a manufacturing standpoint, but since they're also *basically* just PCs under a thick proprietary candy coating it's kind of obvious that whatever the broader line is on x86 is it would then reasonably apply.

(... And then of course someone is going to try to flip the table and try to argue that because everyone and their dog is making toy CP/M based SBCs and other "retro" recreations today that you can't count those platforms as "vintage" anymore, but... yeah, no. Even if, like can be argued in the case of CP/M, production of these kind of machines never truely halted if it's a system that stopped being even remotely mainstream decades ago it gets a permanent pass even if a wave of nostalgia brings it back to life. It's not going to be replacing an i7 on any normal mortal PC user's desktop.)

 

[3lectr1c]

You know what, I think ya'll are going to far including these fancy, new-fangled electronic computers. Anything more sophisticated than the abacus is too new!!!

Nahhh…. A “computer” is someone who computes. Person. This forum should be strictly for discussion of human mathematical computation - and no discoveries made in the last 30 years! Those wouldn’t be vintage.
Now that that’s clear - what’s all your guys’ favorite formulas?

 

[hunterjwizzard]

2 + 2 = 10

In base 4.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

but let me explain why I think it is at least plausible in that one case: to my mind "extinction" counts for a lot.

I actually agree with this. I think extinction is an excellent criteria, though should not be the only one. In a very broad sense the mid-90s era 64 bit machines are themselves quite "extinct" but 64 bit word values are of course alive and kickin'. So some combo of age + extinction + 3 or 4 other factors.

and by that measure 32-bit x86 is still going to be with us for a long time

Hopefully not TOO much longer...

 

[Eudimorphodon]

In a very broad sense the mid-90s era 64 bit machines are themselves quite "extinct" but 64 bit word values are of course alive and kickin'. So some combo of age + extinction + 3 or 4 other factors.

Sure. And we can actually apply some of those other factors to my examples of 64-bit computers from the 90's:

• DEC Alpha is unambiguously extinct. Hewlett Packard spat out the last minor revision of the architecture in 2004 (basically a 1998 design with more cache) and quit selling it entirely in 2007. Seems like Alpha discussion should be carte blanche.
• The 64 bit MIPS is technically still alive, at least in the form of the Loongson platform CPUs, and over the years has occasionally cropped up in things that you could arguably call "personal computers" (for instance, there were several Linux based Netbooks made using Loongson CPUs that were mostly only available in Asia but if you worked hard enough you could lay hands on one elsewhere), but in context of this forum the focus is on SGI workstations built around the CPU, and the last new machine in that category came out in 2003, dead before 2007.
  
  (FWIW, I probably wouldn't object to someone talking about the weird 2007 Loongson netbook they found in a junk shop because, well, that's still pretty old it's and VERY obscure. But obviously a brand-new Loongson server would be off-topic.)
• 64 bit SPARC still technically exists, and Oracle and Fujitsu will sell you some brand new OpenSparc servers, but likewise the focus on this forum is mostly on Sun-branded workstations, and the last one of those was discontinued in 2008. So... I'd say an UltraSparc workstation is fair game, but if someone came here asking for support for their Oracle-branded mainframe that needs to go in the off-topic bucket.
• Let's add another one: HP PA-RISC went 64 bit in 1996, the last workstation based on the architecture came out in 2004, and was discontinued in 2008. If someone wants to talk about their C8000 in the UNIX forum I wouldn't yell at them. It is technically about as new as you can get for a proprietary UNIX workstation.

... Here's an interesting question: Itanium is as dead as Alpha and PA-RISC, but its commercial lifespan was from 2001 to 2020. Do we get to talk about those in the UNIX/Workstation forum, or is the body still too warm?