Go to bottom

fix me beautifull

category: general [glöplog]
psonice - you mean there's a category on pouet for things that are guaranteed to work!?!? And I never noticed it, all this time! ;)
added on the 2007-11-16 00:09:03 by syphus syphus
please always use bbcode in this thread when refering to broken things.

I don't see much mac sceners around here anyway.


Sure, PPC and intel are different architectures, but in practice the majority of demos made for OSX will work on any OSX mac. No pre-osx demos are ever going to run on an intel mac, or even a ppc mac unless you install the classic stuff (which I'd say was actually an emulator anyway). This is why we want OSX and classic separated.

That's what we've been talking and agreed about since quite a while by now, simply, naming the demos after the os they're running on doesn't cover all the possibilities for macs due to the different unrelated architectures.


Think about it - with the scheme you're proposing, if we download a PPC demo, we have no clue as to whether it will work or not.

That's not true, if you download a demo which have been referenced as macppc only you should implicitly know it's not osx or it would have been referenced as macintel too. Is that so hard to understand ?


It's like putting every PC demo that runs on a 286 or higher under "PC - 32bit", it would be pure trial and error!

Well, obviously you don't want to understand.

I was just trying to be accommodating but vox populi, vox dei.

No casualties, except we lost the sergeant truck.
added on the 2007-11-16 00:13:43 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
Actually hitchhikr only wants this "system" for mac demos, for PC demos he wants it to stay with Platform instead of CPU.
added on the 2007-11-16 01:20:12 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
stefan: actually the more i hear him counter your trolling with logical reasoning the more he starts making sense.
added on the 2007-11-16 02:15:14 by psenough psenough
same poll, new page:

BB Image
BB Image
added on the 2007-11-16 02:18:48 by psenough psenough
Well, still. Hitch seems to be the only one defending that "cause". I'm way too lazy to read back everything that has been said since my question, but I must admit that adding a Mac production now is a pain in the ass for it to be in the right category. I don't even get the reason of that change, and don't even want to understand that reason. It simply is bullshit. Sorry, it's not ment to offend anyone, but the precedent names were easier in all ways. And I'm not the only one thinking that. That said, do what you want anyways.
added on the 2007-11-16 02:21:38 by iks iks
well, if you dont even want to understand the reasoning how do you expect it to ever even making sense? old habits arent always necessarily the best. read back on the thread when you have time and then please vote.
added on the 2007-11-16 02:23:17 by psenough psenough
Hitch: Ok, after reading back, I think I get what you mean. You're suggesting that we can actually work out what kind of system we need from your categories, with a bit of logic. It still falls down on the PPC category though, because we won't know what OS is needed for PPC demos, and that's a big issue.

Anyway, whether it works or not, I think it's not "obvious" enough. We shouldn't need to play logic games to see if a demo is likely to run or not, it should be clear from the listings. And as we've been saying, the biggest issue for us mac users is the OS, not the CPU. So, how about a compromise? It's not as nice perhaps as having just 3 categories, but it will at least make more sense and cover most of the differences:

Mac 68k (old stuff - any mac old timers care to comment on whether this needs to be called something else or needs further splitting or anything? I've no clue)
Mac OS (Pre-OSX stuff, PPC by default)
Mac OSX (most of the osx demos)
Mac OSX Intel only (anything that won't run on ppc)

There could also be an OSX PPC only category I guess, but I think there will be few enough of them that we can live with looking at the comments or nfo. In a few years there will be very few PPC macs left, and the two OSX categories could be merged back into one (which would basically put us back to where we started, but hey).

One thing that definitely needs to stay though - the mac platforms should all be labelled with mac at the start, so they're grouped together.
added on the 2007-11-16 09:27:08 by psonice psonice
A photo by CoaXCable/CoolPHat of Kassam Rockets today 16/11/2007
added on the 2007-11-16 11:43:21 by cxczevik cxczevik
Coax: no point fixing them, they'll be sending fresh ones soon I'm sure. :(
added on the 2007-11-16 12:36:22 by psonice psonice
i vote for the OS-based solution.
added on the 2007-11-16 13:12:24 by yonx yonx
stefan: actually the more i hear him counter your trolling with logical reasoning the more he starts making sense.

Well if we want to go for the logical solution here, why don't we just rate everything by minimum mhz and minimum color depth and RAM size and speed. By all this it would be a piece of cake to solve the riddle what system needs to run the program!
added on the 2007-11-16 14:31:29 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
The debate brings to my mind the question: Will there be a Windows Vista-category also once the first DX10/Vista only-demo comes out? Because Windows as it's now obviously doesn't cut it. And once we have that, will we assume that Windows-labeled demos will work in Vista (which they definitely aren't guaranteed to do), or will we change the Windows into Windows XP, which will be misleading, or..? And then there are the 32-bit and 64-bit versions.. and the legacy Windows productions that don't run under the NT kernel but require Win95 or 98..
added on the 2007-11-16 15:04:56 by Preacher Preacher
Preacher: the whole thing is a mess, pc, mac, amiga, probably every platform. I guess the debate should be less about what happens to the mac categories, and more like how the whole category system works on pouet.

Really, to make the PC system comprehensive for e.g. you'd have something like DOS, DOS + GUS, Win 9x, Win NT-XP, Win XP 64 bit, Vista, Vista 64bit. Maybe more. (Although I don't recall seeing any 64bit demos for windows so far at least) You also have the whole ATI/Nvidia only issue, and probably others.

Ideally, we'd have a system where you tick off all the supported systems, and if you look at XP prods it also shows win95 prods known to work on xp. We'd have to go back through the whole database to update everything though. And what happens when a new platform comes out, would everything just get a ? instead of a tick, and it gets updated as it goes along?

Otherwise, we have a rough and ready system (like now), and we look at the nfo and comments. Which, actually, was what we were doing with the mac prods before it was changed.
added on the 2007-11-16 16:09:45 by psonice psonice
This is called "Beast II - The Demo".
added on the 2007-11-16 19:00:18 by Bobic Bobic
added on the 2007-11-16 19:05:17 by keops keops
so can someone an icon for mac intel? regardless of the decision, it seems it'll be needed..
added on the 2007-11-16 19:23:33 by psenough psenough
I am not gonna try do the icon, but I recommend whoever to take the Leopard X.
added on the 2007-11-16 19:52:52 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
The production rss is now incorrectly linking to the user who posted the comment, instead of the production itself. (It should actually be towards the comment itself, however it never has, so it's not a regression ;)
added on the 2007-11-17 09:32:54 by _-_-__ _-_-__
Disktrash 1 and Disktrash 2 were made by Amaze.
Correct download URL for Disktrash 2 is this one.
added on the 2007-11-18 04:02:03 by Bobic Bobic
added on the 2007-11-18 04:12:01 by Bobic Bobic
in this release please change the download link to:


thank you!
added on the 2007-11-18 05:21:33 by NuKem NuKem
added on the 2007-11-18 06:57:23 by psenough psenough
nicolas: i dont get what you mean... can you use links and/or rephrase that? there are a few rss feeds, only one for prod comments though and that one lists comments from given prod so it makes sense to link to the user posting the comment..
added on the 2007-11-18 07:05:25 by psenough psenough


Go to top