Talk:PC ROS Rigs
Sortable Table Idea
A sample hardware table. All data below is completely fictitious. This is one way to track the performance of ROS on real hardware.
|Tester||Computer||CPU||RAM||HD Size||Motherboard||Video Card||Sound Card||Working Builds||Comments & Regressions|
|milon||Desktop 1||Intel Dual Core 2.0 GHz||2GB||80GB||MSI H61M-P32/W8||(onboard)||(onboard)||61270||Works awesome!|
|milon||Desktop 2||AMD A4-4000 3.2GHz||8GB||120GB||ASUS A88XM-A||(onboard)||(onboard)||61270||Works awesome!|
|milon||AncientPC||Intel 66MHz||16MB||200MB||IBM 486DX||(onboard)||(onboard)||61270||Works awesome!|
hmm..yes, not bad. It's differently portrayed as I first envisioned, but it would be better for large amounts of hw rigs that are tested.
The only thing is maybe it's less suited to extended info, as some have asked to put in. The commments section will be a bit difficult too, unless one makes bigger spaces in the table.
Ok, tried it out and I'm convinced. Let's do it the way you suggested. - Webunny
Tried out the colourscheme for working/not working as suggested by Milon; I think it has value to be used, indeed. I would suggest using the coloured letters though; with background colouring, it really becomes difficult to read it, sometimes.
Also...to people who say 'none' int he builds-section, I would prefer if you at least put the first and last build-number of ROS that you tried (and didn't work) in there. That way, it's easier to follow any progression of builds we might see. Just saying 'none' gives little info as to what was tested. At least something like: "none up to number xxx" would be a better indication.