Talk:Versions of Doom and Doom II
There is more information in the "unofficial changelog" which I've linked to and also the DOOM FAQ. This mostly comes from the output from README.EXE in old versions. There doesn't seem to be much information about what changed in the later versions (> 1.666). Fraggle 15:43, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Does anyone know when the >200% armour bug was fixed. I remember it being in v1.2 (And looking at toastytech, it was also in v0.99) but it was fixed by v1.666. (And now for something completely different: v1.2 shareware was preferred over the v1.666 one because v1.666 always Venitian Blind Crashed in E1M1 if it wasn't finished fast enough. Not to mention that I missed my 230%+ armour. Never had that crash in any other level, including Doom II :\) -- TheDarkArchon 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- They're all the "Ultimate Doom" revision, so no, not entirely. See Doom 1.9 for details. Ryan W 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The title "Doom change log" would be appropriate for an article commenting on an existing change log. This is, though, an article attempting to list all the differences between versions. Maybe we could use Doom and Doom II releases or Doom and Doom II versions instead? Maybe Doom releases (or versions) should be enough.
Another thing; keep in mind the versions refer to the EXE/WAD combinations (game releases), and not just the executables, as the change notes show. We already have some wad change info, and more details can be added through comparisons and notes. In wad change cases it's necessary to say in which of the two games they apply, as both used the same version numbers with a few exceptions (v1.7a and the pirated v1.666 for Doom II). One easy way to tell if a level has been modified is to extract the level lumps or two consecutive versions and then compare the two wads containing only them with a file or binary comparison tool. Who is like God? 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- If people feel it's more convenient we could also have separate articles, one for Doom engine changes, one for Doom IWAD changes, and one for Doom II IWAD changes (unless there's a reason to keep Doom and Doom II IWAD changes together) The IWAD changes would take more time to compile as we don't have much specific info yet, but it should be an interesting subject to document. Who is like God? 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've edited the version page to go with a split here. We can have a detailed list of changes in each game listing mainly the IWAD changes (and noting in each case the corresponding versions of the engines that go with them), in one article per game, and then the list of known executable changes as part of the Doom engine page. I'm not moving anything yet because many pages are linking here now. Who is like God? 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- US$0.02: Agree that "Doom change log" is an inexact title. AFAICT our current convention is that map articles should include detailed descriptions of changes between versions, so the IWAD changes in this list need not be split into a separate page as they would probably just be links to the subsections of the map articles. Ryan W 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good thinking; one article should be enough here since the bulk of the info should be about the engine or just in general. Who is like God? 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This probably doesn't qualify as a bug, so I won't put it on the bug talk page...
Some people who use the original DOS programs seem to enjoy mixing and matching the exes/IWADs to see what happens. This is a side effect I've not seen mentioned anywhere before. Ryan W 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Who wrote about the demos in that version? I downloaded that patch (and applied it over v1.2) myself and the demos doesn't seem to work... the player just does crazy loops in E3M1 while saving the game and nothing else. hfc2X 20:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
DoomGate.de hosts a Sybex version of Shareware Doom, which is numbered 1.25. Anybody knows what are the changes between it and 1.2? --Gez 09:17, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
- 1.25 has improved sound code with better support for some sound cards. That's it. Disk images of the Sybex version can also be downloaded at http://pcpp.retro-net.de
Highly technical difference between v1.9 and source release
- Should source release have its own section? This is not the only change between v1.9 and "v1.10" (source release).PolicyNonsense 07:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Unburied and the change from OP added to the list. PolicyNonsense 08:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is possible that there was a Doom 0.1 that was lost.
Fangusu hasn't edited in a while but if this is true, then it's important, isn't it? Ryan W 02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this article mentions additions of soundcard support. Which soundcards were supported with each version? A timeline or similar might be useful information in the future. ConSiGno 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it legal to download original DOS exes?
Hello, is it 100% legal to download original DOS exes? When I was kid, I only owned shareware versions of Doom (1.2, 1.666 and 1.9), as well as pirated Doom 2 1.666, all of which I had on various games CDs. Then later I got Collector's Edition off eBay, as well as Master Levels. Unfortunately Collector's Edition doesn't include DOS exes, only Doom95 source port and I would like to know if it's legal to download them as I know that you can get DOS exes for Ultimate Doom and Doom 2 by downloading shareware Doom and installing patch for Ultimate Doom but unfortunately, it's not possible to make Final Doom exes that way. I found site to download the exes but I'm not sure if it's legal (at least for Final Doom exes). Can someone answer please? Thanks.
Oh and yes I know that I can use source ports like Chocolate Doom, Eternity, ZDoom and so on but sometimes I want to use DOSBox to play Doom in original form as I did back then when I didn't know about source ports.
Here is site to download exes and feel free to remove it if you think there is something wrong with it: http://www.doomgate.de/content/files/ladopato/index_en.html
- The opinion in the community is that there's not really a problem with distributing the original executable files since the Doom source code was released and builds a largely equivalent program. As an example, there are at least some of the original executables available at Doomworld. --Quasar (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So it is legal or not? I'd like to see a discussion over at DW to see other people opinions as well. :)
126.96.36.199 13:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well technically the Doom EXEs are under a EULA that prevents any redistribution. You could say "yeah well the source is GPL now" but license changes are not retroactive to already-distributed versions. Plus, the GPL says you would need to distribute all source code with the EXE. This presents a problem since 1) we don't actually *have* the source code used to make the DOS binaries, and 2) they contain code for the DMX sound library, which is very much not free. --Linguica (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replies guys! I feel very unlucky that I don't have the original DOS exes but hey, at least I have all the IWADS. That's what matters the most and I think I will just use Eternity instead because of very high original Doom compatibility + can play most megawads. 188.8.131.52 08:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC) (FistMarine here btw)
Book of ID
Well I just received Book of ID that I ordered 2 weeks ago from eBay. Now I officially own original DOS versions of Doom games and included as bonus, I also have the rare patched version of Final Doom. I know most people won't care what I'm saying right now but since I opened a discussion few months ago complaining that I'm only one that doesn't have original DOOM EXE files, now I wanted to mention that I officially have them.
184.108.40.206 10:50, 14 December 2015 (CST)
Serial support in 1.1?
According to Dave Taylor (ftp://ftp.gamers.org/pub/archives/idNews/idNews04_morestuff), they were still working on serial support on 20 Dec 1993. Doom 1.1 was released on 15 Dec 1993, so first version with serial support must have been 1.2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)