Talk:Will X run on the Pandora?

why is this here

This serves almost the same purpose as Port Requests and is very outdated, delete? --Cheese 22:47, 15 July 2010 (MEST)

Yeah, probably. But one thing is worth saving: I like how the color codes are for one column only, unlike in emulator list where the whole row is a color. This is a useful thing to know for future emulator compatibility lists on the wiki. Also, this color red is much easier on the eyes than the one in the emulator list right now... maybe we should use this one instead... Esn 01:11, 16 July 2010 (MEST)

The weird thing is that this article was created months after the Port Requests article was... the one useful bit of information it has now is mentioning which programs could theoretically be ported, but practically would not work well (i.e. the Sega Saturn emulator). I don't know if that justifies keeping it, though... we should ask the original creator, maybe... Esn 01:15, 16 July 2010 (MEST)

Justifies it to me. I added it to the main page. Let's see some action here! Blue Protoman 15:25, 23 January 2011 (MET)

I see this page as a good spot for things that are requested but have doubtful chance of getting ported. Basicsally things that are requested and get cut from port requests maplesugarlover 17:49, 19 February 2011 (MET)

We need more "It's Possible" entries

Anyone mind coming here and telling us what IS possible?

stuff on port request maplesugarlover 17:42, 19 February 2011 (MET)

To Whoever Added Yabause

It's not happening. No, it doesn't matter that the Saturn only runs at 333Mhz. It's got a very complex architecture, and is a bitch to program for, much less emulate. The link you gave was for a TEST release. As in, just porting it to port it. It runs like crap. Blue Protoman 21:31, 18 February 2011 (MET)

Irrlicht

I think there should be an entry for Irrlicht, and it should probably mention minetest maplesugarlover 17:24, 20 February 2011 (MET)

unportable

this page has been assimilated into port requests . http://pandorawiki.org/Port_requests#Unportable maplesugarlover 04:37, 21 March 2011 (MET)

But not entirely, it seems; you don't have the different degrees between "possible" and "impossible" that are present here. Also, please explain your reasoning: what is the benefit of having both "port requests" and "unportable" things on one page? Esn 19:35, 21 March 2011 (MET)

people often only see stuff on will x run , so they think it was never added. I could ask what the advantage of having unreleased stuff on the software list is. If the source is available and its not already ported.add it to port request. What makes something impossible? Its not closed stuff, it can be modified. Unportable is really just a "really difficult" section. Only stuff I would call impossible is full speed on mess,mame,dolphin and pcsx2. Not really sure about the "unportable" emulators maplesugarlover 20:46, 21 March 2011 (MET)

"I could ask what the advantage of having unreleased stuff on the software list is." - one advantage is that it's easier for the people updating the page to move a project between sections from "unreleased" to "released", if a project that was being worked on gets released. I'll grant that that section on the "software projects" list isn't very organized right now; when I get a bit of time, I'm going to make it more like the unreleased "games" list, which is properly sourced so you can see when the last update was and if a project is likely to still be being worked on or not.

About terminology: When I read "unportable", to me that means "impossible" not "really difficult", so you might want to clarify that. I think I like the different degrees on this page better than a black/white "portable/unportable" - seems to capture the ambiguity of some of this stuff more. You say yourself that you're unsure about where some of it should go. Esn 00:25, 22 March 2011 (MET)

so I'll rename it to improbable . normal stuff goes in its section. stuff with source that is unlikely to be ported can be moved to improbable section maplesugarlover 00:47, 22 March 2011 (MET)

Thanks, that seems a lot more clear. Seems like this page still has a use, though, because it also covers things for which the source code is not available (or available, but with conditions such as at least 50,000 Pandoras sold). My view is that this page is meant to be more of a visible guide for newbies about what not to ask about. It's a bit ill-defined, but it's just meant to cover some of the more frequently asked-about programs that won't be able to run. Esn 02:15, 22 March 2011 (MET)

I'm not sure this page is really worthwhile having around... it's a similar situation as deciding to put the unreleased games on the games list, and well, I know you're (Esn) an advocate of that. The unique content here can easily find it's way onto port requests, a page that many already know about (they will look there first). The newbie reasoning is valid, but I think type of people who might think running proprietary Windows software is possible wouldn't be the kind of people to read through a wiki before asking (besides, if they do, the main Pandora article specifically states that it wont do it). --Cheese 05:56, 22 March 2011 (MET)

Well, I'm not sure it's quite the same... the "unreleased" sections are largely meant to be for a historical/news record, not for a newbie-guide. The inclusion criteria is fairly precise: must be something that is/may be/was being worked on, of which some record exists. The inclusion criteria for this page is not defined as precisely - its main purpose really (it seems to me) is to answer some of the more common newbie questions about what can run. OBVIOUSLY, it cannot contain EVERYTHING that the Pandora cannot run. So its main goal, then (if we accept that that is its main reason for being), is to be simple and visible.

Also, the "unreleased" sections are in the same articles partly because "it's easier for the editor"; on the other hand, I don't foresee any programs being moved from "improbable/unportable" to the other "port requests" sections (maybe the other way around... I guess that makes sense - could make things a bit easier for maplesugarlover, if he plans to move every undoable port request into the new section, instead of just deleting it). Also, the reason why I support "unreleased" sections in the three software pages instead of one "unreleased" page is similar to why there are three software lists, instead of one list for everything; the table structure that they require is different. They're also the three major categories both in Pandora Apps and on the File Archive. If you were to split them up into a separate article (like maplesugarlover tried a while back), the table structure would still be different - they'd still be split up - but now you have 4 articles instead of 3, and things are harder for the editors.

Since BlueProtoman is the guy who originally conceived of this page in its current form, I'd like him to weigh in. Esn 06:39, 22 March 2011 (MET)