Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/16/05:45:37
>OK, I'll bite, how do you know it's not Watcom's windows code? And how
>is a DOS 3d engine supposed to work in Windows? The games may look
>the same, and may even share some code, but that doesn't mean they're
>doing the same amount of work.
Because I can read.
>> >> I get a higher frame rate on terminal velocity on my 486 DX2/66 8meg
>> >> 1meg Trident card than on a P133 16meg 2meg 2meg S3 card.
>
>So? Apples and oranges. You can't compare what they're doing. BTW - 16
>mb is nowhere near enough to run windows properly, so it's hardly a fair
>test to start. If you'd used 16mb/dos and 32mb/windows, then I'd say you'd
>find a big improvement.
ROFL! Run FURY3 DOS version then (MSVC) it's the same. Face it, MSVC++ eats
shit.
>
>> >Hooo, com'on Herman! It's been said here and elsewhere that
>> >djgpp just isn't good at optimizing. Don't get all blinded by
>> >MS-Hate, ok? VC++ has been proven many times to outperform or be
>> >on par with Watcom, and djgpp has never been near, especially
>> >with Pentium optimizations. In fact, gcc is trailing on other
>> >platforms also. BTW: the real geniuses of compiler optimization
>> >work for money, and at places like Inter, Watcom, MS, IBM,
>> >borland, ect.., not in their basements (though they certainly
>> >have stared there).
>>
>> As far as I my tests are concerned DJGPP has outperformed watcom in many
>> places, and has beaten that MSVC thing to a pulp. My guess is that you've
>never
>> used DJGPP or you aren't fully aware of its fine-tuning capabilities.
>
>Fine tuning? What, writing all of the inner loops in (AT&T) Pentium
>assembler?
Sure, why not. At&t is alot more powerful than the standard intel syntax, and I
was actually refering to the myriad of compiler switches.
>
>> Firstly, merely the fact that Fury 3 (MSVC++) on a PCI Pentium 133 16ram
>> 2vram S3 is almost 1/3 slower than Terminal Velocity (Watcom) on a VLB
>> 486 DX2/66 8ram 1vram says alot about the compilers capabilities.
>
>No, it says absoultely nothing about the compiler. Again, how do you know
>Fury3 is VC++?
Again, because I can read.
>> And secondly name on decent game that is MSVC thats. I doubt you'll find
>one.
>
>Monkey Island 3? Tomb Raider 2? Quake 2/QuakeWorld/GLQuake/WinQuake? Most
>Win95 games are built with MSVC. I know id are using VC5 for all their
>current projects.
>
Pfft. Half of your "extensive" list are all the same game. Who ever bought
GLquake or winquake anyway? the largest market for quake was the DJGPP version!
Like I already said, building code in MSVC is nice because its easy and fast. A
final release would be done in something like Watcom (or maybe even DJGPP), its
all a matter of preference. Some people like slow crap games that dont work
(such as yourself), people like me like fast decent games that work on 8meg ram
and 1meg video card. Most people dislike purchasing 32ram of win95, and another
16ram of the software.
>> DJGPP and Watcom are equally good even if DJGPP offers greater
>compatibility
>> and portability, MSVC on the other hand is strictly single OS making it
>> primitive for large scale production.
>
>Wrong. VC5 is on Intel x86 and DEC Alpha chipsets, that I know of. WinNT
>runs on x86, Alpha, MIPS (and Solaris?) and the Win32 API is portable
>between them. Apparently, id have Quake running on a quad Alpha, with
>about a day's code changes...
>
>> There are other good OS's other than
>> windows you know.
>
>With (about) 10% market share. MacOS has 7%, so that leaves 3% for all
>the others.
>
>---
>Russ
>
- Raw text -