Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:45:30 -0700
From: Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Subject: Re: DJGPP vs. Watcom
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Reply-to: billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz
Message-id: <33B1836A.16F3@blackmagic.tait.co.nz>
Organization: Tait Electronics NZ
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <33AC0CEC DOT 5C86 AT oregoncoast DOT com> <33ac9f88 DOT 1727104 AT news DOT nol DOT net>
 <33ADD5C7 DOT 37EA AT concentric DOT net> <5oot4l$3vh AT news DOT network DOT com>
Precedence: bulk

Mike Collins wrote:
> >Off topic, but....before there was pentium there was doom. After the
> >Pentium there was Quake :)
> 
> I think the latter is a fair statement. The two games seem to me to
> present a similar game scenario. If DOOM can run on a slower PC, that
> surely points to its code being more efficient?

No, just that DOOM has a much easier job to do. DOOM is only 2.5d while
quake is 3d (vertical walls, no bridges, simple lighting, sprite
monsters ...).  Now, if you compile Quake with watcom you will get a
much better comparison.  However, I believe most of the speed critical
code is in assembly, so the compiler is irrelevant (djgpp was chosen for
it's price tag for redistribution purposes (which got ditched when id
decided to use QuakeC instead (strange language))).

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness.