If you want to contribute in a productive way that won't be questioned, approach the topic after considering this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5P

That retrocomputing article already has been tagged about its problems.

Jorpho wrote:

The equivalent to a forum is an article's "Discussion" page.

I think it is difficult to include discussion of "clone PCs" since there is no definitive point when at which everything that could be run on an older computer suddenly couldn't be run on a newer computer. It's all very murky and trying to nail it down is just asking for trouble. I mean, can't you still use a PCI Voodoo card in a relatively recent PC, if you wanted to?

I might also argue that Glide wrappers allow 3DFX software to be run just fine on modern computers, and that you might as well start marking the distinction between graphics cards that support different versions of DirectX.

I have already tried to nail it down by creating a new topic specifically for discussion about what makes a computer vintage or retro.

I agree that it's very murky, and I think we can all agree on that.

Yes, you can put a Voodoo 3 PCI in a modern computer, making the computer no longer a retro computer. I actually have a s939 Athlon 3500+ with a 400gig harddrive and a floppydrive made in 1991! But that doesn't make that computer a retro rig. Frankly I don't think anyone is debating that.
Today you can emulate almost any platform on a modern rig, like the NES, but that doesn't make the original NES not retro anymore.

To me the definition isn't about old software not being able to run on a modern rig (because with the help of emulators and wrappers, almost everything will run on a modern rig), it's about old hardware that's considered too old to run modern software BUT is used for the sole purpose of satisfying a thirst for nostalgia.

Dominus wrote:

Wikipedia is moderated these days and if you start out by writing that the old page was shit you might get yourself banned. Same […]
Show full quote

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.

Wikipedia is moderated these days and if you start out by writing that the old page was shit you might get yourself banned. Same for starting a discussion on a wikipedia article on Wikipedia. You better not start off by calling the article shit. Incidentally this is what ticked me off about your thread start. Just because you don't agree on something doesn't warrant calling it shit.
Obviously the authors have a different view on what retro computers and retro gaming is. Calling it shit is not warranted.

(that said, to me Windows games are definitely not retrogames, just maybe Windows 3.x games. But Windows 95 upwards? Not in my opinion)

Cheers 😉

The reason I decided to not try and change things in the article is because I was ticked off. I know that when I'm pissed, I can be really pissed! ...BUT that doesn't mean I'm gonna be doing stupid things, which is why I mentioned I won't be doing any editing until I'm done doing some good backreading first and letting the initial irritation wear off. I know how I am 🤣 😜 And thankfully, I'm not a n00b rusher 😜

But since the retro/vintage debate hasn't christalized yet, I don't see a point in changing it to be more complete as someone else who has a different opinion about retro will simply edit it all back and I don't see a point in starting some kind of "edit forth, edit back infinitum" war. That's not what I want.

And I FINALLY found the discussion "thread", can't believe I missed it -_-
It's right here

ratfink wrote:

fwiw the retro computing page on wikipedia looks to me like the usual "pre-climacteric appliances in the personal computer space" - ie. computing from the time when reasonable numbers of individuals could afford their own computers, but before the sea change brought about by the IBM PC. There might be some inconsistencies with that but superficially i'd say that was the logic. And I don't really have a problem with that - seems reasonably clear and convenient.

sorry if that's already been said, not sure i read every word posted 😜

Lol, well the reason I started this page was because a wiki page that's supposed to be about retro gaming mentions a whole list of computers but doesn't even make a mention about (for instance) 3dfx, as if 3dfx isn't considered to be retro but the ZX81 (whatever that is) is.
The article isn't incorrect per se, but it's very one-sided.

Edit:Where has your post gone?? 😳

hmm well i decided it wasn't worth saying, looks like you replied while i was deleting it 🤣

Another observation, the Retrocomputing article seems to that it is about computer systems and not about parts (like graphics or sound cards). The problem with your viewof retrocomputers is that there is not one system to show but only "glued" together parts (motherboard that brand or this brand, cpu this or that, soundcard this or that, etc...).
You would be better off writing an article on "retro computing parts".

and finally if a wikipedia article is able to tick you off, you should consider medication 😉

The Commodore PET, Vic20, 64, Plus4, 128, Amiga are not there either? Wow I would think these are the strongest retro-computing platforms out there since they had the larger scene's and still do... dumb Wikipedia sometimes.

RoyBatty wrote:

The Commodore PET, Vic20, 64, Plus4, 128, Amiga are not there either? Wow I would think these are the strongest retro-computing platforms out there since they had the larger scene's and still do... dumb Wikipedia sometimes.

While they are not mentioned a picture is shown with (some of) them

you should consider medication

Or meditation.

Or masturbation.

Dominus wrote:

Another observation, the Retrocomputing article seems to that it is about computer systems and not about parts (like graphics or sound cards). The problem with your viewof retrocomputers is that there is not one system to show but only "glued" together parts (motherboard that brand or this brand, cpu this or that, soundcard this or that, etc...).
You would be better off writing an article on "retro computing parts".

and finally if a wikipedia article is able to tick you off, you should consider medication 😉

Just because "PC" retrocomputers are build to be flexible (which is part of IBM's legacy) doesn't mean it's not retrocomputing 🤣.

And actually, the fact that retro PC's are more flexible then their non-PC counterparts actually votes in favor of the PC as a retrocomputing platform. I mean, just have a look at what's been done right here on Vogons? And not to mention the countless other sites, forums and sub-forums that discuss nothing but retro PC's.

You're presenting arguments in favor of not including retro PC's, but are you actually trying to see my point of view? Or are you trying to stop the wiki article from being edited to include retro PC's?

Retro PC's are as big a chunk in retrocomputing and retrogaming as all the other platforms, and it will only keep growing in significance.

Dominus, how about giving us your observation about the lack of retro PC's and retrogaming with PC's in the mentioned wiki articles 😉
How about giving us your observation about the retrocomputing that's going on right here in our back yards?

Or are you trying to tell me that playing glide games is not retrogaming?

Tetrium wrote:

Dominus wrote:

Another observation, the Retrocomputing article seems to that it is about computer systems and not about parts (like graphics or sound cards). The problem with your viewof retrocomputers is that there is not one system to show but only "glued" together parts (motherboard that brand or this brand, cpu this or that, soundcard this or that, etc...).
You would be better off writing an article on "retro computing parts".

and finally if a wikipedia article is able to tick you off, you should consider medication 😉

Just because "PC" retrocomputers are build to be flexible (which is part of IBM's legacy) doesn't mean it's not retrocomputing 🤣.

I didn't say so.

And actually, the fact that retro PC's are more flexible then their non-PC counterparts actually votes in favor of the PC as a retrocomputing platform. I mean, just have a look at what's been done right here on Vogons? And not to mention the countless other sites, forums and sub-forums that discuss nothing but retro PC's.

yes, some definition might be about those, I'm not disputing that at all.

You're presenting arguments in favor of not including retro PC's, but are you actually trying to see my point of view? Or are you trying to stop the wiki article from being edited to include retro PC's?

neither, I just looked at the article and gave my observation.
I don't care whether you write a new article or rewrite that article. In fact I don't believe you will do either. Complaining is easier.

Dominus, how about giving us your observation about the lack of retro PC's and retrogaming with PC's in the mentioned wiki articles 😉

aehm, no

How about giving us your observation about the retrocomputing that's going on right here in our back yards?

I'm waiting for your article

Or are you trying to tell me that playing glide games is not retrogaming?

how did you get that idea?

Tetrium wrote:

Yes, you can put a Voodoo 3 PCI in a modern computer, making the computer no longer a retro computer. I actually have a s939 Athlon 3500+ with a 400gig harddrive and a floppydrive made in 1991! But that doesn't make that computer a retro rig. Frankly I don't think anyone is debating that.
Today you can emulate almost any platform on a modern rig, like the NES, but that doesn't make the original NES not retro anymore.

To me the definition isn't about old software not being able to run on a modern rig (because with the help of emulators and wrappers, almost everything will run on a modern rig), it's about old hardware that's considered too old to run modern software BUT is used for the sole purpose of satisfying a thirst for nostalgia.

Oh lordy, my head hurts.

By all means, please keep trying to define stuff by its relative, quantifiable ability to satisfy a thirst for nostalgia.

Dominus wrote:

You're presenting arguments in favor of not including retro PC's, but are you actually trying to see my point of view? Or are you trying to stop the wiki article from being edited to include retro PC's?

neither, I just looked at the article and gave my observation.
I don't care whether you write a new article or rewrite that article. In fact I don't believe you will do either. Complaining is easier.

Ofcourse complaining is easier, I never said otherwise 😜
However, giving valid points is another thing and is exactly what I have done.

And like I mentioned before, I'm not inclined to spend time in writing an article that's only going to be deleted because someone else rather have their version of retrocomputing and retrogaming on the wiki. It would be a waste of time.

Dominus wrote:

aehm, no […]
Show full quote

Dominus, how about giving us your observation about the lack of retro PC's and retrogaming with PC's in the mentioned wiki articles 😉

aehm, no

How about giving us your observation about the retrocomputing that's going on right here in our back yards?

I'm waiting for your article

Well, have a fun wait then!

But if you want the article to be changed so dearlythe go ahead and do it yourself instead of asking me 🤣

Dominus wrote:

Or are you trying to tell me that playing glide games is not retrogaming?

how did you get that idea?

So you consider glide gaming to be retrogaming? But if you don't care about it not even having been mentioned in the wiki, I suppose you simply don't care enough about the content of the article.
However, the fact you want me to write an article you mention you don't even care about tells me you have another reason for asking me.
How about you spit it out? 😉

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Yes, you can put a Voodoo 3 PCI in a modern computer, making the computer no longer a retro computer. I actually have a s939 Athlon 3500+ with a 400gig harddrive and a floppydrive made in 1991! But that doesn't make that computer a retro rig. Frankly I don't think anyone is debating that.
Today you can emulate almost any platform on a modern rig, like the NES, but that doesn't make the original NES not retro anymore.

To me the definition isn't about old software not being able to run on a modern rig (because with the help of emulators and wrappers, almost everything will run on a modern rig), it's about old hardware that's considered too old to run modern software BUT is used for the sole purpose of satisfying a thirst for nostalgia.

Oh lordy, my head hurts.

By all means, please keep trying to define stuff by its relative, quantifiable ability to satisfy a thirst for nostalgia.

I'm not even going to bother quantifying it in the way you suggest I am. For me it is obvious that a computer that's >10 years old and used only for retrogaming is a retrocomputer. It's common sense really

Tetrium wrote:

Ofcourse complaining is easier, I never said otherwise :P However, giving valid points is another thing and is exactly what I ha […]
Show full quote

Dominus wrote:

You're presenting arguments in favor of not including retro PC's, but are you actually trying to see my point of view? Or are you trying to stop the wiki article from being edited to include retro PC's?

neither, I just looked at the article and gave my observation.
I don't care whether you write a new article or rewrite that article. In fact I don't believe you will do either. Complaining is easier.

Ofcourse complaining is easier, I never said otherwise 😜
However, giving valid points is another thing and is exactly what I have done.

And like I mentioned before, I'm not inclined to spend time in writing an article that's only going to be deleted because someone else rather have their version of retrocomputing and retrogaming on the wiki. It would be a waste of time.

yeah, I know you'd rather bitch here about it.

Dominus wrote:

aehm, no […]
Show full quote

Dominus, how about giving us your observation about the lack of retro PC's and retrogaming with PC's in the mentioned wiki articles 😉

aehm, no

How about giving us your observation about the retrocomputing that's going on right here in our back yards?

I'm waiting for your article

Well, have a fun wait then!

But if you want the article to be changed so dearlythe go ahead and do it yourself instead of asking me 🤣

actually I don't need the article to be changed, just that IMO it's better do something about what ticks you off than bitch like a little girl about it.

Dominus wrote:

Or are you trying to tell me that playing glide games is not retrogaming?

how did you get that idea?

So you consider glide gaming to be retrogaming?

I didn't write that either.

But if you don't care about it not even having been mentioned in the wiki, I suppose you simply don't care enough about the content of the article.
However, the fact you want me to write an article you mention you don't even care about tells me you have another reason for asking me.
How about you spit it out? 😉

i never wrote that *I* want this article to be changed. Like I wrote above instead of calling a Wikipedia article shit and bitch and moan like a little girl it's better to change it.

Apparently you don't want the Wikipedia article to be correct or rather you don't want to invest time in it. So keep on bitching about it.
But please next time when you call a wiki article shit, just say that you are a little girl and you just want to bitch about it but not make it better.

> It's common sense really

Apparently the opinions differ here.

This is exactly the reason Wikipedia and wikis in general are such pieces of garbage. I miss the days when misinformation was spread professionally.

Tetrium wrote:

For me it is obvious that a computer that's >10 years old and used only for retrogaming is a retrocomputer. It's common sense really

How nice for you.

What if you're playing older games on a newer computer? Or what if only some of the parts are more than ten years old but not others? Do either of these factors so fundamentally change the experience that suddenly its nostalgic-quenching properties are somehow invalidated!?

Dominus wrote:

You really like to complain do you? From the definition that page gives on personal computers, macs fit. Apple tried to differ w […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

But 3DFX stuff is old enough 😜

Btw, found some more strange things. Since when is a Mac considered to be a PC ?!?!?

Someone needs to use a bulldozer here to clean up -_-

You really like to complain do you?
From the definition that page gives on personal computers, macs fit. Apple tried to differ with the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" spots but I'm hard pressed to say what the differences are.
Different OS? OS X is a Unix runs on non-macs.
The hardware? Not much difference.
But you have a problem with it, so you should have the right answer...

Historically Macs and PC's have always been different. Would you have called a 68k or PowerPC based Mac a PC? Macs didn't start using Intel chips until 2006 and even then there are differences. You can't just slap an OS X disc in a PC and install it. Neither can you just slap a Windows disc in a Mac and install it. There are steps that must be taken and helper software that must be used to overcome the differences in the hardware, so even though most of the hardware used today is identical, a Mac is still NOT a PC. A PC is a Windows native machine and a Mac is an OS X native machine and even though you can get the OS designed for one to work on the other with some effort, it does not make them the same.

sliderider wrote:

Dominus wrote:

You really like to complain do you? From the definition that page gives on personal computers, macs fit. Apple tried to differ w […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

But 3DFX stuff is old enough 😜

Btw, found some more strange things. Since when is a Mac considered to be a PC ?!?!?

Someone needs to use a bulldozer here to clean up -_-

You really like to complain do you?
From the definition that page gives on personal computers, macs fit. Apple tried to differ with the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" spots but I'm hard pressed to say what the differences are.
Different OS? OS X is a Unix runs on non-macs.
The hardware? Not much difference.
But you have a problem with it, so you should have the right answer...

Historically MAcs and PC's have always been different. Would you have called a 68k or PowerPC based Mac a PC? Macs didn't start using Intel chips until 2006 and even then there are differences. You can't just slap an OS X disc in a PC and install it. Neither can you just slap a Windows disc in a Mac and install it. There are steps that must be taken and helper software that must be used to overcome the differences in the hardware, so even though most of the hardware used today is identical, a Mac is still NOT a PC. A PC is a Windows native machine and a Mac is an OS X native machine and even though you can get the OS designed for one to work on the other with some effort, it does not make them the same.

Nice try but your definition of a PC is flawed. Very much.
So the only thing that makes a PC is that it runs Windows natively? Really? That's your definition of a PC? Please read up on this subject, though I gwet to that at the bottom.
The only difference between todays mac and a so called PC is the bios and even that will not be much different for long. Yes, to run either OS X on a normal PC or Windows on a Mac you need a boot manager. Wow, a boot manager is the difference... (ok, for running OS X on a normal PC you need some distinct hardware and may need to do some hacking).
Give it up, by definition a Mac has always been a Personal Computer (a computer that can be run and used by one person, opposed to the once upon a time big workstations), what you mean is the difference between certain branches of personal computers. On the one branch you have the Mac and on the other hand you have the IBM-PC and IBM-PC compatible computers. And yes, people say PC when they actually mean an IBM-PC compatible computer, doesn't make it right by definition 😀

And Apple making this distinction themselves? Don't fall victim to Apples marketing (and them not wanting to explain the difference between PC and IBM-PC in short commercials 😉)