Rename System requirements to "OS support" (Edit: or "Supported OS")

[vevy]

I suggest we rename System requirements to "OS support". Edit: or "Supported OS"

System requirements is more than just the operating system, which this field is about.

Also, it throws me off a lot, getting confused with dependencies in my mind.

In general, "operating system" or similar wording is used in many places. For example:

• Wikipedia.
• Softpedia (Uses "Runs On", and under the hood it is itemprop="operatingSystem").
• Download.com uses "Operating Systems".
• tucows.com uses "OS".
• softonic uses "OS".

On the other hand, some sites do use requirements:

• MajorGeeks uses "Requires".
• filehippo.com uses "Requirements" (but under the hood: program-technical-tab-os-title).

So, what do you think?

[webfork]

I don't have an issue with that, but I do want to point out that one item on the list of available options isn't an operating system: WINE. That program can run on quite a few operating systems, and WINE compatibility also suggests the program is more likely to run in that family of tools such as ReactOS or emulators.

[vevy]

True. But WINE is there as a stand-in for an OS – the whole kit and caboodle needed to run any Windows software.

[Andrew Lee]

If I am forced to make a choice, I actually kinda like "Runs on".

[vevy]

If I am forced to make a choice, I actually kinda like "Runs on".

Fine by me.

[billon]

Also, it throws me off a lot, getting confused with dependencies in my mind.

me not and nobody else
only your problem

[vevy]

You may be right, but you'd help me and lose nothing. Can you think of any harm in the change?

It is not a major deal either way.

[webfork]

"Runs on"

I can see some real advantages with that. For example, we do have those webpage-based applications (viewtopic.php?p=97672#p97672) that are OS-independent, and I think are going to keep growing. If so, "Runs on" might be the best descriptor.

Then again, maybe one day Java or dotNET Core will actually deliver on a broad, cross-platform capability, and we'll somehow incorporate that. Right now there are only a few rare apps that like DocFetcher and XMind that are portable on multiple platforms.

It also occurred to me that a few of our entries list what "a 3D card with OpenGL support" in the entry, where anywhere else that would be a "System Requirement".

It is not a major deal either way.

We might decline some suggestions but those remain still welcome here. Thanks for your input.

[vevy]

"Runs on"

I can see some real advantages with that. For example, we do have those webpage-based applications (viewtopic.php?p=97672#p97672) that are OS-independent, and I think are going to keep growing. If so, "Runs on" might be the best descriptor.

Then again, maybe one day Java or dotNET Core will actually deliver on a broad, cross-platform capability, and we'll somehow incorporate that. Right now there are only a few rare apps that like DocFetcher and XMind that are portable on multiple platforms.

It also occurred to me that a few of our entries list what "a 3D card with OpenGL support" in the entry, where anywhere else that would be a "System Requirement".

It is not a major deal either way.

We might decline some suggestions but those remain still welcome here. Thanks for your input.

I think that the OS-compatibility should be its own field. I agree that line between OS and platform is getting a bit blurrier, but out-of-the-box cross-platform works because the underlying platform (e.g. Java) has been developed for multiple OSes and its integration with theses systems under the hood differs. Their point is to abstract the interaction between app and OS so that a developer can write pretty much one code base. Still, the OS is different.

Some of the software sites I mentioned above use things like: "SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS" or "Additional Requirements" for things like Java and .NET.

This is why it confuses me. It is used in multiple places to mean different things.

[Andrew Lee]

OK, I have made the change.

[vevy]

Thanks a lot!

[SYSTEM]

I agree that line between OS and platform is getting a bit blurrier, but out-of-the-box cross-platform works because the underlying platform (e.g. Java) has been developed for multiple OSes and its integration with theses systems under the hood differs. Their point is to abstract the interaction between app and OS so that a developer can write pretty much one code base. Still, the OS is different.

Worth noting that this doesn't work on .NET Core. While .NET Core itself is cross-platform, all major UI frameworks for it are a part of "Windows Desktop Pack" which only works on Windows: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/n ... lications/

[billon]

OK, I have made the change.

Wait, why? "System Requirements" was absolutely OK for many years, there weren't any confused idiots
Even voting results are equal, or what was this shitshow for?

[Andrew Lee]

For me personally, it just comes down to:

1) Simple change to make.
2) "Runs on" is shorter than "System requirements", and seems to convey the same meaning. I am all for shorter, without impact to meaning.

If somehow this was not the right decision, I am OK to revert the change if I sense enough opposition.

[Midas]

I am all for shorter, without impact to meaning.

That sums up my rationale pretty much, too.