How to Post (On topic vs Off Topic)

[mbbrutman]

By now everybody should have noticed that the IBM PCs section has been split into two areas. There were a lot of 386 and 486 questions showing up, and before the split they really were off topic. We know these machines are semi-interesting, and hence the addition of a 'Later PCs' area.

In general:

Use 'IBM PCs and Clones' for the classic 16 bit machines, such as the 8088/8086, 80286, V20 & V30, etc.
Use 'Later PCs' for 386s and 486s.

Dos, Windows 3.1 and earlier versions are definitely on topic. OS/2 is a grey area .. pre-historic versions (1.0 to 1.3) are definitel on topic, but 2.x and later are kind of new. (A 32 bit multi-tasking OS is not really on topic.) Windows 95 and 98 are definitely off topic ...


Thanks,
Mike

[Anonymous Freak]

So, wait... OS/2 2.x would be off-topic, even for the 'Later PCs'? OS/2 2.0 was released before the 486 processor was released, so if a 486 is on-topic, shouldn't OS/2 also be on-topic?

(My main thing is that vintage lovers also tend to be 'obscure' lovers, too. And OS/2 is a bit on the obscure side. It had its chance, and failed.)

[SwedaGuy]

I agree with the Freaks take on OS/2 2.x, but I think Warp 3 or 4 would definitely be O/T. Though, even 2.x was pretty sophisticated to be considered vintage.

[mbbrutman]

Guys, I don't want to get into a long meta discussion here ...

OS/2 2.x is a 32 bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system. It was in it's prime in the early 90s. It's interesting, but not vintage.

Try to use some common sense when posting ... that's all we're asking for.

[Druid6900]

Ok, now we have a definitive benchmark for "Vintage". It must be older than the "early 90s"

[mbbrutman]

I think I put it at more like 8 or 16 bits, or at least running an 8 or 16 bit OS.

Another possible criteria - there are other sites more focused on OS/2, Windows, etc.

[Anonymous Freak]

My big point was where do I discuss my first-generation PS/2? If I'm using DOS, apparently it is on-topic, but if I'm using OS/2, it's off-topic, for the same hardware.

To me, it's the hardware that marks it as "Vintage". Part of the fun, for me, in vintage hardware is doing things with it that weren't even though of when they were new. Like the guy that wrote a video player for the original PC. (Stock PC 5150, dual floppies, CGA, plus Sound Blaster, and it can play "full motion, full screen" video.)

I understand that this isn't an OS/2 website, it's dedicated to the hardware, but there are occasional software questions put forth, too that aren't totally off-topic.

For example, I'm having problems with getting my IBM PowerPC desktop running OS/2 PowerPC Edition, but I'm not going to post that on this board, because that is obviously too new for this board.

[Erik]

Clearly the concept of "vintage" is different for different folks. Most of the rules are somewhat flexible based on the situation.

If you have something to say about whatever machine or software, as long as it's close to vintage, I'm sure the post will be welcome. Worst case is that it gets moved to the "off topic" areas which isn't a condemnation, it's just cataloging. :)

[lenegade]

I'm sorry to dig into the wound but I have noticed that some people have been chastised for posting off topic threads in the off topic section.

[mbbrutman]

No, it's more likely that the posted off topic threads in the wrong areas and that the off topic threads were moved to the off topic area, and then the warning was issued.

[80sFreak]

Guys, I don't want to get into a long meta discussion here ...

OS/2 2.x is a 32 bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system. It was in it's prime in the early 90s. It's interesting, but not vintage.

Try to use some common sense when posting ... that's all we're asking for.

Then by your logic discussion about the Amiga and its OS would be off-topic since it is also a 32-bit preemptive multi-tasking OS... http://forum.team-ingame.de/images/smilies/sofa.gif

Cheers,

80sFreak

[mbbrutman]

Go see the Amiga section. When you can get that OS to work on a later PC clone, then we can talk about if it is on or off topic here.

[Druid6900]

Mike, I think, by and large, that most of the regulars know where to post what and they are just yanking your chain.

The newbies might have some problems from time to time, so, we'll fall in line after we've had a bit of fun :)

[Yzzerdd]

**Set "emulate moderator" mode**

Jeebus guys, use common sense. Lets not be little kids about this trying every loop-hole and pointing out every defect on the guidlines. Yes, they are more like guidelines. If the O/S is older than 1993(ish), it is pretty much on-topic. Obviously Amiga O/S should be fine. By my understanding, OS/2 is a grey area and it should be mentioned minimally. Besides, surely there is A section appropriate for the Amiga...perhaps under PCs? Maybe even under "Commodore/Amiga?" That pretty much means if you are chattin about Amigas, use that section, unless you wanna sell/buy one.

--Ryan

EDIT: I started typing this before the 2 posts above me, so read it like it is there.

[80sFreak]

Go see the Amiga section. When you can get that OS to work on a later PC clone, then we can talk about if it is on or off topic here.

One Word: WinUAE! :)

But there is also Amithlon and AmigaOS XL..

Cheers,

80sFreak

[80sFreak]

Another possible criteria - there are other sites more focused on OS/2, Windows, etc.

And there are also sites more focused on the Commodore, Atari, TI, Radio Shack and pretty much every other vintage machine discussed on this site! Should we also get rid of those particular forums as well?

This is a general vintage computing discussion site that allows you to talk about all things vintage computer related - more for those who are interested in vintage computing in general(ish).. Meaning that while quite a bit is general, a lot of threads have become quite technical. (ie graduating more towards a focused site..)

Cheers,

80sFreak

[mbbrutman]

And there are also sites more focused on the Commodore, Atari, TI, Radio Shack and pretty much every other vintage machine discussed on this site! Should we also get rid of those particular forums as well?

Try to use some common sense when posting ... that's all we're asking for.

How many more times do you want to ride this carousel?

[80sFreak]

How many more times do you want to ride this carousel?

I am not trying to.. I just disagree with you saying that OS/2 is not vintage. It was an exhibit at VCF east 3.0! --> http://www.vintage.org/2006/east/exhibit.php

I am also trying to provide examples of my points instead of just saying "it is vintage!", but this seems to be more going towards "the mod said so, and so it will be"

As for the Amiga OS, it was about the software technology, not about what class of x86 it ran on.

Cheers,

80sFreak

[mbbrutman]

I'm really tired of splitting hairs here. I was trying to provide some guidelines to explain the split. Nobody ever said 'rules', just guidelines. I don't know why it takes two pages of response to explain that 16 bit stuff goes in one section, 32 bit goes in another, and generally it should be old and crusty.

I don't think that most people consider a 32 bit pre-emptive multitasking OS with threading support to be vintage. Do we need a poll? Should we have a separate area for an OS/2 vintage-vs-not vintage debate? Does anybody else want to weigh in? What exactly are we accomplishing by hashing this out again?

[Big Blues]

By the time this one's decided, the Pentium 4 will be vintage :P.

[mbbrutman]

Believe it or not, I was a big OS/2 user. I started with 2.11 on a 486 and struggled my way through Warp 3 with Fixpack 30 something ... I only finally retired that machine 2 or 3 years ago.

Great, now I'm off topic. ;-0

[carlsson]

And to make this thread even more off-topic, OS/2 tended to be the first operating system former Amiga owners looked at when they felt forced to migrate to a PC in the early-mid 1990's.

I think it is a good move by the moderators to include a sub-category for 386 and 486 computers. Those offended by the thought of a 486 as vintage don't have to read it, and those newbies who consider anything older than two years obsolete will at last find an on-topic place for discussing what they figure is "very old". It also bridges how 68040 based Amigas, Atari TT/Falcon, Macintosh etc have been on-topic for years, but 80486 PCs have been off-topic. Sometimes, people even post about early PPC Macintoshes in that subsection, which strictly speaking is just as out of the forum scope as early Pentiums are.

As other people indicated, this forum is a bit of jack of all trades, and I'm sure for almost every topic presented here, you could find another forum, mailing list, newsgroup or other expertise that specialises in exactly that topic, but in which every other subject would be off-topic.

[80sFreak]

And to make this thread even more off-topic, OS/2 tended to be the first operating system former Amiga owners looked at when they felt forced to migrate to a PC in the early-mid 1990's.


That and BeOS, another great OS crushed under the tank-treads of the M$ juggernaut.. :(

Cheers,

80sFreak

[EvanK]

Use 'Later PCs' for 386s and 486s.

That list should include 286s.

Not just sarcasm: in my opinion, the 286 started the modern* era, therefore it's not vintage. Old, yes.

* No, I won't get into a pissing war about the definition of "modern" because that can be argued emotionally and technically, just as much as what's non-modern a.k.a. vintage. All that's important is that I am right and Erik is probably wrong. :biggrin:

[evildragon]

But it's still 16-bit. Lets just say that Later PC's should cover 32-bit systems.

[mbbrutman]

Ah, so many versions of 'modern era' though. The 286 was groundbreaking because unlike the previous 16 bit chip in the line it had memory management features which enabled OSes with paging and extended memory. But the design/implementation was pretty bad, and most of those features were redone (but the original version kept for compatibility) with the 386. Most 286s were used to run DOS faster.

The 386 is the real ground breaker here. It has 32 bits and usable memory management which enabled all of the modern OSes - OS/2 2.x, Win 95, 98, NT, Linux, etc.

The 386 was really too slow for normal people to put up with. The 486 repackaged the 386 and added a cache to improve the performance. It's with the 486 that we finally see the unwashed masses buying and using machines at home.

[chuckcmagee]

:clap: :cool2: "the unwashed masses" love it!