Image Map Image Map
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: How to Post (On topic vs Off Topic)

  1. #1

    Default How to Post (On topic vs Off Topic)

    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 ...


  2. #2


    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.)
    Apple ][+ through iMac i5, 5150 PC through dual Xeon W5580 and quad Itanium 9150M, and many in between.
    Newton, Palm V, N-Gage, Tapwave Zodiac, iPhone, iPhone 7.
    Intellivision, Game Boy through 3DS, Wii, XBone

  3. #3


    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.
    Windows: worst operating system in the world, almost two decades running!

  4. #4


    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada


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

    Sales of, parts for, and repairs to, Vintage and Legacy computers.

  6. #6


    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.

  7. #7


    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.
    Apple ][+ through iMac i5, 5150 PC through dual Xeon W5580 and quad Itanium 9150M, and many in between.
    Newton, Palm V, N-Gage, Tapwave Zodiac, iPhone, iPhone 7.
    Intellivision, Game Boy through 3DS, Wii, XBone

  8. #8


    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Temiskaming Shores, Ontario, Canada


    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.
    "But it's like pie r square and cornbread r round; we all know that pie r round and cornbread r square..."

  10. #10


    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.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts