GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.
Xaval
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 30, 2022 10:52 pm

GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Xaval »

Hi. Yes, as the subject says I really suggest to still consider the development and dev builds of GZDoom for both system versions. As there are still many people who use x86 systems also.

Thanks in advance,
Xaval.
User avatar
wildweasel
Moderator Team Lead
Posts: 21455
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:33 pm
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10, 21H1
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by wildweasel »

It's not an issue of demand, it's an issue of what the devs have the time and patience for. Unless you're volunteering?
User avatar
Rachael
Admin
Posts: 12966
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Rachael »

User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 48057
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Graf Zahl »

Yeah, it was just one single percent, the vast majority of those on systems that just barely pass the support threshold for their graphics hardware.

On Steam I also have witnessed an acceleration of the decline since the Windows 11 release last year (0.31% to 0.18% in just the last 5 months alone!) My guess is that older Windows 10 systems that get retired by their former users now start to replace those ancient potatoes from a different era of computing.
wildweasel wrote:Unless you're volunteering?
Not even that would make me change my mind. The 32 bit user share is simply way too small to justify the added work.
Support for all this old stuff - not just 32 bit but non-Vulkan compatible hardware in general - needs to go. Sadly on the other fronts the user share is still too high so we have to continue to deal with it.

TBH, it is one of the biggest problems in software development that some developers operate under the belief that support to the last 0.1% of the potential user base is needed, screw the fact that this would put the 80+% on modern hardware at a disadvantage. This attitude then forces other developers to do the same thing which in turn leads to continued support for obsolete systems for far too long.
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17654
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Gez »

But I want to run GZDoom on my Amstrad PC1512! :P
User avatar
Kinsie
Posts: 7317
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:22 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: MAP33

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Kinsie »

Gez wrote:But I want to run GZDoom on my Amstrad PC1512! :P
Nah, you want the sickest gaming rig.
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17654
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Gez »

Kinsie wrote:Nah, you want the sickest gaming rig.
I actually did want it back then... Far too expensive though.
User avatar
axredneck
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:09 pm
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: Russia

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by axredneck »

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=75673
User avatar
fakemai
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:26 am
Graphics Processor: Intel (Legacy GZDoom)
Location: Australia

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by fakemai »

To ask a serious question, what kind of overlap is there to have a system that cannot run a 64-bit OS and can still run GZDoom? What are your specs exactly?
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 48057
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Graf Zahl »

fakemai wrote:To ask a serious question, what kind of overlap is there to have a system that cannot run a 64-bit OS and can still run GZDoom? What are your specs exactly?
If you do not care about performance and only use vanilla stuff you may run it on one of the most recent 32 bit systems.
But let's be clear about one thing: When OpenGL 3.3 came out, 64 bit CPUs already existed. I still own a 32 bit system from 2004 and this was barely capable of running non-vanilla stuff at more than 35 fps with GZDoom 1.0. And don't even think about dynamic lights - you'll end up at 15-20 fps on larger Boom maps.

To give a bit more detail, when I developed the renderer in the early 2000's it had been a constant fight against the hardware's limitations. Either things were too slow or had to be downscaled to avoid tanking the frame rate. Vanilla compatible content generally worked fine due to its strict limits like 128 visplanes and the drawseg limit. The first map set with which I experienced serious performance issues was Phobos: Anomaly Reborn. This was the first time someone truly pushed Boom to its limits and it took until 2007 to get hardware that could run it at somewhat stable 60 fps. Then more complex maps came around and the game repeated.

All that said, I highly doubt that there's still some real 32 bit computers in use that come with graphics hardware capable of running GZDoom. You must not forget that only strongly uggrade resistant people or those without the financial capabilities to buy something new still use such systems. So the likelihood they installed a new graphics card when it was still possible is very unlikely. These are most likely limited to OpenGL 2.1.
User avatar
leileilol
Posts: 4429
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:16 am
Location: GNU/Hell

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by leileilol »

I hadn't used x86 on my main for at least a decade and a half now (and even back in '06 there were many budget-minded 64-bit CPUs), and my surviving x86 systems don't even have the hardware for the relevant APIs GZD uses either.
Blzut3
 
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:59 pm
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Blzut3 »

leileilol wrote:and even back in '06 there were many budget-minded 64-bit CPUs
That may be the case although there was a lot of segmentation prior to 2007 or 2008. Particularly with Intel not having 64-bit on mobile, and then I know there were some boards that accept Core 2 CPUs that don't support 64-bit. (Plus a number of other early issues like the original Athlon 64s not being able to run 64-bit Windows 8.1+ without hacks.) Not that it really changes the point.

It's definitely curious today when someone is still using a machine that isn't 64-bit capable as a daily driver. I would be curious what hardware said people are using, since I have to imagine most if not all of them are running a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware.
User avatar
fakemai
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:26 am
Graphics Processor: Intel (Legacy GZDoom)
Location: Australia

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by fakemai »

Bizut3 wrote:It's definitely curious today when someone is still using a machine that isn't 64-bit capable as a daily driver.
I suspect he probably is using capable hardware but it wasn't until Windows Vista that it was really supported mainstream, and immature support driver-wise was a contributing reason to it flopping. Even with 7 being better though if you didn't get a 64-bit version, you had to buy it because upselling bullshit is how you encourage people to move, I don't know if that's true of 8 onwards. Additionally OpenGL ES, I simply don't know how widespread that is. It is what I used for GZDoom on my main system (I have something a bit better for it now) but that's a unicorn. Anyway I'm mainly just curious what kind of system he's on and hope he elaborates a bit.
Graf Zahl wrote:I still own a 32 bit system from 2004 and this was barely capable of running non-vanilla stuff at more than 35 fps with GZDoom 1.0. And don't even think about dynamic lights - you'll end up at 15-20 fps on larger Boom maps.
That's more or less what my unicorn is like for current GZDoom with some settings turned down or off. Thank you for the extra historical context as well since some of that I never paid attention to. Mostly it was vanilla games but in source ports with eye-candy.
Blzut3
 
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:59 pm
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by Blzut3 »

fakemai wrote:Even with 7 being better though if you didn't get a 64-bit version, you had to buy it because upselling bullshit is how you encourage people to move, I don't know if that's true of 8 onwards.
Not true. The keys for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows have been interchangeable since Vista. You're probably thinking of OEM keys only coming with one version on the disc, and Microsoft being weird about distributing Windows ISOs until Windows 10, but there's nothing stopping someone from getting 64-bit install media and using the key from their 32-bit COA to install it.

It is the case that prebuilts often came with 32-bit Windows 7 (and especially Vista) if they had less than 4GB of RAM from the factory. Which was somewhat OK for Vista I suppose since as you said driver support was immature, but by the time 7 rolled around they really should have been installing 64-bit standard outside of maybe netbooks.
User avatar
sinisterseed
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:48 am
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: GZDoom Development for x86 & x64 systems

Post by sinisterseed »

Graf Zahl wrote:Yeah, it was just one single percent, the vast majority of those on systems that just barely pass the support threshold for their graphics hardware.
On Steam I also have witnessed an acceleration of the decline since the Windows 11 release last year (0.31% to 0.18% in just the last 5 months alone!) My guess is that older Windows 10 systems that get retired by their former users now start to replace those ancient potatoes from a different era of computing.
There's also something else to be mentioned here, talking about funds - hardware costs.

Until recent, when the crypto crash occurred, it was basically impossible to find hardware at decent prices, or GPUs at the very least, which typically sold for ludicrous prices, so building a W11-compatible system from scratch was in no way an option for most people (and it probably isn't that good of an idea to upgrade semi-old hardware anyway).

Now it's finally possible once more, following the crash and miners desperately trying to sell their abused hardware which no-one is buying (since it's worthless). I was looking up some components two months ago and well, my budget was definitely way out of the hardware cost's range, I was better off sticking to integrated graphics for a potential new build, or not upgrading at all for the hardware that I could get for my buck... And not to mention laptops which were just depressing, not even 16gb of RAM for one grand, and the GPU was trash...

Return to “General”