What's with the history revisionism on (only) Pouet? :D
category: general [glöplog]
Keops: Some of the Atari platforms are not totally incompatible with each other, STe and ST for example, just read the info file...
In linguistics there's a decades-old debate between lumpers vs. splitters.
Of course I am all for taking into account a platform's peculiarities, and staying on topic is always an option. So I wasn't entirely serious. :-)
In linguistics there's a decades-old debate between lumpers vs. splitters.
Of course I am all for taking into account a platform's peculiarities, and staying on topic is always an option. So I wasn't entirely serious. :-)
try to remember that you're german aka humourously handicapped
as in, compared to bifat jan bohmermann and mario barth are actually really funny
Quote:
Some of the Atari platforms are not totally incompatible with each other, STe and ST for example
Sure, like Amiga ECS/OCS and AGA, C64 and C128, Amstrad CPC and Amstrad CPC plus, Gameboy and Gameboy Advance I suppose? What's your point?
Keops: My point is that we should have an OCS platform.
You already have one.
and remember, "BLA BLA BLA IT'S THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR BLA BLA BLA" doesn't count as an argument
Keops: Right here on my desk!
Havoc: Because you say so :-)
Havoc: Because you say so :-)
no really, it's just your (lack of) perspective
Wow, Havoc. You sound so... insightful! Totally a question of perspectives, of course - and mediating between these is what I imagined forums were good for. I accept that it won't happen because you say so, but clearly that's not an argument either.
Humourless, no, I'm having a lot of fun with you and enjoy it. My tribe hasn't even participated in the germanic migrations but remained mountain dwellers, so we have developed a VERY distinct kind of humour :-)
Humourless, no, I'm having a lot of fun with you and enjoy it. My tribe hasn't even participated in the germanic migrations but remained mountain dwellers, so we have developed a VERY distinct kind of humour :-)
bla bla bla. why your suggestions won't be taken seriously is explained on the first page on this thread, so it's clearly not because i say so, no matter how many times you repeat that lame narrative
So your way to deal with an old mistake is to entrench deeper in the mistake by coercing history to retrofit the erroneous template? Exactly Photon's point!
Let's take this kind of reasoning as an example of dutch humour. :-)
Let's take this kind of reasoning as an example of dutch humour. :-)
again more bla bla bla. just stop the retarded whining about polluting platforms with memory requirements, chip versions and whatnot, that's all i ask. are you really too stupid to understand why that is a bad idea?
actually, no, you're obviously not too stupid for that, you know why merging columns in databases is very rarely a good idea. or at least i don't have any idea how you would be unable to figure that out while simultaneously pooping out the demos you produce. so just stop that bullshit, you know why. if you must, go argue for a fucking tagcloud or extra columns in the DB or, idgaf, srsly, any other arguably-less-inane-solution. just not this horseshit idea. thanks.
Yes, I am that stupid. I made a little intrusive suggestion. Please explain.
[link]so all this stuff you want to define as a "platform"[/link].
a) why do you want to combine all this data and put it in the single column we have for the platform?
2) don't you see that splitting that data would enable even more granular searches without needlessly complex reinterpretation of data as you'd be forced to do if data comes from a single column?
3) so why are you not arguing for that?
your choice now, you know what to post to get another reply or just pictures of manure spreaders from here on out.
a) why do you want to combine all this data and put it in the single column we have for the platform?
2) don't you see that splitting that data would enable even more granular searches without needlessly complex reinterpretation of data as you'd be forced to do if data comes from a single column?
3) so why are you not arguing for that?
your choice now, you know what to post to get another reply or just pictures of manure spreaders from here on out.
With my limited understanding of relational databases I understand that the search for platform is getting more complex if you want to keep OCS and OCS/ECS together in search results with a single column.
What I'm suggesting is to change the current meaning of OCS/ECS to OCS (as in platform, not chipset), leave everything as it is, add an "ECS/OCS plus" platform, which can be used for future productions, and perhaps an overhaul after collecting blatantly non-OCS productions for a longer period, e.g. in lists - as has been suggested. So for now the additional effort would be to collate search results for OCS and ECS/OCS+, while at the same time opening up a future path for a platform distinction that accounts for roughly 17.000 productions, no?
What I'm suggesting is to change the current meaning of OCS/ECS to OCS (as in platform, not chipset), leave everything as it is, add an "ECS/OCS plus" platform, which can be used for future productions, and perhaps an overhaul after collecting blatantly non-OCS productions for a longer period, e.g. in lists - as has been suggested. So for now the additional effort would be to collate search results for OCS and ECS/OCS+, while at the same time opening up a future path for a platform distinction that accounts for roughly 17.000 productions, no?
so you want us to add an empty platform so you can maybe make some lists to populate that platform with in the future. how about you make those lists first? nothing stopping you right?
No, I don't "want you" to start doing this right now, and nothing keeps us platform zealots from providing such lists. At the moment I could provide such a list only for the past 6 years, not very much is in it, and it's going to be a lot of work. Maybe we can discuss this further when we have about 50 productions of said kind?
you're more than welcome to start making such lists, if you need any assistance let me know.
as for reassessing for a list of 50 prods, sure, why not, could also do that with less prods on the list. the criteria from our side won't change though, we're not going to facilitate WIPs beyond the list function and although 17000 sounds like a lot compared to 50 you'll have to appreciate that we cannot make this decision without also considering the amount of necessary changes in the remaining ~73k prods in the db. (which is likely going to be a lot less favourable, let's be real, and no, we're not going to add anything just for the amiga platforms if it could also be useful for other platforms).
as for reassessing for a list of 50 prods, sure, why not, could also do that with less prods on the list. the criteria from our side won't change though, we're not going to facilitate WIPs beyond the list function and although 17000 sounds like a lot compared to 50 you'll have to appreciate that we cannot make this decision without also considering the amount of necessary changes in the remaining ~73k prods in the db. (which is likely going to be a lot less favourable, let's be real, and no, we're not going to add anything just for the amiga platforms if it could also be useful for other platforms).
Havoc: This sounds like a start! Just having the list would be useful, and I'm in the process of collecting such data anyway.
Keops: That's a fine picture! Maybe a tad too big, here's another suggestion:
Keops: That's a fine picture! Maybe a tad too big, here's another suggestion:
Jeus christ isn't @keops 600 years old by now?
perspective.
Quote:
What is a "pure ECS machine" though? A500+, A600, and A3000 are obvious, but what about late A500 with ECS Denise and ECS Agnus, but still nerfed to only have 512 kB chip memory unless you modify it? Should a "pure ECS machine" have 1 MB chip memory and exclude late A500 but include late A2000? Or should it be upgradable to 2 MB chip memory (without modification) and exclude late A2000 as well? Should Kickstart 2.x be a consideration?
My point exactly: it's not as simple as saying that the "Classic Amiga" is OCS only.
Quote:
Either way, there's no need to include ECS Agnus in the definition of a platform that captures the "golden age" of A500, because the software assumed 512 kB Agnus.
It's not so much a question of the memory as it's about big blits. I am curious about how many demos from the "golden age" (let's say 1991-1993) use that feature. My guess is a fair few, since it was supported on A500 from early/mid 1990 onwards.
Also, as Kusma pointed out: the platform categories are just that: categories. The most important properties of a set of platform categories are:
- They are mutually exclusive, and it's obvious to which category a production belongs.
- They don't lump together too many configurations that people generally consider significantly different.
Since the difference between OCS and ECS is so small, the "Amiga OCS/ECS" category covers a quite narrow set of configurations in terms of their capabilities, at least as far as the chipset goes.
And, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, the number of productions in the "Amiga OCS/ECS" category that are not for the "Classic Amiga" is very small. Thus, a subdivision of that category would be for the benefit of that very small number of productions.
It could also be quite non-obvious to which category a production belongs. We can't even agree on a precise definition, and even if we could, it would require some very specialized testing to categorize all of those 17.000 productions.
If anything, the "Amiga AGA" category is much more diverse. Nowadays, most productions in that category are written for 060, but there's a significant number of productions from the mid-nineties that are for other configs, on some more or less continuous spectrum between "plain A1200" and "060 with lots of RAM".
