Talk:How to play Doom on modern Windows systems


Skulltag might be somewhat like a TC but the extra stuff it adds is only additional and doesn't replace anything. Therefore I don't really see why it couldn't be recommended here. Janizdreg 13:08, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)


I'm nominating this for deletion, since How to download and run Doom is now fairly comprehensive and basically includes everything this article does and more, which means this article is pretty much redundant. Therefore, delete. -- Janizdreg 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Remark: see earlier discussion here.    Ryan W 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Isn’t it bias to state that the "quick and easy" way to run Doom on XP is to use a specific port?

There have been edits to many other articles in the past that were considered too bias in favour of certain ports. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Yes, it it biased to recommend a specific port, but in this case it serves a purpose and can IMO be accepted as an exception to our general policy. That purpose (as stated in the "quick and easy" section's intro) is to help computer-illiterate or otherwise confused people to get to run Doom as easily as possible. I believe ZDoom was chosen as the recommended port due to it currently being (AFAIK) the most popular port. -- Janizdreg 18:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
to help computer-illiterate or otherwise confused people to get to run Doom as easily as possible   Um... in that case, why are we recommending any program with a command-line interface?    Ryan W 01:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to use command line to get to play the shareware episode in single player, which is what the quick and easy guide is first and foremost for. -- Janizdreg 11:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be fixed, as ZDoom isn't the best choice for playing Doom. IMO it's a fantastic port, and it is my port of choice, but new players may not be aware that there aren't actually jump or crouch options in Vanilla Doom, so it would affect gameplay and confuse them even more. I think that the port of choice in this case should be Chocolate, as it stands better for learning Doom basics and doesn't really affect original gameplay. hfc2X 23:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, it's very awkward to set up IIRC (see list of criteria here).  If my employer forces me to use Windows 7, at least I'll get to verify this "quick and easy" procedure.    Ryan W 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Future of this article[edit]

Edit-paste.svgThe content associated with this talk page was considered for deletion, and either was deleted, or was kept after a period of discussion. This page has been retained for historical reference regarding the deletion process, or in case of future restoration of any deleted content.
(Split from main thread on Central Processing, where User:Chungy asked if this page was still needed, given that How to download and run Doom has been significantly improved.)  Ryan W (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2015 (CDT)

It is consistently one of the top 10 searched pages on this wiki. Deletion will not be considered :) --Quasar (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2015 (CDT)

Seriously? Are search engines going to always dictate discussion on possible improvements to the wiki, whether that's adding or deleting information? Not to mention that it's easy to make a redirect.... --Chungy (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2015 (CDT)
When the question is "should we delete one of the top 10 most useful pages," yes. People obviously are looking for and desire that information. It should be there for them. --Quasar (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2015 (CDT)
Kind of a tangent, but I interpreted this to mean merging and redirecting is OK as long as the target article has been rewritten post-fork.  Is that oversimplifying?    Ryan W (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2015 (CDT)
I apologize for my crankiness and demeanor in the GP. However, I feel that search engine analytics and rankings are not a good justification for avoiding any kind of change, including the removal of an unnecessary article. If other people disagree with me about the Windows article being needed, that's okay, but it's nice to have a more substantial argument for it than "It's one of the top 10 searches." All this being said, this sub-thread has derailed the original intent. These posts should be moved to a new heading for further discussion... --Chungy (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2015 (CDT)

Other Source ports for Doom[edit]

Another wildly popular source port is SkullTag. It is what I used about seven years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majinsnake (talkcontribs) .

Skulltag is dead, replaced by Zandronum. --Gez (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2016 (CST)


You could even set up a whole emulated PC e.g. with VirtualBox and install MS-DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS or Windows 9x there; this might look like "breaking flies on a wheel", though – DOSBox should be much faster in emulating, if it is compatible enough.

I've played DOSDoom 0.651 and Legacy 1.41 for DOS on my PC (Athlon 64 2,6 GHz*2, 2GB RAM). In DOSBox 0.74 DOSDoom was barely playable at 1280x1024, while Legacy was almost unplayable even at lower resolutions. I even tried some DOSBox forks — speed seems to be the same or even worse. In VirtualBox 4.3 with FreeDOS all worked at full framerate.

I think, DOSBox does more emulation (it is a full emulator like regular emulators for game consoles, and, therefore, emulates all hardware — even a CPU, according to Wikipedia) than VirtualBox (which uses virtualisation). So VirtualBox usually should be faster, while DOSBox could be more accurate. --xDDGx 12:36, 4 September 2016 (CDT)

Yes I don't think the statement is universal or has remained accurate with the availability of VT-x, etc., so this statement may be out of date. DOSBox is usually the most accurate but not necessarily fastest. The problem with "accurate" however is sometimes the difference between the game working or not with some of those solutions (a pic was posted on the Doomworld Forums of an attempt to run vanilla Doom under one certain virtualization suite and the result was bizarrely warping textures, due to some failure to properly emulate VGA tweaking and/or self-modifying code - just as an example). --Quasar (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2016 (CDT)