4 ms·
I know, right? Quake seemed to manage this stuff on my plodding beige box back in the day without sweating. The excuse I hear from people who understand this s
by JonnieCache 13y ago
I know, right? Quake seemed to manage this stuff on my plodding beige box back in the day without sweating.
The excuse I hear from people who understand this stuff properly is that the quake engine didn't need to have a top of the line text rendering engine running on every surface, and this is what makes visual effects in browsers so expensive.
- peterhunt 13y agoThe excuse is that the DOM is huge and old and wasn't designed for performance. You can squeeze decent performance out of it but it's unbelievably easy to screw yourself over (example: listening to mousewheel anywhere on the page disables HW accelerated scrolling on webkit because it could presumably cancel the scroll). Instead if you build an abstraction layer on top of the DOM that only exposes fast primitives you'll be better off.
- coldtea 13y ago>I know, right? Quake seemed to manage this stuff on my plodding beige box back in the day without sweating. On the other hand, it handled just that. No dynaming styling, no CSS, no DOM, ...
- JohnBooty 13y agoQuake required a 75mhz Pentium, and you were lucky to get 20-30 fps. I don't remember getting anything like 60fps until a few years later with GLQuake and a Pentium II.
- phpnode 13y agonot true, I used to play on a 486DX, you did need a whopping 16mb of ram for it to run acceptably though.
- JohnBooty 13y agoI think we're both right. :) I believe the official system requirement was a Pentium 75, though in reality you could run it on a 486DX pretty well if you had a VESA local bus video card, etc. (I think I remember running it pretty horribly on a 486SX, like 3fps...) Oh, the memories!