4 ms·

Again, I have no idea what you mean by networking being a "problem".

by knorker 8mo ago

frumplestlatz 8mo ago
You keep claiming it somehow incurred substantial overhead relative to the potential gains from building on a large server. Networking was a solved problem by the mid 90s, and moving the game executable and assets across the wire would have taken ~45 seconds on 10BaseT, and ~4 seconds on 100BaseT. Between Samba, NFS, and Netware, supporting DOS clients was trivial. Large, multi-CPU systems — with PCI, gigabytes of RAM, and fast SCSI disks (often in striped RAID-0 configurations) — were not marginally faster than a desktop PC. The difference was night and day. Did you actively work with big iron servers and ethernet deployments in the 90s? I ask because your recollection just does not remotely match my experience of that decade. My first job was deploying a campus-wide 10Base-T network and dual ISDN uplink in ~1993; by 1995 I was working as a software engineer at companies shipping for Solaris/IRIX/HP-UX/OpenServer/UnixWare/Digital UNIX/Windows NT/et al (and by the late 90s, Linux and FreeBSD).
- knorker 8mo ago
  Ok that's not what I said. So we'll just leave it there.
  - frumplestlatz 8mo ago
    That's exactly what you said, and it was incorrect: > This is exactly the shipping I'm talking about. The gains would be so miniscule (because, again, and incremental compile was never actually slow even on the PC) and the network overhead adds up. Especially back then. The network overhead was negligible. The gains were enormous.
    - knorker 8mo ago
      >> I said miniscule cancels out miniscule. > You keep claiming it somehow incurred substantial overhead This is going nowhere. You keep putting words in my mouth. Final message.
      - frumplestlatz 8mo ago
        Jesus Christ. Networking was cheap. Local builds on a PC were expensive. You are pedantic, foolish, and wrong. Were you even a developer in the 90s? Are you trying to annoy people?

Again, I have no idea what you mean by networking being a "problem".

by knorker 8mo ago

Again, I have no idea what you mean by networking being a "problem".

You keep claiming it somehow incurred substantial overhead relative to the potential gains from building on a large server. Networking was a solved problem by the mid 90s, and moving the game executable and assets across the wire would have taken ~45 seconds on 10BaseT, and ~4 seconds on 100BaseT. Between Samba, NFS, and Netware, supporting DOS clients was trivial. Large, multi-CPU systems — with PCI, gigabytes of RAM, and fast SCSI disks (often in striped RAID-0 configurations) — were not marginally faster than a desktop PC. The difference was night and day. Did you actively work with big iron servers and ethernet deployments in the 90s? I ask because your recollection just does not remotely match my experience of that decade. My first job was deploying a campus-wide 10Base-T network and dual ISDN uplink in ~1993; by 1995 I was working as a software engineer at companies shipping for Solaris/IRIX/HP-UX/OpenServer/UnixWare/Digital UNIX/Windows NT/et al (and by the late 90s, Linux and FreeBSD).

knorker 8mo ago
Ok that's not what I said. So we'll just leave it there.
- frumplestlatz 8mo ago
  That's exactly what you said, and it was incorrect: > This is exactly the shipping I'm talking about. The gains would be so miniscule (because, again, and incremental compile was never actually slow even on the PC) and the network overhead adds up. Especially back then. The network overhead was negligible. The gains were enormous.
  - knorker 8mo ago
    >> I said miniscule cancels out miniscule. > You keep claiming it somehow incurred substantial overhead This is going nowhere. You keep putting words in my mouth. Final message.
    - frumplestlatz 8mo ago
      Jesus Christ. Networking was cheap. Local builds on a PC were expensive. You are pedantic, foolish, and wrong. Were you even a developer in the 90s? Are you trying to annoy people?