At a air and space museum I went to several times, there is a computer model (of an old supercomputer, probably an IBM) that has Doom on its directory… Wonder what Doom on a NASA computer would be like.
(The first maze game was ran on a NASA computer)

Idk if I've said this before, but I've run Doom on my homebrewed DSi once

port the engine and it can

I ran DOOM using the computer they had in the first space shuttle. Only around 72 KB of RAM.

I’m remaking doom for my programming final in scratch

Now all we need to do is get @applejuiceproduc to run DOOM in OrangeOS

Lego mindstorms EV3 can run doom! https://github.com/Seva167/ev3doom (I did not make this)

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

DifferentDance8 wrote:

i_eat_coffee wrote:

can a glass of water run doom?

Short answer: Theoretically, yes. However, that can be considered cheating

Explanation:

First of all, we need a thick glass with a slit inside just big enough to fit a medium sized screen (we can't place the screen in the water for obvious reasons). Then, we need a bluetooth keyboard and mouse (or controller, if GZDoom supports that IDK haven't played it). Finally, we need a raspberry pi.

Connect the screen to the raspberry pi via wires going up above the glass and into the slit.. Then, connect the bluetooth keyboard and mouse via bluetooth. The only way the screen and the wires will co-operate is upside down, so to adjust set the screen to the orientation “Landscape (flipped)” or the closest available option.

Voila! You have a glass of water that runs doom. However, this can be technically cheating as the glass of water itself isn't playing doom but rather the glass is considered a “case” for the screen.

it can run electricity, meaning it can create 1s & 0s. you'd need alot of water though xD

doggy_boi1 wrote:

DifferentDance8 wrote:

i_eat_coffee wrote:

can a glass of water run doom?

Short answer: Theoretically, yes. However, that can be considered cheating

Explanation:

First of all, we need a thick glass with a slit inside just big enough to fit a medium sized screen (we can't place the screen in the water for obvious reasons). Then, we need a bluetooth keyboard and mouse (or controller, if GZDoom supports that IDK haven't played it). Finally, we need a raspberry pi.

Connect the screen to the raspberry pi via wires going up above the glass and into the slit.. Then, connect the bluetooth keyboard and mouse via bluetooth. The only way the screen and the wires will co-operate is upside down, so to adjust set the screen to the orientation “Landscape (flipped)” or the closest available option.

Voila! You have a glass of water that runs doom. However, this can be technically cheating as the glass of water itself isn't playing doom but rather the glass is considered a “case” for the screen.

it can run electricity, meaning it can create 1s & 0s. you'd need alot of water though xD

To be fair, water can't really “control” that electricity, at least not in a way which can make decisions

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Wayyyyyyy less powerful than a scientific calculator

blubby4 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Wayyyyyyy less powerful than a scientific calculator

Eh, it could figure things out in 3-dimensional space and do various utility operations onboard the craft (like running the various systems that kept the astronauts alive).

It certainly wasn't fast, but I would put it at scientific calculator level, if it had 1KB of storage and like 100 bytes of RAM.

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Which, guess what, can run doom anyway so

DifferentDance8 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Which, guess what, can run doom anyway so

Scientific calculator ≠ graphing calculator.

The major difference being that the graphing calculator can do everything the scientific calculator can, plus be used as a very low-end computer equivalent to one that you might find being marketed in the late 1970s

BigNate469 wrote:

DifferentDance8 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Which, guess what, can run doom anyway so

Scientific calculator ≠ graphing calculator.

The major difference being that the graphing calculator can do everything the scientific calculator can, plus be used as a very low-end computer equivalent to one that you might find being marketed in the late 1970s

Scientific calculators (really all calculators nowadays) are computers. Not particularly powerful ones, but still more powerful than the guidance computer, which has 2,048 16-bit words (essentially 4,096 bytes (a little less actually)). Given the original doom needed something like 4MB, there's not much that CAN run on 4KiB. Source

blubby4 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

DifferentDance8 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Which, guess what, can run doom anyway so

Scientific calculator ≠ graphing calculator.

The major difference being that the graphing calculator can do everything the scientific calculator can, plus be used as a very low-end computer equivalent to one that you might find being marketed in the late 1970s

Scientific calculators (really all calculators nowadays) are computers. Not particularly powerful ones, but still more powerful than the guidance computer, which has 2,048 16-bit words (essentially 4,096 bytes (a little less actually)). Given the original doom needed something like 4MB, there's not much that CAN run on 4KiB. Source

Graphing calculators are actually usable as general-purpose computers, though. (Unmodified) Scientific calculators are not.

Every calculator is by definition a computer.

The most basic definition of a computer is “something that takes numbers as an input, modifies them in some way, and outputs more numbers”. At some point in there it also stores said numbers, but that's not the important part. What is the important part is that by that definition, a pair of gears meshing together, a Windows laptop, and a human are all computers.

In fact, there used to be a job at NASA (and many other organizations in similar fields) called “human computer”- what you did was math all day.

Since everything your computer does can (and is) represented as numbers, the internet works.

Also by that theory you can use a pair of gears to run Blender, but don't be surprised if it takes longer than the age of the planet to calculate a single frame.

BigNate469 wrote:

blubby4 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

DifferentDance8 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Which, guess what, can run doom anyway so

Scientific calculator ≠ graphing calculator.

The major difference being that the graphing calculator can do everything the scientific calculator can, plus be used as a very low-end computer equivalent to one that you might find being marketed in the late 1970s

Scientific calculators (really all calculators nowadays) are computers. Not particularly powerful ones, but still more powerful than the guidance computer, which has 2,048 16-bit words (essentially 4,096 bytes (a little less actually)). Given the original doom needed something like 4MB, there's not much that CAN run on 4KiB. Source

Graphing calculators are actually usable as general-purpose computers, though. (Unmodified) Scientific calculators are not.

Every calculator is by definition a computer.

The most basic definition of a computer is “something that takes numbers as an input, modifies them in some way, and outputs more numbers”. At some point in there it also stores said numbers, but that's not the important part. What is the important part is that by that definition, a pair of gears meshing together, a Windows laptop, and a human are all computers.

In fact, there used to be a job at NASA (and many other organizations in similar fields) called “human computer”- what you did was math all day.

Since everything your computer does can (and is) represented as numbers, the internet works.

Also by that theory you can use a pair of gears to run Blender, but don't be surprised if it takes longer than the age of the planet to calculate a single frame.

If we're making blender with gears, why don't we skip a step and just take a photo of real objects?

I guess you are right about the definition of a computer, though. (good luck running doom on a human ) But what I was meaning was that all calculators nowadays have some sort of microprocessor that can execute whatever program they're given, but usually very little memory. I wonder how different graphing calculators and scientific calculators actually are, in terms of processor, ram, etc.

blubby4 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

blubby4 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

DifferentDance8 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I wonder if the onboard computer from a LEM (stands for “Lunar Excursion Module”, used on the Apollo missions to the moon, to land on it) could run Doom.

Probably not, considering that it's on-par with your average scientific calculator.

Which, guess what, can run doom anyway so

Scientific calculator ≠ graphing calculator.

The major difference being that the graphing calculator can do everything the scientific calculator can, plus be used as a very low-end computer equivalent to one that you might find being marketed in the late 1970s

Scientific calculators (really all calculators nowadays) are computers. Not particularly powerful ones, but still more powerful than the guidance computer, which has 2,048 16-bit words (essentially 4,096 bytes (a little less actually)). Given the original doom needed something like 4MB, there's not much that CAN run on 4KiB. Source

Graphing calculators are actually usable as general-purpose computers, though. (Unmodified) Scientific calculators are not.

Every calculator is by definition a computer.

The most basic definition of a computer is “something that takes numbers as an input, modifies them in some way, and outputs more numbers”. At some point in there it also stores said numbers, but that's not the important part. What is the important part is that by that definition, a pair of gears meshing together, a Windows laptop, and a human are all computers.

In fact, there used to be a job at NASA (and many other organizations in similar fields) called “human computer”- what you did was math all day.

Since everything your computer does can (and is) represented as numbers, the internet works.

Also by that theory you can use a pair of gears to run Blender, but don't be surprised if it takes longer than the age of the planet to calculate a single frame.

If we're making blender with gears, why don't we skip a step and just take a photo of real objects?

I guess you are right about the definition of a computer, though. (good luck running doom on a human ) But what I was meaning was that all calculators nowadays have some sort of microprocessor that can execute whatever program they're given, but usually very little memory. I wonder how different graphing calculators and scientific calculators actually are, in terms of processor, ram, etc.

I bet I can run DOOM on most people

blubby4 wrote:

If we're making blender with gears, why don't we skip a step and just take a photo of real objects?

I guess you are right about the definition of a computer, though. (good luck running doom on a human ) But what I was meaning was that all calculators nowadays have some sort of microprocessor that can execute whatever program they're given, but usually very little memory. I wonder how different graphing calculators and scientific calculators actually are, in terms of processor, ram, etc.

According to a quick Google search, your average scientific calculator has between 4 and 8 kilobytes of RAM. The TI-84 (a very common graphing calculator) has 24 kilobytes of RAM.