added new platforms Videopac+ G7400, Atom, Thomson TO 7, Sinclair QL
Anyone know how the compatibility is between different Thompson computers? I've seen that MO and TO series are not compatible but what about TO 7/8/9?
They're supposed to be backwards compatible in the chronical order - (confusingly that would make the TO 8 the most compatible). Game media seems to contain often more than one version though, for MO and TO.
It's a bit confusing really. I was reading about it on Old-Computers.com and it seems that MO 5 is not compatible with TO 7, yet the MO 6 is compatible with both MO 5 and all TO computers. Which makes me think that it might be best to treat the whole family as one platform in the same way we do with Atari 8-bit.
I think that information at Old-Computers might be wrong or at least somewhat misleading. I've read emulator documentation which stated that the MO6 should be able to recognize TO floppies, but no carts or tapes, and in any case no TO programm is supposed to run (unless it's in pure basic). An initial test with a cartridge on two different emulators confirms this.
Ok, then I suppose the best way to handle this is as two platforms, one for TO and one for MO?
From the way software is organized and labeled on the internet, that doesn't seem to be a bad approach. MO family seems easy enough, TO has the mentioned confusing order: TO7, TO7/70, TO9, TO8, TO9+ (apparently, more in common with TO8 than TO9).
Backwards compatibility may possibily not work 100% for both MO and TO, but this isn't unusual for other systems as well. Could probably also be covered by notes, unless the Atari 8bit approach is choosen.
Corn Popper Wrote:
Just to clarify, the Thomson platform is only this one model (TO7) for now?
If anyone's willing to work on Thomson, I've added an important website link on the Multimedia Mike's Missing Games List, where you can find a lot of info on titles released for that computer... I have few package photos even they don't have - and would be glad to share it with someone (sadly I don't speak French, so I'm unable to research most of Thomson games).
As I said it before (PM) maybe I can help for Thomson games. Just ask me.
Corn Popper Wrote:
Did I say "I love you" today already, Rob?
Thank you for your work! Updating Wikipedia now. Contributors: see new reference links on the Multimedia Mike's Missing Games List.
MobyGames is indeed educational. I'd have never discovered the Floppy ROM, a 33 1⁄3 RPM flexi disc record! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_standard#Floppy_ROM
There's a database bug with Acorn Atom: doesn't accept games before 1983, while the launch date was 1980.
Quietly we've passed another milestone: half a million screenshots!
For those researchers and scholars out there (anybody listens?), I'm just mentioning for the record that I found games list for another two missing old computers:
Wonder if they're already listed on the secret approvers' forum? Never heard them being mentioned here. Not a high priority, as they had very small game library due to their market failure. Yet in contrast to those wacky consoles (I'm talking to you, Casio Loopy) we can add a couple titles right away (Infocom adventures anyone?).
Reference available in my google Drive document.
(Edited by Trypticon (4722), Nov 14, 2012)Re: found 2 more exotic platforms
Trypticon (4722), Nov 14, 2012
The TI Professional is one of several obscure platforms running DOS and/or CPM that Infocom supported. In fact, cover artwork of them has already been submitted in the past, check this out:
That's unexpected. I read that TI Pro wasn't IBM PC-compatible: while it used DOS it was modified one, same goes to disk format? Why Infocom would use separate order code for this machine: TI1 ? (you can see the codes on floppy's sticker)
I don't know how to interpret that either. The TI Prof. is listed separately in Infocom price lists, whereas the other DOS machines listed on that front cover like the Wang or Sanyo machines are not.
A mistake on Infocom's part? To include TI Pro with IBM compatibles?
See other cover: http://www.mobygames.com/game/zork-the-great-underground-empire/cover-art/gameCoverId,28778/
Check the part that lists other systems: "Use the IBM PC version for your Compaq and the MS-DOS 2.0 version for your Wang, Mindset, Data General System 10, GRiD and many others", while the TI Professional & DEC Rainbow are mentioned separately from these.
Now, that second cover you found probably shouldn't be filed under DOS?
I'm not familiar with DEC Rainbow, however it had separate order code at Infocom - check that listing I linked in previous post and our cover scan saying DE2 (also: RX50 disk), not IB2.
RX50 disk drives used specific 5.25" SSQD diskette format, I'm not sure if 1980s IBMs could read it? Today we can do it: http://home.claranet.nl/users/pb0aia/vax/rx50.html
Please note how this Infocom history text file gives separate dates for introduction of their interpreter to IBM PC, TI Professional, DEC Rainbow, MS-DOS.
This also means something.
This problem of platforms sharing an OS and somewhat similar hardware resulting in possible crossover compatibility was probably discussed before. I'm guessing this requires input of actual (former or current) users of the hardware to sort out, few machines are actually emulated.
In case of the Rainbow, from what I remember reading - among other differences the Rainbow's graphic adapter (which was apparently an add-on - makes the system's name quite misleading) doesn't correspond to a IBM standard, so even if all the commercial releases were cross-compatible pure Text based games that rely on the OS, homebrew making use of graphics wouldn't fit into the DOS category as it currently is.
Shouldn't we celebrate 70 000 game entries going online?
70.000 platforms, not game entries. We have soon reached 40.000 unique games though.
Just submit a news entry, why not? I personally miss those pieces about MG-related stuff, like X hit Y points, platform F is almost done, etc. It makes community more lively and encourages to contribute.
You're right, I wasn't sure how to phrase it. "Platform" means software/hardware system allowing for play. I use "port" most often, but that's not too precise either (some games are re-made from scratch for another system, other are indeed just ported). I had to write an explanation on Wikipedia for this issue.
Few months ago (when we got monthly updates) I wanted to propose a challenge to everybody to catch up with UVL in numbers alone (they have 80 000 ports) by the end of 2013.
News approval is so delayed I no longer post these.
We've had the same game featured for over a month and a half, so I'm not surprised the news is no different.
We've got a new platform (Wii U console) and nobody mentions it?
Don't want to create new thread, so will ask here: how to distinguish Wii U video when platform isn't specified? It has same buttons as 360 and no native achievement system, so you can't use that for certain identification. The only thing I saw helpful was button layout, like on SNES, but that isn't enough.