Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/15/11:30:46
Herman Schoenfeld <you AT somehost DOT somedomain> wrote in article
<341ceb68 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33>...
> >> Development under MSVC++ is prefered for many reasons.
> >>
> >> It's stable. It works fine with NT. It's okay at building code. It
> >> catches errors. However, most final releases would (and should) be
Watcom or
> >> DJGPP.
> >>
> >> ie, take a look at Fury 3 and Terminal Velocity. They are both the
same
> >> game, exactly the same engine, same enemies etc except Fury 3 is
> >> Win95/NT MSVC++ game while terminal velocity is DOS Watcom.
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.
> >> 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.
> >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?
> 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++?
> 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.
> 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 -