Date: 24 Mar 1997 00:51:09 -0000
Message-ID: <19970324005109.18914.qmail@mx03.netaddress.usa.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
From: b52g AT pop DOT netaddress DOT usa DOT net (JP Morris)
Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0

>> > Does this mean that id Software's game "Quake" was only
>> > programmed in a half-hearted manner because it wont run on a 286?
Yes.  See below.

>> 
>> Quake wasn't meant to run on a 486 to be honest, so yes i would say it
>was
>> halfhearted.
>> little johnie rainbow would have to sell his 486+ machine to get a
>pentium,
>> to play this game..
>> do you think that's right? this is exactly what i am talking about.  they
>> exluded certain people.
>>  obviously i would not be foolish enough (or maybe i am) to argue about
>> running quake on a 286
>

Actually I dug up a copy of Ultima Underworld today.
Its engine seems to have a lot of Quake's functionality (uses sprite
characters though),
but it DOES run on a 286!

Needs a but of tweaking though.  I had to get 'emm286' so I could feed it
enough EMS to
run.

I never play it myself because the screen is too dark and there isn't any
gamma correction.

I'm sure you could make a 286 quake if you really tried!!  Probably best to
run it in
286 DPMI.

>Well, obviously I am foolish enough to be talking about quake, but the fact
>is that id Software have told in an interview that they don't care about
>the game (well they care, but it's not the most importent part) they want

I found shareware Quake boring.  Couldn't be bothered to buy it.. never seen
anyone
who even played the full version.

Needing 6 or more sparcstations to render levels for it was also a big turn-off.

>the technology.
>Then they sell the technology and let other companies who've licensed that
>technology make it run on a slower machine.
>Hey, when they said what the minimum specs were for Quake 2.....
>Pentium 200, 32 MB RAM, Very fast video card and a dedicated 3D accelerator
>who can do 64000 polygons a second (or something).
>Now THAT'S definitly NOT backwards compatibility.
>
>	Yeep
>