Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

idNews: release 1.1

88 views
Skip to first unread message

David Taylor

unread,
Dec 15, 1993, 8:34:57 PM12/15/93
to
Will be releasing the new version (actually, we're calling it 1.1 now
because the original uploads were called DOOM1_0) this evening. We are
going to use the 1.95 4GWPRO dos extender for the new version and
patch, but if you have difficulty with it, we will provide other
executables that you can try with the 1.8 DOS4GW extender and 1.94
4GWPRO extender.

Yes, we think this business with flakey extender versions is a pain,
too. The price we pay for wanting to make this game on a platform
with a market. PC's. DOS. Sigh.

Can't believe y'all found the cheat codes so fast. I sorta munged 'em
up, too! Sheesh. By the way, I think y'all missed a cheat code.
"iddt" in the automap. Try it a couple of times. A short background
thing: "dqd" stands for Delta-Q-Delta, an informal fraternity that two
other hackers and I made up. The requirements were getting a "Q" in
your class (stands for "Quit"- like failing but it doesn't go on your
GPA. we impressed our friends with programming feats but weren't
exactly scholastic role models- so far only one of us has graduated
:). The "spispopd" is complements of the Usenet. See Seth Cohn's
post. "Choppers" is a State Programming Contest game that a friend of
mine named Guy Maor helped write (-GM). He's a little defensive of it
'cause it wasn't *quite* finished on the release day. Was a cool
two-player Rescue Raiders rip-off. He was drunk and talk'd me one
night, and I thought I'd put it in. I believe that you'll get a
chainsaw from it and be invulnerable (just checked the code- yeah,
should make you invulnerable but i never tested it).

Please don't bang too hard on the ftp sites tonight. We caused a lot
of ftp sites to crash on the release day. Thanks..

=-ddt->

Benjamin B. Thomas

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 12:21:16 AM12/16/93
to
In article <2eoe01$1...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu> d...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu (David Taylor) writes:

Yes, we think this business with flakey extender versions is a pain,
too. The price we pay for wanting to make this game on a platform
with a market. PC's. DOS. Sigh.

Just wondering: Did you check out djgpp? (The DOS version of the GNU
C/C++ compiler - all free of course. I guess I'm assuming DOOM was
written in C.) It's 32 bit and comes with a pretty nice DOS
extender. If so, what lack of features or deficiences led you to adopt
the costly commercial extender?

-benjy

Darryl Okahata

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 2:47:13 AM12/16/93
to
Benjamin B. Thomas (be...@totoro.ai.mit.edu) wrote:

> Just wondering: Did you check out djgpp? (The DOS version of the GNU
> C/C++ compiler - all free of course. I guess I'm assuming DOOM was
> written in C.) It's 32 bit and comes with a pretty nice DOS
> extender. If so, what lack of features or deficiences led you to adopt
> the costly commercial extender?

WATCOM C/C++ compiles faster, has a usuable debugger, allows the
math coprocessor (which DOOM doesn't use) to work within Windows, has
better OS/2 support, etc., etc.. Have you tried using the DJGPP
debugger? For commercial software (stuff I'd sell), I'd use WATCOM
C/C++. I'd use DJGPP for playing around.

Hey, you get what you pay for.

-- Darryl Okahata
Internet: dar...@sr.hp.com

DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion or policy of Hewlett-Packard or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.

Damien Neil

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 3:01:00 AM12/16/93
to
In article <CI4Ay...@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>,

Darryl Okahata <dar...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, you get what you pay for.

While I agree that Watcom C/C++ is better than DJGPP, I have to disagree that
commercial software is invariably better. I am typing this message in an xterm
running a small Emacs varient. I have an irc session in another window and
some source code in GNU Emacs in another. When I compile, I use gcc.

All free software, right down to the operating system. And a hell of a lot
more useful (for me, at least) than commercial stuff like MS-DOS and MS
Windows. I'll take gcc over most commercial compilers any day.
--
Damien Neil [MIME OK] CMPS/EEAP "Until somebody debugs reality, the best
dam...@b63519.student.cwru.edu I can do is a quick patch here and there."
dp...@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University - Erik Green

Darryl Okahata

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 3:49:09 AM12/16/93
to
Damien Neil (dam...@b63519.student.cwru.edu) wrote:

> While I agree that Watcom C/C++ is better than DJGPP, I have to disagree that
> commercial software is invariably better. I am typing this message in an xterm
> running a small Emacs varient. I have an irc session in another window and
> some source code in GNU Emacs in another. When I compile, I use gcc.

All this depends on what you want to accomplish. If you're trying
to make money, DJGPP probably isn't the compiler for you (unless you're
really on a shoestring budget); commercial compilers such as WATCOM
C/C++ are. If you're just having fun, linux, FreeBSD, and DJGPP have a
lot going for them, and make a lot of sense (hey, they're free ;-).

Fredric Lonngren

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 6:28:32 AM12/16/93
to
In article <2eoe01$1...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu>, d...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu (David Taylor) writes:
>
> Yes, we think this business with flakey extender versions is a pain,
> too. The price we pay for wanting to make this game on a platform
> with a market. PC's. DOS. Sigh.
>

Don't say we didn't warn you. You should have gone 32-bit native from
the start ;).
Great game. Truly a masterpiece.
What's up next, after the Bahamas-holiday, Ferari buys and the 24 crates
of beer?

--
-- F r e d r i c L o n n g r e n --
==== Ericsson Telecom AB ====
-====== * OS/2 2.1 * Email : Fredric....@eos.ericsson.se ======-
==== Simply Amazing Voice : + 46 8 719 5226 ====
-- Fax : + 46 8 719 5557 --

david matiskella

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 12:51:31 PM12/16/93
to
Well when I look at djjgpp a year a go it had a couple of problems.
first was that it wasnt` dmpi compliant. Second was that on the extender thier
are liscence restrictions for commerical code of something of the lines taht you
had to provide source for the extender. The free refers to price not freedom.
all imho oc course.

Darryl Okahata

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 1:23:06 PM12/16/93
to
Fredric Lonngren (etxfln@eoh1c05) wrote:

> Don't say we didn't warn you. You should have gone 32-bit native from
> the start ;).

DOOM is a 32-bit native program. What makes you think that it
isn't?

Laurence Chiu

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 9:11:46 PM12/16/93
to
In article <2eoe01$1...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu>, David Taylor wrote:
->Yes, we think this business with flakey extender versions is a pain,
->too. The price we pay for wanting to make this game on a platform
->with a market. PC's. DOS. Sigh.

If you want a 32bit flat memory model, how would the game run under
OS/2 as a native OS/2 application? I know it runs under a DOS
session but that is a kludge.

+======================================================+
| Laurence Chiu | Walnut Creek, California |
| Tel: 510-215-3730 (work) | Internet: lc...@crl.com |
+======================================================+

Fredric Lonngren

unread,
Dec 17, 1993, 4:57:41 AM12/17/93
to
In article <CI54E...@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, dar...@sr.hp.com (Darryl Okahata) writes:
> Fredric Lonngren (etxfln@eoh1c05) wrote:
>
> > Don't say we didn't warn you. You should have gone 32-bit native from
> > the start ;).
>
> DOOM is a 32-bit native program. What makes you think that it
> isn't?
>

Yes it is, but DOS isn't 32bit native, hence the troublesome extender.
I guess those lucky NeXT owners don't have all the problems DOS users
have.
There do exist a native 32bit OS for the PC that allows direct adressing
of the HW. I use it myself to run Doom just fine, to bad Doom can't use
it's power fully.

Laurence Chiu

unread,
Dec 17, 1993, 10:34:32 PM12/17/93
to
In article <CI4Ay...@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, Darryl Okahata wrote:
>Benjamin B. Thomas (be...@totoro.ai.mit.edu) wrote:
>
> WATCOM C/C++ compiles faster, has a usuable debugger, allows the
>math coprocessor (which DOOM doesn't use) to work within Windows, has
>better OS/2 support, etc., etc.. Have you tried using the DJGPP
>debugger? For commercial software (stuff I'd sell), I'd use WATCOM
>C/C++. I'd use DJGPP for playing around.

Interestingly when IBM modified the Windows code for WINOS2 they got
significant improvements by using the Watcom compiler as opposed to
the Microsoft Compiler. This must be an endorsement of some kind.

Tom Sorensen

unread,
Dec 19, 1993, 7:37:40 PM12/19/93
to
In <CI54E...@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> dar...@sr.hp.com (Darryl Okahata) writes:

>Fredric Lonngren (etxfln@eoh1c05) wrote:

>> Don't say we didn't warn you. You should have gone 32-bit native from
>> the start ;).

> DOOM is a 32-bit native program. What makes you think that it
>isn't?

Perhaps because it's running on a 16-bit OS? If it needs a 32-bit extender
then it's NOT 32-bit native. For it to be native the OS must be 32-bit.
Tom Sorensen
--
Tom Sorensen * gt0...@prism.gatech.edu * Team OS/2
Chairman, Yellow Jacket OS/2 User's Group * Vice President, Georgia Tech ACM
"OS/2 is what DOS and Windows should have been. Windows/NT aspires to become
what OS/2 is." - Lee Reiswig, May, 1993.

Darryl Okahata

unread,
Dec 19, 1993, 9:51:55 PM12/19/93
to
Tom Sorensen (gt0...@prism.gatech.EDU) wrote:

> In <CI54E...@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> dar...@sr.hp.com (Darryl Okahata) writes:
>
> > DOOM is a 32-bit native program. What makes you think that it
> >isn't?
>
> Perhaps because it's running on a 16-bit OS? If it needs a 32-bit extender
> then it's NOT 32-bit native. For it to be native the OS must be 32-bit.

We're starting to argue about definitions here. My idea of
"native" is that the program itself needs to be 32-bit code, whereas the
underlying OS can be either 16- or 32-bits.

Your definition of "native" is that the program *AND* the OS must
be 32-bit.

Let's let this thread die. There's no point in arguing over
definitions.

David Crowley

unread,
Dec 16, 1993, 7:46:03 AM12/16/93
to
In article <CI4Ay...@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> dar...@sr.hp.com writes:
>
> WATCOM C/C++ compiles faster, has a usuable debugger, allows the
>math coprocessor (which DOOM doesn't use) to work within Windows, has
>better OS/2 support, etc., etc.. Have you tried using the DJGPP
>debugger? For commercial software (stuff I'd sell), I'd use WATCOM
>C/C++. I'd use DJGPP for playing around.
>
tell me, are you going to release a version of DOOM which does
use the coprocessor? for those of use with DOOM on lowly 386sx
which have math this would be ideal. please.
David...
--
-----------------=\|/= = = = = Don't blow up, it's more fun to implode ! = = =
David Crowley --@-- e-mail: dcro...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
----------------- /|\ phone: +61-2-489-5384 Fax: +61-2-989-8243
0 new messages