[Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Truecolor ZDoom with extra features and some unofficial/beta GZDoom features.
[Home] [Download] [Git builds (Win)] [Git builds (Mac)] [Libs (Win)] [Repo] [Bugs&Suggestions]

Moderators: Rachael, dpJudas

Locked
ibm5155
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 13:05

[Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by ibm5155 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 16:09

skybox: check
3d models: check
now dpjudas, where's the software support for dynamic lights? just kidding, but maybe idk, for now you're the next great thing that happened since that guy that ported some 3d floor support into zdoom).
I'm wondering how's the actuall performance with quite old machiens (ie doom age machines), I'm gonna run some tests comparing the old zdoom to the new one and see if those new features will ever run :p (I belive qzdoom neither zdoom are not compatible anymore with Windows 98, but in case it Works...)

User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3616
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: The amazing triangle drawer!

Post by Rachael » Wed Nov 02, 2016 16:20

QZDoom will not work on Windows 98. WinXP support has to be built in, first, and then it has to use KernelEx extensions.

However, I can collaborate with Blzut3 and see about what headers need to be changed, and possibly include a patch directly in the source tree for MinGW (not -w64) to compile for Windows 98 (without using KernelEx hackery).

I can tell you this: It will be slow. Multithreaded CPU's can handle it better due to extra cores, but you may or may not have to tweak multithreading settings for this project to get it to run smoother. (It shouldn't make a difference, but this is single core CPU's we're talking about - old ones - so every tweak can make a huge impact)

Also, unless the target machine supports Direct3D 9, it won't even do truecolor, as DirectDraw was officially deprecated in this project before it even became a project. The OpenGL backend will probably not even run on such a machine due to using OpenGL 2.0. (I'm going to see if I can hack QindieGL to work, though)
Spoiler: Zen Sarcasm

ibm5155
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 13:05

Re: The amazing triangle drawer!

Post by ibm5155 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 16:42

Well, I have a vm and 2 more machines:
Pentium MMX266MHz, 64mb ram, a 2d gpu with 2MB of ram.
K6-III+ 400MHz, 128mb ram, voodoo 3 3000 with 16mb of ram (this one with xp and 98)...

I just tested with a vm and not even with kernel ex zdoom is working...
But that's not a problem, those old guys used to run at 320x240 with 25 - 30 fps vanilla doom 2 (or 1fps when the opl emulator was on D:)...

I better test in new hardware, since this is what people are going to use, I'll just leave vanilla doom and doom legacy with those old guys

User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3616
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: The amazing triangle drawer!

Post by Rachael » Wed Nov 02, 2016 16:45

Honestly, I think you will have far more luck running it on Windows 2000 on the same machine than on Windows 98 - the system requirements are only slightly higher (and thankfully, still lower than XP's), but it can handle a lot of the advanced stuff QZDoom will use a whole lot better (and DirectX support was upgraded to 9.0c before Windows 2000 was deprecated, also). It will still require using a special toolchain in order to compile this and get it working. Additionally, Windows 2000 supports OpenGL 2.0+, so that won't be an issue.
Spoiler: Zen Sarcasm

ibm5155
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 13:05

Re: The amazing triangle drawer!

Post by ibm5155 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 17:13

I'm actually not using Win xp but yes the WinFLP it Works as good as the Windows 98 under that machine (the K6-III one)

User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3616
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by Rachael » Wed Nov 02, 2016 17:20

I'm going to split this topic, since it's really derailed from the triangle discussion.

Also, that's an interesting OS, I wonder why I've never heard of it before.
Spoiler: Zen Sarcasm

ibm5155
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 13:05

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by ibm5155 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 17:42

Eruanna wrote:I'm going to split this topic, since it's really derailed from the triangle discussion.

Also, that's an interesting OS, I wonder why I've never heard of it before.
That's ok.
Me either :D, I only knew about it in 2016, and it even boots faster than my w98 partition

dpJudas
Developer
Developer
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:53

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by dpJudas » Wed Nov 02, 2016 21:15

At the moment, the minimum requirements for QZDoom is a Penitum 4 and Windows 7.

The Pentium 4 is required because a computer must have SSE 2 for some of the drawers to work, This limitation could be lifted, but personally I would only even consider doing that to target ARM platforms. I don't really know anything about the Neon vector instructions on arm to do this though. Plus I don't own any hardware except my ipad to run such a thing on.

The Windows 7 minimum requirement comes from the fact that I will not lift a finger for OSes that are already EOL. I know this isn't a popular viewpoint in the Doom community, but my hobby is not living in a 90's bubble. I like games from that era due to their often better gameplay, but I have no particular love for 320x200 pixelated graphics or even Windows XP. :)

I would love a modern BF1 looking shooter with the gameplay and map complexity of Doom 1 and 2, or UT99 CTF which was my all time favorite. If it required me to buy a new GPU I would do it in an instance, and if it required 32 gigs of ram, 100 gb of disk space and the executable was 100 mb in size it would make me say wow and then I'd shop some more ram for my PC and buy a new SSD. This attitude is lightyears away from some parts of the community, but like they won't adapt to my viewpoints I see little reason why I should do the opposite.

Sorry for this little rant, but hopefully this makes it clear what my stance is on old computer stuff.

User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3616
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by Rachael » Wed Nov 02, 2016 21:45

dpJudas wrote:or UT99 CTF which was my all time favorite.
Hmmm. Somehow your name seemed to strike a familiarity of some sort. Did you play online back in the day? :P
Spoiler: Zen Sarcasm

dpJudas
Developer
Developer
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:53

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by dpJudas » Wed Nov 02, 2016 22:26

dpJudas is short for ~dp~Judas~dp~. The clan was later renamed to Quasar, where my nick became ~qsr*Judas. If you played online on FFA servers in northern Europe there's a good chance you might have played with me. :)

ibm5155
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 13:05

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by ibm5155 » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:15

dpJudas wrote:At the moment, the minimum requirements for QZDoom is a Penitum 4 and Windows 7.

The Pentium 4 is required because a computer must have SSE 2 for some of the drawers to work, This limitation could be lifted, but personally I would only even consider doing that to target ARM platforms. I don't really know anything about the Neon vector instructions on arm to do this though. Plus I don't own any hardware except my ipad to run such a thing on.
Oh, I was thinking that this part of asm code was generated by the LLVM virtual machine for any kind of cpu (Idk almost nothing about the LLVM so I may be talking just wrong stuff)

User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3616
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by Rachael » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:29

dpJudas wrote:dpJudas is short for ~dp~Judas~dp~. The clan was later renamed to Quasar, where my nick became ~qsr*Judas. If you played online on FFA servers in northern Europe there's a good chance you might have played with me. :)
I played on a lot of servers but mostly I hung out in the IRC.
ibm5155 wrote:Oh, I was thinking that this part of asm code was generated by the LLVM virtual machine for any kind of cpu (Idk almost nothing about the LLVM so I may be talking just wrong stuff)
I'm not going to speak on behalf of dpJudas but I think what he mainly meant was - "this is what I am going to support" not what will actually work. In other words, if you ask him for help with anything earlier, he will probably kindly ask you to leave. :P (Just my prediction)
Spoiler: Zen Sarcasm

dpJudas
Developer
Developer
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:53

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by dpJudas » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:30

You're correct. However, there's a few drawers left that isn't done by LLVM that work using SSE 2 intrinsics. And then there's a couple of places where I use SSE packing instructions explicitly in the LLVM codegen because they can't be expressed in C++ directly (packing 32 bit to 8 bit with saturation so no clamping is needed).

But as Eruanna already mentioned, the odds of a 90's CPU being fast enough to do 32 bit things is very unlikely. Only one core and no vector instructions. It could be made to run, but I'm not sure if even 320x240 would run at an acceptable speed. :)

dpJudas
Developer
Developer
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:53

Re: [Split] Legacy Windows discussion

Post by dpJudas » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:36

Eruanna wrote:I played on a lot of servers but mostly I hung out in the IRC.
By what nick? Which clan did you belong to? Maybe I recognize yours - unless it was Eruanna, which I don't I'm afraid. :(

Locked

Return to “QZDoom”