GZDoom 3.7.0 Released

[Graf Zahl]

Well, with GZDoom, 64 bit is definitely faster - both the software renderer and the VM benefit greatly from it. The hardware renderer less, it is mainly limited by memory caching performance these days.

[dpJudas]

If your computer has less than 2 GB or ram, then my computer from 15 years ago had more.

[Rachael]

Ironically, the 2 GB MacBook I got 10.5 years ago was, at the time, the best hardware I had in any of my computers whatsoever. And it remained that way until about 4 years ago when I replaced it with a more powerful desktop computer.

Yes, I know they're overpriced pieces of crap, because you pay more for the Apple branding than you do the hardware itself. Still, it was a nice computer to have back then.

[dpJudas]

That would make it a first or second generation MacBook. Nevertheless, it was pretty normal that a good IBM PC compatible computer (now there's an old term for ya ) 15 years ago had 4 gigs of memory.

As for Macs, well, that computer you are talking about was sent to the dumpster years ago by Apple when they dropped the support in macOS.

[Graf Zahl]

That would make it a first or second generation MacBook. Nevertheless, it was pretty normal that a good IBM PC compatible computer (now there's an old term for ya ) 15 years ago had 4 gigs of memory.

Excuse me? The system I got 14 years ago had 512 MB of memory! 4GB was a bit later (2007 in my case, to be precise, and back then it was very unusual to get such a system prebuilt for a decent price, the norm was still 2GB.)

[dpJudas]

Excuse me? The system I got 14 years ago had 512 MB of memory! 4GB was a bit later (2007 in my case, to be precise, and back then it was very unusual to get such a system prebuilt for a decent price, the norm was still 2GB.)

Maybe you didn't have a good computer.

More seriously, I remember porting some software at work to Windows XP 64-bit edition somewhere around 2004-2005 (before Windows Vista). I did that on a computer with 4 gigabytes of system memory. Of course my computers always been fairly high end, but the point still stands that even if we move it to 2007 it is a very very long time ago that computers had this little memory.

[ZZYZX]

The system *I* got 14 years ago had 64 MB of memory and Windows 98/2000 dual boot... Beat that, heh
And it could run ancient ZDaemon!

But more seriously, even in 2008-2009 it was 256-512MB.

[Graf Zahl]

Excuse me? The system I got 14 years ago had 512 MB of memory! 4GB was a bit later (2007 in my case, to be precise, and back then it was very unusual to get such a system prebuilt for a decent price, the norm was still 2GB.)

Maybe you didn't have a good computer.

It was an average run-of-the-mill prebuilt with a shitty graphics card which I immediately replaced. It certainly wasn't a gaming rig but it could handle Doom 3 or Quake 4 quite well.

but the point still stands that even if we move it to 2007 it is a very very long time ago that computers had this little memory.

Mostly correct, but you could get some cheap laptops with less even years later, and some people want to play games on them...
In general I'd agree, though. Those with such an underpowered system rarely have a good graphics card - and what I was writing about was systems with up-to-date hardware but still running a 32 bit OS.

[dpJudas]

But more seriously, even in 2008-2009 it was 256-512MB.

Why don't you make it 64-128 MB while you're at it?

(Hint: look up Windows Vista minimum specs - an OS from 2006)

[Rachael]

Well - expect 32 GB systems to become common this year. They will be standard by the first next year. And by that time, 64 GB systems will start reaching the high end market, as well, if they haven't already.

Because after all - why rewrite the JavaScript engine in modern web browsers to actually fix the grotesque memory leaks - when you can just throw more RAM at it, instead?!

[Nash]

Damn, you're making me feel obsolete with my two 16 GB machines already!

[Rachael]

16 GB machines have already had several years to become common, by now. For what it's worth, I do remember when they were quite rare.

[fakemai]

With the JIT only available in 64 bit, the future of 32 bit builds doesn't really look that great

That's an understatement. When I said the performance gain was massive to me it actually makes Russian Overkill mostly playable with only a few of the weapons making it drop to slideshow framerates. Before that it was most of them. So again, I'm extremely appreciative of this version even if I'll end up being dropped further down the line.

But more seriously, even in 2008-2009 it was 256-512MB.

512MB is the absolute low end then, more typical is at least 1GB. At my extreme my daily driver is that old and it supports and has up to 8GB. It's not even a performance-designed system.

[Rip and Tear]

I foresee the importance of upgraded RAM decreasing, partially due to the growing popularity of SSDs making paging, which used to grind the system to a halt, more of a mild inconvenience. 16GB seems reasonably future-proof for now.

I remember back when you had to set up a RAM disk to run Photoshop reasonably, but now our drives are so fast that there's no need.

[Graf Zahl]

Because after all - why rewrite the JavaScript engine in modern web browsers to actually fix the grotesque memory leaks - when you can just throw more RAM at it, instead?!

JavaScript isn't fixable. The entire language suffers from some fundamental design flaws that make it far too easy to write bad code.
I think the entire problem will only start to go down if WebAssembly becomes a viable option, but seeing how resistant many users, in particular corporate ones, are to upgrade their obsolete browsers, that will take a few more years.

I see this each day at work. Our web programmers have to do double the actual work because some of our more laggard customers still work with IE10 and telling them to upgrade, or else... would only result in some other developer getting the job.