Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Using Custom Doom WADs?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 19, 2005 3:50:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use Doom WADs from the Doom for
Windows Launcher?

Does it make a difference which one I use? Do I load the WAD as a custom WAD
& then load (none) for the "Game WAD file"? Does it make a difference which
directory the custom WAD is in?

I've been playing with different configs on this, and still I can't get a
custom WAD to run!

Help,

Victor

More about : custom doom wads

Anonymous
January 19, 2005 9:12:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

Victor wrote:
> With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use Doom WADs from the Doom for
> Windows Launcher?

Don't know what name Windows Launcher you are talking about. I know only
jDoom and its Doomsay KickStart. On it you just choose your game: Doom,
Doom II, Hexen or Heretic. On WAD tab you tell where to install new
custom wad. Now on list is original games wad and your installed wad.
Just start game. Simple.

On DOS you use syntax: DOOM2 -FILE MAP.WAD -WARP 1

Example: DOOM2 -FILE 99WAYS.WAD -WARP 1

Some external wads can download here:
http://www.doomsdayhq.com/files.php?class=4&type=4

> Does it make a difference which one I use? Do I load the WAD as a
> custom WAD & then load (none) for the "Game WAD file"? Does it make a
> difference which directory the custom WAD is in?

On DOS: same directory where your .exe is. On jDoom wads will be convert
to todays graphic and they goes to directory: X:\Doomsday\Data\jDoom.

> I've been playing with different configs on this, and still I can't
> get a custom WAD to run!

Try jDoom. ;-) It is good looking on todays graphic cards and computer.
No DOS settings needed (EMS RAM, Sound Blaster emulator modes etc. -
only games original wads. jDoom works on Windows, Linux and Mac.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 1:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:12:18 GMT, "EmDzei" <emdzei@gmail.com> wrote:

>Victor wrote:
>> With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use Doom WADs from the Doom for
>> Windows Launcher?
>
>Don't know what name Windows Launcher you are talking about.

It's the one that came with the Doom95 retail versionof Doom. (i.e. the
"official" one.)

I wouldn't recommend it entirely, as it doesn't always work as you expect
it to (e.g. somehow, the name of the current config file got corrupted and
basically forced a default config.)
Related resources
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:36:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

Raymond Martineau wrote:
>> Don't know what name Windows Launcher you are talking about.
> It's the one that came with the Doom95 retail versionof Doom. (i.e.
> the "official" one.)

Why you don't download then jDoom? It is freeware. Supports Linux,
Windows and Mac. Graphic is very good and go better if you download
external jDoom_Resource_Pack_101.

Links:

Doomsday (jDoom) v1.8.6 http://www.doomsdayhq.com/
Resource Pack v1.01: http://modelyard.newdoom.com/jDRP/jDRP.shtml
Screenshots:
http://www.doomsdayhq.com/screenshots.php?game=jdoom&in...
January 20, 2005 2:46:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

[cc'ed to email address]

Victor writes

> With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use
> Doom WADs from the Doom for Windows
> Launcher?

Loading WADs with Doom95 or DOS:
http://classicdoom.com/how-wads.htm

But as was already suggested, you may be happier
with a modern source port.
Links to the home pages of some popular ones:
http://classicdoom.com/doomlinx.htm
(bottom of the page).

Happy Dooming
January 20, 2005 2:46:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"Led" <ledmeister@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050119184624.04512.00000095@mb-m12.aol.com...
> [cc'ed to email address]
>
> Victor writes
>
> > With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use
> > Doom WADs from the Doom for Windows
> > Launcher?
>
> Loading WADs with Doom95 or DOS:
> http://classicdoom.com/how-wads.htm
>
> But as was already suggested, you may be happier
> with a modern source port.
> Links to the home pages of some popular ones:
> http://classicdoom.com/doomlinx.htm
> (bottom of the page).
>
> Happy Dooming

If by that you mean a port that will run on Windows 98SE, then yes, I'll
probably be happier with a modern source port.

What is jDoom, and why is it superior?

Thanks, Doomers!

Victor
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 2:41:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:36:35 GMT, "EmDzei" <emdzei@gmail.com> wrote:

>Raymond Martineau wrote:
>>> Don't know what name Windows Launcher you are talking about.
>> It's the one that came with the Doom95 retail versionof Doom. (i.e.
>> the "official" one.)
>
>Why you don't download then jDoom? It is freeware.

I already have it. However, I'm not exactly comfortable with playing JDoom
- it doesn't seem to have the right feel for some reason.

Oddly enough, I can play ZDoom without problem. Probably has to do with
the slightly different rendering method.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:51:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

After going to <http://tinyurl.com/2tnqw&gt;,
"Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com> said:

>
>"Led" <ledmeister@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20050119184624.04512.00000095@mb-m12.aol.com...
>> [cc'ed to email address]
>>
>> Victor writes
>>
>> > With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use
>> > Doom WADs from the Doom for Windows
>> > Launcher?
>>
>> Loading WADs with Doom95 or DOS:
>> http://classicdoom.com/how-wads.htm
>>
>> But as was already suggested, you may be happier
>> with a modern source port.
>> Links to the home pages of some popular ones:
>> http://classicdoom.com/doomlinx.htm
>> (bottom of the page).
>>
>> Happy Dooming
>
>If by that you mean a port that will run on Windows 98SE, then yes, I'll
>probably be happier with a modern source port.
>
>What is jDoom, and why is it superior?

Because it removed bugs and limitations that's in the original game and added
features for map makers.
>Thanks, Doomers!

--
no, i didn't forget the 'F's
http://www.geocities.com/jerk_o2002
http://www.geocities.com/nameless_mod
-My Diablo 2 Mod
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bunny.php
-My theme song
January 20, 2005 10:32:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:41:12 -0500, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:36:35 GMT, "EmDzei" <emdzei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Raymond Martineau wrote:
>>>> Don't know what name Windows Launcher you are talking about.
>>> It's the one that came with the Doom95 retail versionof Doom. (i.e.
>>> the "official" one.)
>>
>>Why you don't download then jDoom? It is freeware.
>
>I already have it. However, I'm not exactly comfortable with playing JDoom
>- it doesn't seem to have the right feel for some reason.

I agree. I felt the monsters attacked in hordes at the first shot and
seemed to spot you quickly as compared to vanilla Doom. Maybe
something about the imporved AI.

>
>Oddly enough, I can play ZDoom without problem. Probably has to do with
>the slightly different rendering method.
>
Might have to check into it. So far, JDoom and PRBoom (I think is
it's name?) have been duds, IMO.
January 20, 2005 11:15:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"jerk-o" <jerk-o@yomomma.org> wrote in message
news:59ovu013nbajj0djcr4r4unmtcrug9go2t@4ax.com...
> After going to <http://tinyurl.com/2tnqw&gt;,
> "Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >
> >"Led" <ledmeister@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20050119184624.04512.00000095@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >> [cc'ed to email address]
> >>
> >> Victor writes
> >>
> >> > With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use
> >> > Doom WADs from the Doom for Windows
> >> > Launcher?
> >>
> >> Loading WADs with Doom95 or DOS:
> >> http://classicdoom.com/how-wads.htm
> >>
> >> But as was already suggested, you may be happier
> >> with a modern source port.
> >> Links to the home pages of some popular ones:
> >> http://classicdoom.com/doomlinx.htm
> >> (bottom of the page).
> >>
> >> Happy Dooming
> >
> >If by that you mean a port that will run on Windows 98SE, then yes, I'll
> >probably be happier with a modern source port.
> >
> >What is jDoom, and why is it superior?
>
> Because it removed bugs and limitations that's in the original game and
added
> features for map makers.
> >Thanks, Doomers!

My report: I had no bugs or problems with original Doom.

But jDoom seems to have bugs and spends CPU resources like a drunken
Congressman.

O.K., what is the FASTEST 32-bit port of Doom???
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 3:00:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:15:55 -0500, "Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"jerk-o" <jerk-o@yomomma.org> wrote in message
>news:59ovu013nbajj0djcr4r4unmtcrug9go2t@4ax.com...
>> After going to <http://tinyurl.com/2tnqw&gt;,
>> "Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com> said:
>> >If by that you mean a port that will run on Windows 98SE, then yes, I'll
>> >probably be happier with a modern source port.
>> >
>> >What is jDoom, and why is it superior?
>>
>> Because it removed bugs and limitations that's in the original game and
>added
>> features for map makers.
>> >Thanks, Doomers!
>
>My report: I had no bugs or problems with original Doom.
>
>But jDoom seems to have bugs and spends CPU resources like a drunken
>Congressman.
>
>O.K., what is the FASTEST 32-bit port of Doom???

You have a choice of ZDoom, or PrBoom. PrBoom remains true to the original
and doesn't need to spend resources on extra lighting effects or
free-looking. However, ZDoom can run just as fast while attempting to
support the other Doom engine games.

FYI, all versions of Doom have been 32-bit (including the original).
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 3:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:32:47 -0500, thumper <thumper@magpage.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:41:12 -0500, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:36:35 GMT, "EmDzei" <emdzei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Raymond Martineau wrote:
>>>>> Don't know what name Windows Launcher you are talking about.
>>>> It's the one that came with the Doom95 retail versionof Doom. (i.e.
>>>> the "official" one.)
>>>
>>>Why you don't download then jDoom? It is freeware.
>>
>>I already have it. However, I'm not exactly comfortable with playing JDoom
>>- it doesn't seem to have the right feel for some reason.
>
>I agree. I felt the monsters attacked in hordes at the first shot and
>seemed to spot you quickly as compared to vanilla Doom. Maybe
>something about the imporved AI.
>

Actually, the new AI isn't the problem. It's more like as if something has
changed a bit too dramatically from the original Doom.

Of course, the feeling could be caused by not completely using the JDoom
resources and still sticking with the base Wad.

>>
>>Oddly enough, I can play ZDoom without problem. Probably has to do with
>>the slightly different rendering method.
>>
>Might have to check into it. So far, JDoom and PRBoom (I think is
>it's name?) have been duds, IMO.

Originally, Boom created a set of generalized linedefs that could be used
by modders to achieve a wide variety of triggers. Once ZDoom supported it,
TeamTNT decided that it was not worthwhile to continue development.

PRBoom is merely the Windows port of Boom. It can still be considered
obsolete, but has been updated to keep the compatability options fairly
modern.
January 21, 2005 3:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"Raymond Martineau" <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:7vp0v0d7h9a11imu010csmag8gdca2hqi1@4ax.com...
:
> >O.K., what is the FASTEST 32-bit port of Doom???
>
> You have a choice of ZDoom, or PrBoom. PrBoom remains true to the
original
> and doesn't need to spend resources on extra lighting effects or
> free-looking. However, ZDoom can run just as fast while attempting to
> support the other Doom engine games.

I just re-discovered ZDOOM on my computer, and it runs great. How does it
run custom WAD files - it doesn't seem to take the -file modifier & the
documentation doesn't say.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:08:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

After going to <http://tinyurl.com/2tnqw&gt;,
"Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com> said:

>
>"jerk-o" <jerk-o@yomomma.org> wrote in message
>news:59ovu013nbajj0djcr4r4unmtcrug9go2t@4ax.com...
>> After going to <http://tinyurl.com/2tnqw&gt;,
>> "Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>> >
>> >"Led" <ledmeister@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:20050119184624.04512.00000095@mb-m12.aol.com...
>> >> [cc'ed to email address]
>> >>
>> >> Victor writes
>> >>
>> >> > With Doom1 or Ultimate Doom, how do I use
>> >> > Doom WADs from the Doom for Windows
>> >> > Launcher?
>> >>
>> >> Loading WADs with Doom95 or DOS:
>> >> http://classicdoom.com/how-wads.htm
>> >>
>> >> But as was already suggested, you may be happier
>> >> with a modern source port.
>> >> Links to the home pages of some popular ones:
>> >> http://classicdoom.com/doomlinx.htm
>> >> (bottom of the page).
>> >>
>> >> Happy Dooming
>> >
>> >If by that you mean a port that will run on Windows 98SE, then yes, I'll
>> >probably be happier with a modern source port.
>> >
>> >What is jDoom, and why is it superior?
>>
>> Because it removed bugs and limitations that's in the original game and
>added
>> features for map makers.
>> >Thanks, Doomers!
>
>My report: I had no bugs or problems with original Doom.
>
>But jDoom seems to have bugs and spends CPU resources like a drunken
>Congressman.
>
>O.K., what is the FASTEST 32-bit port of Doom???

I don't know, but if you want, you can choose one from the following list:

<http://www.doomworld.com/classicdoom/ports/index.php?pl...;
--
no, i didn't forget the 'F's
http://www.geocities.com/jerk_o2002
http://www.geocities.com/nameless_mod
-My Diablo 2 Mod
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bunny.php
-My theme song
January 21, 2005 7:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"jerk-o" <jerk-o@yomomma.org> wrote in message
news:ve31v0hth3854euh5b9v7j7rlqu7mh1ise@4ax.com...
> After going to <http://tinyurl.com/2tnqw&gt;,
> "Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com> said:
:
> >But jDoom seems to have bugs and spends CPU resources like a drunken
> >Congressman.
> >
> >O.K., what is the FASTEST 32-bit port of Doom???
>
> I don't know, but if you want, you can choose one from the following list:
>
> <http://www.doomworld.com/classicdoom/ports/index.php?pl...;
>

Interesting, but no CPU comparison.

I'm running ZDOOM now and it's very CPU friendly.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:11:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

Victor wrote:
> I'm running ZDOOM now and it's very CPU friendly.

But if we are talking about todays home computers with good 3D graphic
cards, jDoom is better. Dooms looks good.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:05:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

>> >If by that you mean a port that will run on Windows 98SE, then yes, I'll
>> >probably be happier with a modern source port.
>> >
>> >What is jDoom, and why is it superior?
>>
>> Because it removed bugs and limitations that's in the original game and
> added
>> features for map makers.
>> >Thanks, Doomers!
>
> My report: I had no bugs or problems with original Doom.
>
> But jDoom seems to have bugs and spends CPU resources like a drunken
> Congressman.

It does have some but they tend to be rare.
The problems you have experienced I think are driver problems on your PC and
I don't hold Doomsday responsible for those.

I have seen the source code and for sure skyJake has definitely enhanced the
quality of the engine - it plays Doom, Heretic and Hexen far better than the
originals. And I have the original DOOM, Ultimate Doom, Doom2, Doom Master
Levels, Final Doom, Heretic, Hexen, Death Kings of the Dark Citadels and
Strife so I can compare both.
That is no disrespect to ID Software/Raven/Rogue Entertainments - they did
excellent jobs.

If you look at your other post I responded to your DirectX/OpenGL problems.
JDoom relies on you having proper working drivers for your PC and I think
your video driver setup is not fully stable.

If I was in your shoes, I would try hard to resolve your DirectX/OpenGL
problems and hey - who knows - you might the number of games that runs under
your Windows 98 PC has increased - see my post. If you want I will try and
help you to resolve all this but it does require effort on your part.

Cheers

Stephen Howe
January 30, 2005 5:28:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"Stephen Howe" <sjhoweATdialDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
news:41f5d40b$0$17143$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
:
> > But jDoom seems to have bugs and spends CPU resources like a drunken
> > Congressman.
>
> It does have some but they tend to be rare.
> The problems you have experienced I think are driver problems on your PC
and
> I don't hold Doomsday responsible for those.

Well, a Google tells me that they are not particular to myself.

I'm not a compulsive gamer, so I'm not going to mess with an otherwise
highly stable system of four years. If my system runs flawlessly (and I mean
FLAWLESSLY - I have had Win98SE up for a month with not even a warning) and
jDoom gives me errors, well, I'm not going to jepordize an otherwise stable
system for the sake of a game. Especially when DOOM and ZDOOM runs
flawlessly anyway.

It's the responsibility of a capable programmer to take care of resonable
computer configurations. If the programmer hasn't taken into account my
computer configuration, then he should either clearly state what
configurations he DOES support, or make allowances for inapplicable
configurations so that the program can kick out an understandable error
message and not simply crash and burn.

C'mon, this isn't 1997. Programmers shouldn't have to make excuses for
shoddy work.

>
> I have seen the source code and for sure skyJake has definitely enhanced
the
> quality of the engine - it plays Doom, Heretic and Hexen far better than
the
> originals. And I have the original DOOM, Ultimate Doom, Doom2, Doom Master
> Levels, Final Doom, Heretic, Hexen, Death Kings of the Dark Citadels and
> Strife so I can compare both.

That means nothing to me as a user. First, I shouldn't have to see the
source code to know a program is stable, and second, seeing the source code
is useless anyway - it's only in RUNNING the source code that means
anything.

I have tremendous respect for EFFICIENT programmers. I have no respect for
program "improvements" that otherwise slow the system. On the other hand,
I'm an assembly programmer, so to me, efficient code is "better" than
elegant code.

> That is no disrespect to ID Software/Raven/Rogue Entertainments - they did
> excellent jobs.

Yes, they did.

>
> If you look at your other post I responded to your DirectX/OpenGL
problems.
> JDoom relies on you having proper working drivers for your PC and I think
> your video driver setup is not fully stable.

I ran the DirectX diagnostics and it passes the first Direct3D test, and
fails the second.

ZDOOM runs flawlesly.

>
> If I was in your shoes, I would try hard to resolve your DirectX/OpenGL
> problems and hey - who knows - you might the number of games that runs
under
> your Windows 98 PC has increased - see my post. If you want I will try and
> help you to resolve all this but it does require effort on your part.

I run DOOM, and DOOM only. It's a personla choice to keep my own
productivity at a successful level.

As a philosophy, I do not upgrade my computers for the sake of games. It's
kept my computers mostly stable since 1994.

I hope you understand my philosophy here. I'm not saying that your way is
bad, and I do appreciate your advice, I really do - but I just have a very
different perspective on things, that's all.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:21:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:28:56 -0500, Victor wrote:

> C'mon, this isn't 1997. Programmers shouldn't have to make excuses for
> shoddy work.

Do you think programmers (and the quality of their work) have changed
significantly since 1997? ....Newsflash: They haven't.

>> If you look at your other post I responded to your DirectX/OpenGL
>> problems.
>> JDoom relies on you having proper working drivers for your PC and I
>> think your video driver setup is not fully stable.

> I ran the DirectX diagnostics and it passes the first Direct3D test, and
> fails the second.

Well, gee..... Do you think that might have something to do with it.....?

> As a philosophy, I do not upgrade my computers for the sake of games.
> It's kept my computers mostly stable since 1994.

Probably true, although it has also kept them an order of magnitude down
in power/capability. Like you said, that's your choice.

> I hope you understand my philosophy here. I'm not saying that your way
> is bad, and I do appreciate your advice, I really do - but I just have a
> very different perspective on things, that's all.

And that's fine, as long as you understand that some things are not going
to work for you using that approach.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 2:49:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

> If my system runs flawlessly (and I mean FLAWLESSLY - I have had Win98SE
> up for a month with not even a warning) and jDoom gives me errors, well,
> I'm not going to jepordize an otherwise stable
> system for the sake of a game. Especially when DOOM and ZDOOM runs
> flawlessly anyway.

Ever heard of Karl Popper?
He was a philospher in the early 1900's
I am fond of quoting him. See
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
In the early days he believed that it possible to "proving things true" or
"proving things false" but later he believed in only "proving things false"
or "falsification". And that accords with scientific method and how science
advances. You might have 100 instances of some hypothesis as true and the
101st instance is false - the hypothesis needs to be rejected or modified.
He should be the patron saint of programmers (and computer users).

In your case, you don't _know_ that Win98SE is flawless. The best that you
can say, is that, so far, it has not failed.
That is not proof that it is flawless.
A perfect Windows program (perfect in that it follows flawlessly all Windows
API calls in accordance with Microsofts documented Windows SDK) may not run
under Windows98 perfectly because of
(i) faults in Windows 98
(ii) faults in your drivers

I know for a fact that 4NT (made here: www.jpsoft.com) has had to work
around numerous bugs in various versions of Microsoft Windows.

And at work, I use Microsoft ADO to access databases and I have had numerous
responses from the Microsoft ADO documentation team which all start "Dear
Stephen, you are right, again" when I have discovered that what is
documented conflicts with ADO's behaviour.

And over the years, I have found numerous bugs with various Microsoft
products.
I filed some on Outlook Express recently and various Microsoft MVPs agreed
that they were there (but Microsoft were not going to fix them).

> It's the responsibility of a capable programmer to take care of resonable
> computer configurations. If the programmer hasn't taken into account my
> computer configuration, then he should either clearly state what
> configurations he DOES support, or make allowances for inapplicable
> configurations so that the program can kick out an understandable error
> message and not simply crash and burn.
>
> C'mon, this isn't 1997. Programmers shouldn't have to make excuses for
> shoddy work.

Right. I agree with you. But in this you are assuming that Windows 98 is not
shoddy (and believe you me, it is), your drivers are okay and your hardware
is okay (chips can have buggy behaviour as well - viz the Pentium Floating
Point divide bug). I, as as programmer, have the right to expect that
various components of Windows do work as they are documented to.

It is not to say JDoom is perfect. It is not. I have filed bugs on it (and
I have a few more to file).
But they are obscure bugs and not the showstoppers of "DirectX won't run" or
"OpenGL won't run"

> I ran the DirectX diagnostics and it passes the first Direct3D test, and
> fails the second.

Well then, should you not get newer drivers?
Can't blame JDoom for second test.

> I hope you understand my philosophy here. I'm not saying that your way is
> bad, and I do appreciate your advice, I really do - but I just have a very
> different perspective on things, that's all.

I understand perfectly.
Most of the time, I am in agreement with that philosophy.
But that philosophy is stopping you here.
If I adopted the stringent philosopy "No running of any programs that have
confirmed bugs (by authors or 3rd party)" but I know there will not be many
Microsoft products installed (Calculator and Notepad exceptions)
But it is up to you. For me, I will always run the latest drivers (if no
known problems after 2 months or so) for each part of hardware installed.

Stephen Howe
January 31, 2005 3:31:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.01.30.14.21.09.701526@invalid.lan...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:28:56 -0500, Victor wrote:
>
> > C'mon, this isn't 1997. Programmers shouldn't have to make excuses for
> > shoddy work.
>
> Do you think programmers (and the quality of their work) have changed
> significantly since 1997? ....Newsflash: They haven't.

Of course they have. Professional programmers are always improving their
skills.

It's the amateurs that never change. That's why the quality of their work
never improves.


>
> >> If you look at your other post I responded to your DirectX/OpenGL
> >> problems.
> >> JDoom relies on you having proper working drivers for your PC and I
> >> think your video driver setup is not fully stable.
>
> > I ran the DirectX diagnostics and it passes the first Direct3D test, and
> > fails the second.
>
> Well, gee..... Do you think that might have something to do with it.....?

Duh - YES! According to the Microsoft support database, it means my card
doesn't fully support Direct3D.

>
> > As a philosophy, I do not upgrade my computers for the sake of games.
> > It's kept my computers mostly stable since 1994.
>
> Probably true, although it has also kept them an order of magnitude down
> in power/capability. Like you said, that's your choice.

Power/capability is always relative to the work to be performed.

>
> > I hope you understand my philosophy here. I'm not saying that your way
> > is bad, and I do appreciate your advice, I really do - but I just have a
> > very different perspective on things, that's all.
>
> And that's fine, as long as you understand that some things are not going
> to work for you using that approach.

EVERYTHING works for me using this approach. I'm only limited by games -
which isn't an important limitation at all.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:31:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:31:52 -0500, Victor wrote:

>> > C'mon, this isn't 1997. Programmers shouldn't have to make excuses for
>> > shoddy work.

>> Do you think programmers (and the quality of their work) have changed
>> significantly since 1997? ....Newsflash: They haven't.

> Of course they have. Professional programmers are always improving their
> skills.

Wrong. We're speaking of "programmers" as a group here. They were just
as professional in 1997 as they are today. Not an individual programmer
who is now better than he was in 1997...

> It's the amateurs that never change. That's why the quality of their
> work never improves.

What's that got to do with anything? We're talking about professional
programmers here, right?

>> > I hope you understand my philosophy here. I'm not saying that your
>> > way is bad, and I do appreciate your advice, I really do - but I just
>> > have a very different perspective on things, that's all.

>> And that's fine, as long as you understand that some things are not
>> going to work for you using that approach.

> EVERYTHING works for me using this approach. I'm only limited by games -
> which isn't an important limitation at all.

Well, apparently not EVERYTHING works, or you wouldn't be in here asking
questions, huh? If games are not important to you, why are you here?

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 5:34:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

>> Do you think programmers (and the quality of their work) have changed
>> significantly since 1997? ....Newsflash: They haven't.
>
> Of course they have. Professional programmers are always improving their
> skills.
>
> It's the amateurs that never change. That's why the quality of their work
> never improves.

Sorry, I have been a Professional programmer since 1985, 20 years, and I
profoundly disagree with you.
I have been in 6 companies as a permanent programmer and about 4 companies
as a contract programmer, possibly more.
Only in 1 of those companies was the standard of programming higher than
mine, all the rest were worse.
Most of the programmers I have come across have
- little knowledge of algorithms : they certainly could not implement
mergesort, quicksort, heapsort
- little knowledge of datastructures : they certainly could not
implement red-black trees, hash functions, AVL trees, linked-lists
- most have read very few books : They could not tell you about
algorithm complexities, big-O notation.
- the C programmers have little knowledge about the ISO C standard of
1990 and 1999, or writing ISO C standard code
- the C++ programmers have little knowledge about the ISO C++ standard
of 1998, or writing ISO C++ standard code
- they would not be able to tell you about design-by-contract, patterns.

I personally find that very depressing. I take programming _VERY_ seriously.
And I don't think I know enough or am good enough.
And living in the London, UK; I don't think my experience is
unrepresentative in the UK.
About 1 week ago, I had a word with one of our directors about improving the
quality of our programming.
He was in total agreement with me on the poor quality.

And you know DOOM? The original?
Behind the scenes, it was the Watcom compiler that was used for that and
DOS4GW Professional, the Tenberry Dos-Extender.
And I used to do support for 8 years for Sybase as part of TeamSybase,
supporting Watcom C/C++.
(Try my name in Google Groups with Watcom as confirmation - that does not
even list all the messages I answered on Sybase news server or Compuserve
before that)
And I must have answered over 10000 questions over those years and I can
tell you that I found _very_ few competent programmers.

Where things have improved over the years is the tools and libraries. It is
not the programmers that have improved but their tools.
For example, C++ took on board type-safe linking and that fixed many bugs,
very difficult to find, in projects that were 250,000+ lines of source code
(see Design-and-Evolution of C++ by Stroustrup)
without a lot of effort by the programmer.

>> > I ran the DirectX diagnostics and it passes the first Direct3D test,
>> > and
>> > fails the second.
>>
>> Well, gee..... Do you think that might have something to do with
>> it.....?
>
> Duh - YES! According to the Microsoft support database, it means my card
> doesn't fully support Direct3D.

Surely that just means the Microsoft certified drivers does not fully
support Direct3D?
But I have found that the latest drivers from the card munufacturers are
usually a few steps ahead of Microsoft.
It is ATI's own drivers for Win98 that you want, not Microsofts.

>> And that's fine, as long as you understand that some things are not going
>> to work for you using that approach.
>
> EVERYTHING works for me using this approach.

No. EVERYTHING you have tried so far works with this approach.
That is NOT a guarantee that future software you wish to run will work. That
is not scientific conclusion.
You may want to run some tried-and-very-well-tested, all-bugs-fixed
non-games software.
If it fails to run on your Win98 system because of the driver components,
you are in a quandary.
Of course it may never happen. But it may.

Wish you well Victor :-)

Cheers

Stephen Howe
February 8, 2005 9:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"Stephen Howe" <sjhoweATdialDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
news:41feeb31$0$301$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >> Do you think programmers (and the quality of their work) have changed
> >> significantly since 1997? ....Newsflash: They haven't.
> >
> > Of course they have. Professional programmers are always improving their
> > skills.
> >
> > It's the amateurs that never change. That's why the quality of their
work
> > never improves.
>
> Sorry, I have been a Professional programmer since 1985, 20 years, and I
> profoundly disagree with you.
> I have been in 6 companies as a permanent programmer and about 4 companies
> as a contract programmer, possibly more.
> Only in 1 of those companies was the standard of programming higher than
> mine, all the rest were worse.

Then, either you are someone with higher standards, or they are career
amaturers, or both.


> Most of the programmers I have come across have
> - little knowledge of algorithms : they certainly could not implement
> mergesort, quicksort, heapsort
> - little knowledge of datastructures : they certainly could not
> implement red-black trees, hash functions, AVL trees, linked-lists
> - most have read very few books : They could not tell you about
> algorithm complexities, big-O notation.
> - the C programmers have little knowledge about the ISO C standard of
> 1990 and 1999, or writing ISO C standard code
> - the C++ programmers have little knowledge about the ISO C++ standard
> of 1998, or writing ISO C++ standard code
> - they would not be able to tell you about design-by-contract,
patterns.

I agree - which is why the number of true professionals outnumber the career
amateurs by about 10-to-1 (my guess).

By profession, I'm a marketing consultant with a background in software and
hardware design. One of the things I do is walk into a company and evaluate
their technical team. You'd be suprised how many times I find a managment
team that doesn't understand what the technical team is doing. Lots of time,
the carrer amateurs are very good at keeping management on the defensive
(using slow speak, using jargon when inappropriate, etc) - which keeps
management from understanding the scope of the problem.


>
> I personally find that very depressing. I take programming _VERY_
seriously.
> And I don't think I know enough or am good enough.
> And living in the London, UK; I don't think my experience is
> unrepresentative in the UK.
> About 1 week ago, I had a word with one of our directors about improving
the
> quality of our programming.
> He was in total agreement with me on the poor quality.

I totally agree. However, I've found that many UK programmers working in the
USA are better than US programmers.

>
> And you know DOOM? The original?
> Behind the scenes, it was the Watcom compiler that was used for that and
> DOS4GW Professional, the Tenberry Dos-Extender.
> And I used to do support for 8 years for Sybase as part of TeamSybase,
> supporting Watcom C/C++.
> (Try my name in Google Groups with Watcom as confirmation - that does not
> even list all the messages I answered on Sybase news server or Compuserve
> before that)
> And I must have answered over 10000 questions over those years and I can
> tell you that I found _very_ few competent programmers.

I agree with you. And yeah, your history looks very good.

Do you live in the U.S.?


>
> Where things have improved over the years is the tools and libraries. It
is
> not the programmers that have improved but their tools.
> For example, C++ took on board type-safe linking and that fixed many bugs,
> very difficult to find, in projects that were 250,000+ lines of source
code
> (see Design-and-Evolution of C++ by Stroustrup)
> without a lot of effort by the programmer.

I totally agree. HOWEVER, the improvement in tools and libraries is a
double-edged sword. Programmers think they can write sloppier code because
the libraries will make it easier for them. That's like thinking you're
safer in the snow because you're driving an SUV. It's somehat true, but also
somewhat dangerous.


>
> >> > I ran the DirectX diagnostics and it passes the first Direct3D test,
> >> > and
> >> > fails the second.
> >>
> >> Well, gee..... Do you think that might have something to do with
> >> it.....?
> >
> > Duh - YES! According to the Microsoft support database, it means my card
> > doesn't fully support Direct3D.
>
> Surely that just means the Microsoft certified drivers does not fully
> support Direct3D?
> But I have found that the latest drivers from the card munufacturers are
> usually a few steps ahead of Microsoft.
> It is ATI's own drivers for Win98 that you want, not Microsofts.
>
> >> And that's fine, as long as you understand that some things are not
going
> >> to work for you using that approach.
> >
> > EVERYTHING works for me using this approach.
>
> No. EVERYTHING you have tried so far works with this approach.
> That is NOT a guarantee that future software you wish to run will work.
That
> is not scientific conclusion.
> You may want to run some tried-and-very-well-tested, all-bugs-fixed
> non-games software.
> If it fails to run on your Win98 system because of the driver components,
> you are in a quandary.
> Of course it may never happen. But it may.

Well, the purpose of my desktop is simply utility. It's networked to my
laptop, where I do most of my real work and email. My desktop is used for
text notes, ftp, FrontPage, and Dreamweaver managenet, keeping open some
reference PDFs and MS Office files for reference while working on my
laptop. Lastly, it's so I can test some websites & online utilities from a
different browser & IP address (I've got some management websites that are
designed to prevent duplicate logins).

The chief purpose of my desktop is to increase my work efficiency. Games are
a luxury. Doom & solitaitaire are the only games I play. I say this because
years ago I wasted six months of my life playing computer games almost every
moment. I've also had client companies where employees are addicted to
computer games on company time. Oddly enough, these are usually upper
management people who's often bullying some low-level IT guy to "make this
game work". It's difficult dealing with these cases because computer
addictions is now treated by some as a disease:
http://www.computeraddiction.com/

When I write that "EVERYTHING works for me using this approach", I mean that
the computer is 100% in performing all the utility functions it needs to
perform, and I see no need to add new programs. Clearly, jDOOM would have
taken me "off the wagon". I'm trying to spend less time on the computer.

Not upgrading my desktop utility computer for games (and that even includes
drivers) is my way of keeping me safe.

>
> Wish you well Victor :-)
>
> Cheers
>
> Stephen Howe

Thanks, Stephen!

William
February 9, 2005 1:04:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"Victor" <VictorMoore@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZrmdnWk-L7TF0JTfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
:
> I agree - which is why the number of true professionals outnumber the
career
> amateurs by about 10-to-1 (my guess).

Sorry, this should have read:

I agree - which is why the number of "carrer amateurs" outnumber the "true
professionals" by about 10-to-1 (my guess).
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:39:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

> I agree with you. And yeah, your history looks very good.
> Do you live in the U.S.?

No. London UK.

Stephen Howe
!