Dominus wrote:
No it's actualy telling someone to swim across the channel when that person just said that the swimmers who are doing that are doing it totally wrong.
And yes, wiki should be a good read etc. etc. You are right about that. But it needs to be written. If you feel that something is missing in a wiki article you need to add it yourself and not complain about it in another forum. The complaining part is not helping to better it.
Irrelevant of the fact if they did it wrong or not, telling someone to swim across the English Challel who just mentioned he can't swim is the point, as the not being able to swim is the point here.
You told me to change the article. Fine, but I won't today. But you also give me the impression that there are actually people wanting to keep things the way they are and will simply undo everything I do, not because what I wrote was wrong, but because what I write doesn't agree with what the ones editing out my changes personally think things should be.
Anyway, does wiki have some kind of forum?
Edit:I'd like to know if theres some kind of forum where this can be discussed (other then Vogons). I'm collecting my thoughts atm on how to best approach this.
Rewriting an article isn't something that can be done overnight (or at least, not by me) and I want to make sure the article is as complete as can be.
But first I'll need to collect some data and theres plenty out there to find.
Anyone else have an opinion on the matter?
-------------Looooong edit here, so I split it------------------
Edit2:What is the difference between a retro computer and a vintage computer anyway?
And since when is a computer that obviously wasn't considered to be a vintage computer, considered to be a vintage computer?
The thing is (and the point h-a-l 9000 was trying to make) that computer history is relatively young and still subject to many changes as computers continue to evolve at a speed that is relatively faster then, say, cars, fashion, sculptures, architecture, you name it!
A painting that's made now won't be considered vintage in 20 years time. But when do we define a computer that's made now consider as vintage?
Was a computer made 20 years ago considered to be vintage 10 years ago, when it was just 10 years old? Or were back then the only vintage computers the so-called mainframes of the 70's?
By this definition, wouldn't a modern day quad core be considered vintage in 30 years? Or only after 50 years?
Does this mean that a computer that is now 10 years old, is considered to be vintage when it's hardware becomes 25 years old?
Who decides? The people? The writers of the wiki articles?
As computer history is still so young, logic would dictate that more and more computers will inevitably become retro and/or vintage with passing time. Not doing so would imply there should be a reason for doing so, just like there was apparently a reason to put the "vintage" stamp on a Commodore64 at some point in history.
Was the Commodore64 a vintage computer 5 years ago? If a Commodore64 made in 1982 is vintage today, this would indicate a 486DX33 should be vintage in 10 years, right?
Or is vintage simply when a computer reaches 25 years of age?
Retro otoh has a different meaning. An important value of retro is the feeling of nostalgia, doing something using something obsolete today, today with the main intend to relive the past.
Obviously using a 5 year old computer to play 5 year old games "may" be considered as retrogaming in a technical sense, but obviously most people wouldn't consider a 5 year old computer a retro computer.
Otoh, when someone scrapes together 10 year old hardware with the intend to use his or her leet Voodoo 2 SLI's to play Unreal, then the sole purpose of this computers existence becomes it's use with the intend to relive a game the way it was lived back then, 10 years ago.
Since such a computer basically has no right of existence except for being build to satisfy a thirst for gaming nostalgia, this is to be considered a retro gaming computer.
