Can anyone explain to me what the IBM PC category means?

[khaz]

Browsing the database, I can't help but feel that the category "Microsoft Windows" has been mislabelled as "IBM PC". Let's not forget that IBM PC is an architecture, which allowed plenty of different and incompatible OSes:

- 64bit Windows
- 32bit windows (95)
- 16bit Windows (3.1)
- MS-DOS
- Linux
- OSX
- CP/M
- And so many others

Each should get their own category in my opinion, as each got their own games and were incompatible with each others. Plenty of games were released for several different IBM-PC OSes, and you had to buy the correct one for your machine, else it just wouldn't work.

Of course then there is the architecture to confuse the user a bit more, like
- Linux can be run on x86, AMD, and plenty other hardware (and has many flavours)
- Mac OS has been on Motorola and x86 and x86-64
- CP/M has been ported on plenty of 8bit computers
- Windows has now an AMD variant

Software for different architectures are usually contained to said architecture, with the notable exception of CP/M software which could be used on any (otherwise incompatible) computer as long as said computer got a port of CP/M. There are of course exceptions to blur the lines.

There is already a category for the IBM PCjr, which is cool, but then Apple Macintosh is a single category even though it radically changed its architecture and the whole library became incompatible between Motorola-OS9 and IBM-PC-OSX. If MS-DOS and Windows 10 games are lumped together because the computer shares the same architecture, then so should OSX and Linux games, which we can agree would be ridiculous.

[Izret101]

IBM PC, IBM PC Jr and Macintosh were the original listings from when the site was created.

There has been talk before about overhauling but it would be a HUGE undertaking. I know I have listed some details with OS compatibility on a few games I have added.

I also know we have run into issues where users submit a remake of a game that would have been XP/2000 compatible when the original release would have been DOS/3.1 originally. I am by no means super familiar about pc releases but just with my (what I perceive) to be limited knowledge I'd assume even my break down and yours is a simplified loom at an extremely complicated system.


Given how large the sections have become and how much overlap there is between OSes it would be a HUGE undertaking to overhaul these platforms. For example I know there are games that were compatible with a certain operating system.

There are also IBM/Mac compatible games which throws another wrench into the system.
We do have the Multiple Consoles listing but since that is extremely generic it is essentially a catch all which also will also become a nightmare to overhaul when the time comes.

Essentially the database much like the forums needs a complete overhaul which cannot be done with the existing architecture but those who have the knowledge to overhaul unfortunately do not also have the time.

I've been typing this response for a couple hours during breaks at work so it might not make complete sense but basically there is no perfect system for PCs. With that being said our system could most definitely be improved.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

Essentially, we need the ability to specify the multiple consoles, not just list multiple consoles, and we could break down the PC category - but, yes, it is unfortunately a catch-all that existed well before my time, and it's fairly undocumented to boot. Just trying to assign Release Types for half of it was a nightmare.

[bombatomba]

I don't know, I might be in the minority on this, but I don't know why this particular thing needs to change, and for one specific reason: I don't think the OS should be the name for the PC platform.  While technically "IBM PC" only really describes a narrow range of history, it does sound better than "x86" which is the actual platform that we play "PC" games on.  On one hand I do understand what you mean, khaz, I just think the current setup is easier to navigate.  As an example, I was recently researching platform games on the PC (Golden Age to Current Age) and hit some massive snags, all because some of the sites I was looking on use the additional OSes you listed instead of the direct platform, which made the research far more work than it should have been.

Sure, maybe we could use some sort of sub-platform (or additional platform descriptor), but I think I'd rather see the genre structure overhauled first (although just narrowing the sub-genres down and allowing them to be searched might be better).

[techwizard]

i like the sub-platform idea (agreed on letting genre structure project finish first). why not just a field for PC only called "Supported Operating System(s)"?

[mumboking]

why not just a field for PC only called "Supported Operating System(s)"?

That could be confusing. What about games that work on OSes newer than the ones listed on the packaging? Would you list those OSes?

[Izret101]

That seems like the logical step to take...

Assuming the game runs on the OS without having to use any sort of virtual pc program.

[techwizard]

why not just a field for PC only called "Supported Operating System(s)"?

That could be confusing. What about games that work on OSes newer than the ones listed on the packaging? Would you list those OSes?

i think so, yes. if someone can confirm they played it without requiring any weird patch or mod (or virtual pc like izret suggested) then i don't see why not.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

I would instead change it to "System Specifications", and "Suggested Operation Systems". We all know that the specs and platforms listed on the box are just what are covered by the developer/publisher, and don't necessarily cover all combinations. I'm currently going through a project testing compatibility for Windows Phone 7 and 8 games on Windows 10 Mobile, and while many of the games weren't meant to support that platform, most still work.