(G)ZDoom commit messages you would NOT like to see

[randi]

Really? I thought it was just in case somebody had the wrong fmodex.dll in the directory...

[Blzut3]

Now we just need to check with Windows 98.

Startup console was garbage though. Sound works too (in case that was in question).

[Gez]

So, since this is potentially useful information to put somewhere on the wiki:

Minimum requirements for ZDoom:

• Windows: Windows 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP, Vista, Vista, or 7
• Mac: Mac OS 10.4 Tiger or above, PowerPC or Intel processor
• Linux: ? any minimal kernel version?
• Processor: Pentium? How low can we go and still have it accept to run? How much higher to add "at an acceptable speed" to the previous question?
• RAM: 64 megabytes?
• Disk space: 4 megabytes

[Blzut3]

Linux: ? any minimal kernel version?

I wouldn't be able to definitively answer that question, but I'm going to guess something in the 2.6 series would be required. It really comes down to whatever it compiles on.

Processor: Pentium? How low can we go and still have it accept to run? How much higher to add "at an acceptable speed" to the previous question?

That's a Pentium 2 266MHz running at 400x300@35fps capped. (Hardware midi synthesizer is required of course, thankfully the laptop has hardware midi) That said, I wouldn't dare try to run anything other than vanilla mods with that.

[leileilol]

Zdoom (as of the latest revision and not some 2010 version) doesn't work on Windows 98 by default due to the reliance on SHGetFolderPathA. Using KernelEx works around that, but of course, font screw for the startup console



It's only a matter of time before someone sees this and eliminates it further (like going VS9/VS10). I'll never forgive the spiteful removal of r_detail when it 'didn't improve 486s' while fmod was the prime CPU choker preventing its advantage.

[TheDarkArchon]

"And now on to Scenes We'd Like to See...and up first this week it's...Unlikely things to see on a (G)ZDoom changelog."

You're not a bald Irishman, stop pretending you are

[Blzut3]

font screw for the startup console

Code: Select all • Expand view

// Get monitor info from GDI for more details. Windows 95 apparently does not have
// the GetMonitorInfo function. I will leave this like this for now instead of using
// GetProcAddress to see if it's still worth worrying about Windows 95 support.
// (e.g. Will anybody complain that they can't run ZDoom anymore?)

Now that I think about this, I think this pretty much proves that no one is using ZDoom on Windows 98/ME. Surely an unreadable start up console would have been reported by now. But I guess at the same time it doesn't really make sense to drop an OS unless it's causing problems.

[randi]

I wonder why it's messed up, though. It specifically creates the Unicode version of the control. Since this has a different name from the ANSI version, we know it should be supported, since it was created. The text sent to it is Unicode, yet it ends up a garbled mess of "undefined character" boxes. (That's "wonder" as in, "Hmm. That's strange. I wonder why it does that. Oh well." Not as in, "I wonder what's going on here. I need to get this fixed.")

I think this pretty much proves that no one is using ZDoom on Windows 98/ME

You are probably right. Another data point to conisder is that last month, zdoom.org had more visitors using Windows NT 4 than it did from visitors using all versions of Windows 9x combined; Windows 9x accounted for less than 0.1% of all HTTP requests. But still, no reason to drop it just yet until I decide ZDoom should be Unicode.

It's only a matter of time before someone sees this and eliminates it further (like going VS9/VS10)

Shh! They'll hear you!

[NeuralStunner]

Heh, here recently I was considering hunting up my 98SE discs and installing to a VM, just to see what would run. I really wouldn't be surprised to hear there's a way to get unicode working in it...

[Gez]

I think this pretty much proves that no one is using ZDoom on Windows 98/ME.

No one excepts Leileilol; who only complains about it in threads like this instead of filing bug reports.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

I used to play ZDoom 1.23 on Win 98 back in the day, although it was a bit slower than Boom 2.02 and Legacy 1.28 so it wasn't my port of choice until I got my next comp.

- dropped all support for OpenGL versions lower than 3.3. Nobody in their right mind would play a hardware accelerated game on such outdated hardware anymore and it only complicates the code.

I still do (5½ years old and it still runs without slowdown on nearly all wads)

And tbh the only wads that require a beefy PC are a few GZDoom wads with lots of detail etc. so removing that support would further diminish the userbase.

You're not a bald Irishman, stop pretending you are

Ahh, at least somebody got the reference

[Graf Zahl]

And tbh the only wads that require a beefy PC are a few GZDoom wads with lots of detail etc. so removing that support would further diminish the userbase.

I somehow doubt that many fans of hardware rendering still have such old computers.

Still... at some point in the future it just has to happen. The current renderer is just waiting for the first generation of graphics cards that can't deal with such old code anymore.
And the support for this old hardware is now seriously blocking any advancement because the renderer can either stay where it is or move on. Mut moving on will require a cut at that particular point.

[leileilol]

in that case...

• Ditched the classic raycaster for Vavoom's polygonal renderer, the most advanced software renderer for Doom around! 2016 hardware can't handle it anymore somehow and you're just going to have to deal with it!

[Graf Zahl]

in that case...

the most advanced software renderer for Doom around!

AFAIK it's no longer around.

[Ghastly_dragon]

I somehow doubt that many fans of hardware rendering still have such old computers.

This laptop's from 2002, and I can't afford to get anything better. Can still run Starcraft 2, though.

Anywho:

• Added Doomguy 2000's submission of A_CrashGame.