Relevance of Application to OS

[mezron 0]

I'd like to see something implemented that prevents or discourages people from submitting apps as compatible for the OS that they're designed for. For example, I see 25 listings for Bootvis and so I look and see that most of the entries are saying it runs great on XP. Well, it's supposed to. XP is what it's designed for. According to the Bootvis license, XP is all you're allowed to run it on. Saying that it runs great on XP isn't really helpful information. I've always thought of the compatibility listings as apps or devices that were designed for other OS's that were found to work under NT based OS's. Sometimes with a little nudge to get going.

 

Which brings me to another point, and I'll use Bootvis as an example again. Bootvis has several entries saying it works great on Win 2k. Well, I just installed 2k and patched it all up and Bootvis doesn't work. I don't really care that Bootvis doesn't work on my 2k, but I'd like to see some info in the Bootvis listings that tell what the trick is to get it going on 2k.

 

Other than those two things I like what you've done with the compatibility listings. It's what originally brought me to NT Compatible back in geez... 1998 or 1999 or so. Man has it really been that long?

[Philipp 6]

Quote:

I'd like to see something implemented that prevents or discourages people from submitting apps as compatible for the OS that they're designed for. For example, I see 25 listings for Bootvis and so I look and see that most of the entries are saying it runs great on XP. Well, it's supposed to. XP is what it's designed for. According to the Bootvis license, XP is all you're allowed to run it on. Saying that it runs great on XP isn't really helpful information. I've always thought of the compatibility listings as apps or devices that were designed for other OS's that were found to work under NT based OS's. Sometimes with a little nudge to get going.

I am planning in a few days another update, which makes the comment field a requirement and no longer only an option. This should help increasing the overall quality of the submissions.

Quote:

Which brings me to another point, and I'll use Bootvis as an example again. Bootvis has several entries saying it works great on Win 2k. Well, I just installed 2k and patched it all up and Bootvis doesn't work. I don't really care that Bootvis doesn't work on my 2k, but I'd like to see some info in the Bootvis listings that tell what the trick is to get it going on 2k.

That's the reason for the CompatDB.org Corrections forum. If you see any inaccurate submissions report it in this forum. I do my best to keep the list accurate as possible, but it is not easy to re-verify alone all submissions because there are over 13000 in the database.

Quote:

Other than those two things I like what you've done with the compatibility listings. It's what originally brought me to NT Compatible back in geez... 1998 or 1999 or so. Man has it really been that long?

Yes, the list is over 9 years old

[DosFreak 2]

I see nothing wrong with submitting compatibility reports for the OS they were designed for. So what if the application was supposedly designed for the OS. It doesn't mean that the application will actually work. The Compatibility Database is about more than what's supposed to work, it's about listing people's issues with applications\games on whatever OS and what they did to fix the problem.

 

 

arrg, started my little excel compatibility list back in mid 1999. You have me beat in time and size of database Phillip! /Shakes fist

 

But I will say that my list is far more accurate than NTCompatibles because I have gone through each and every game on the list and tested them myself. The only possibility for error is the fact of the ever changing state of PC hardware/software....err...which is pretty big....