DOOM (1993): tiny, fast, runs on just about anything, originally released on 2 floppy disks and shared via FTP at 1993 internet speeds

DOOM (2016): takes 1 hour to download on a 200 mbps internet connection and requires an nvidia gtx 670 or better

@chr I downloaded the shareware version of Doom multiple times and deleted it because I was afraid I'd get in trouble for playing it. Good snapshot of life in the '90s.

@srol @chr I think that's more of a fair comparison than you'd expect, download time for a couple of floppies could easily be over an hour in 1993, only the highest end users were on 14.4k at home then. Plebs still on 9600 or (horror) 2400 were still very common.

It didn't run very will on "anything" in 1993 either. I think it was the driving factor for a lot of 486 sales.

@mike @chr I was probably doing this in like 95-96 on a Pentium.

@srol @chr yeah things moved FAST in those few years. I started working in a small PC shop in late 1994, just at the dawn of people starting to buy Pentiums but plenty of 486es still going out the door too. Two years later and most everything from then was pretty much junk.

It was pretty normal then for someone to just name a specific game when you asked them what kind of specs they needed.

I'm still a bit shocked by how long our computers tend to be "current" for these days.



I still have machines from 2012 in regular price today doing their jobs just fine, using the current release of Debian.

I would have thought it absurd to try and use the 386 I got in 1990 on a regular basis in 1997 (would windows 95 even run on it?). I actually think that is a great thing, and I hope some day we can make mobile devices follow the same path.

@srol @chr

@msh @srol @chr oh, totally with you. I replaced my main work PC recently, since it started to behave a little oddly - powering down without cause, general weirdness.

I realised when I was ordering the replacement that it was an i7 from 2009. Not too shabby.

Windows 95 needed a 386 DX40 with 4MB minimum. I recall this because there was a great quote about this spec from MS, something like "if you're happy with Windows 3.1 performance on your DX40, you'll be happy with Window 95 on it."

Sign in to participate in the conversation
COALES.CO - Come Together!

Micro-blogging site operated by Mark Shane Hayden of Coalesco Digital Systems Inc. We are located in Alberta, Canada. This is NOT intended to be a commercial/promotional site! Registration is open to anyone interested in civil discussions on any interesting topic--especially technology, current events and politics.