POV-Ray : Newsgroups : moray.dos : Re: Further DOS-development part II Server Time: 22 Oct 2017 21:07:05 GMT
  Re: Further DOS-development part II (Message 1 to 4 of 4)  
From: Sean Tudor
Subject: Re: Further DOS-development part II
Date: 30 Jul 1998 08:23:22
Message: <35c01e46.35153715@news.povray.org>
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 16:47:03 +0200, Alexander Holik
<ale### [at] pfeilheimsthacat> wrote:

>If Windows would be programmed more hardware-near you could run it on a i386
>delivering the same performance than it does now on a Pentium with 64Megs of
>RAM. So how's it possible to make any program under Win95 hardware-near if the
>System itself isn't??? Perhaps I own a special computer, but my Moray for DOS
>is considerably faster than the Win-version?!?!?! Besides, even Povray for
>Windows is a cripple (You ever made a comparing benchmark between the DOS- and
>the Win-version?)
>Have a look at the Amiga-Platform or Linux if you want to experience real
>efficient programming.

Alexander,

I run a Pentium II 300Mhz with 128 MB's of ram and am more than happy
with the speed under Windows 98.  You have to realise that eventually
there won't be DOS support anymore and everything will be running
under a GUI.

In fact I would say a good 90%+ of users are now using some form of
GUI whether it be Win31/95/98/NT or Unix/Linux/X-Windows.

DOS can't be supported forever - Microsoft certainly no longer
supports DOS.

Cheers,
Sean.

------------------------
Sean Tudor
Sydney, Australia
------------------------
This is my cannon, this is my gun
One is for bandits, and one is for fun
------------------------
vicious at magna dot com dot au


Post a reply to this message

From: Nieminen Mika
Subject: Re: Further DOS-development part II
Date: 1 Aug 1998 13:45:53
Message: <35c30e01.0@news.povray.org>
Sean Tudor <no### [at] spamcom> wrote:
: I run a Pentium II 300Mhz with 128 MB's of ram and am more than happy
: with the speed under Windows 98.

  That sentence is really funny. Really. :D

: In fact I would say a good 90%+ of users are now using some form of
: GUI whether it be Win31/95/98/NT or Unix/Linux/X-Windows.

  Moray is not available for win31/unix/linux/X-windows.

: DOS can't be supported forever - Microsoft certainly no longer
: supports DOS.

  That's not entirely true. They have developed dos a bit since dos6.22
(long filename support under windows, slightly better command.com, etc).
  It's true that micro$oft is trying to drop the command line based prompt
from the OS, and I think that's a big mistake. I really like unix and
X-window because it doesn't try to substitute the commmand prompt but it
supports and strengthens it, ie. it gives more power and more flexibility
and a very verstaile GUI to the command prompt (although it's possible to
use X entirely without it). There are many things that are relatively easy
to do with a good shell script, but are almost impossible to do with a
GUI. I think zsh+X is much more powerful than command.com+win95.

-- 
                                                              - Warp. -


Post a reply to this message

From: Sean Tudor
Subject: Re: Further DOS-development part II
Date: 5 Aug 1998 03:22:18
Message: <35c7c064.418570@news.povray.org>
On 1 Aug 1998 08:45:53 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] assaricctutfi>
wrote:

>: I run a Pentium II 300Mhz with 128 MB's of ram and am more than happy
>: with the speed under Windows 98.

>  That sentence is really funny. Really. :D

How so ?  Sure my machine isn't the fastest available but the speed is
light years ahead of my old P233MMX.

>: In fact I would say a good 90%+ of users are now using some form of
>: GUI whether it be Win31/95/98/NT or Unix/Linux/X-Windows.

>  Moray is not available for win31/unix/linux/X-windows.

Obviously.  I was referring to GUI usage in general and not
specifically to Moray.

>: DOS can't be supported forever - Microsoft certainly no longer
>: supports DOS.

>It's true that micro$oft is trying to drop the command line based prompt
>from the OS, and I think that's a big mistake. I really like unix and
>X-window because it doesn't try to substitute the commmand prompt but it
>supports and strengthens it, ie. it gives more power and more flexibility
>and a very verstaile GUI to the command prompt (although it's possible to
>use X entirely without it). There are many things that are relatively easy
>to do with a good shell script, but are almost impossible to do with a
>GUI. I think zsh+X is much more powerful than command.com+win95.

Of course you may like X-Windows/Unix but the majority of users have
Win95/98/NT.  Not many people these days are typing in arcane command
sequences into a command line.  Look at Macintosh's - they do not
contain any form of command line.

------------------------
Sean Tudor
Sydney, Australia
------------------------
This is my cannon, this is my gun
One is for bandits, and one is for fun
------------------------
vicious at magna dot com dot au


Post a reply to this message

From: Nieminen Mika
Subject: Re: Further DOS-development part II
Date: 5 Aug 1998 15:03:04
Message: <35c86618.0@news.povray.org>
Sean Tudor <no### [at] spamcom> wrote:
:>: I run a Pentium II 300Mhz with 128 MB's of ram and am more than happy
:>: with the speed under Windows 98.

:>  That sentence is really funny. Really. :D

: How so ?  Sure my machine isn't the fastest available but the speed is
: light years ahead of my old P233MMX.

  The sentence would make sense if you say something like "I run a 486 33MHz
with 8 MB's of ram and the speed is ok", because that says something _positive_
about the program. If you say "I run a cray 1000MHz with 4 GB's of ram and
the speed is ok", that doesn't say anything positive about the program. If
the program needs an incredibly fast machine to work, that's a negative thing.

: Of course you may like X-Windows/Unix but the majority of users have
: Win95/98/NT.  Not many people these days are typing in arcane command
: sequences into a command line.  Look at Macintosh's - they do not
: contain any form of command line.

  So they can't do any powerful file handling which is possible (and mostly
very easy) with a shell. With a GUI you are limited to the possibilities
of it: if the creators of the GUI didn't think about a feature, you can't
do anything to get that feature. With a powerful shell script language you
can do almost anything, because it's like a programming language: If there
isn't the feature you want, you just make a script that does it. For simple
tasks you use the mouse, for complicated tasks you write a command or a
script. So you are not limited.

-- 
                                                              - Warp. -


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.