 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I work a lot with POVRay and Windows XP. Generally my own software try to be
compatible with 32 bit version. It is very useful for me to test compatibility
with old versions (PovRay 3.5 in DOS mode). My personal opinion: I think it will
be useful to future Hardware of ALL of countries of the planet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rafael" <Rof### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> I work a lot with POVRay and Windows XP. Generally my own software try to be
> compatible with 32 bit version. It is very useful for me to test compatibility
> with old versions (PovRay 3.5 in DOS mode). My personal opinion: I think it will
> be useful to future Hardware of ALL of countries of the planet.
I use XP also. DOS not so much. I have programed a lot of support programs for
POV. All 32 bit window programs. I now have a windows 10 64 bit computer that
will run all those XP programs. I would like to be able to write a 64 bit
program but as of right now my site is down and I just don't want to.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi people :)
PovRay is one of the most important programs I am using WindowsServer2003 for.
The system is almost fully XP-compatible, but has the ability to support up to
64GB RAM and 16 Cores. Still it's a 32BIT-Version of Windows, means that every
running Program can use 4GB Ram only. And it runs XP-Compatible programs ONLY!
Rendering with older versions of PovRay means, running lots and lots of
instances, each rendering another frame for example.
Within WindowsServer2003 I am running the following versions of Povray:
PovRay3.1
PovRay3.1-MegaPOV 0.7
PovRay3.5
PovRay3.5 Dens
PovRay3.5-ML
PovRay3.5-Slime
PovRay3.6
PovRay3.6 Mc
PovRay3.6-MegaPOV 1.2.1
PovRay3.6-PovMan
PovRay3.7
PovRay3.7-Uber
All these version are in use and there running BECAUSE of an old version of
Windows! If a newer version of Povray would NOT run it, I won't be able to use
it!
Please continue running PovRay on XP!
Thanx a lot!
:) Holger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
By the way, I fully support Leroy at this point: PovRay is an old program. I am
using it since 1991! And there are a lot of tools, running under DOS, Win95,
Win2K.
So what if you can run PovRay on Vista, or Win7 up to Win10 or Win11 only?
Do you like to run an emulator within an emulator to run your tools one day?
The oldest program I am using is called "HLA" it's a DOS program. I can run
under DOS-Box, or still under Server2003 in a window. I am using it to produce
high-quality 16-Bit Grayscale High-Field-Maps with craters.
Just think of High-Fields for a moment: Most of the tools, producing 16-Bit
special PovRay-TGA-format! Which of these tools can run in a 64-Bit System??
You would need to forget about most of these tools. But these have just NO
replacement! The only one I know is "World Machine" and it's NO replacement for
HLA! It's just something more within the collection of possibilities. If you are
using high-field-tools, in fact you need to use everything you can get out there
from the last 30 years!
If you can't use all this within one system, it's going to become something
between difficult to freaky.
Best rgds, :)
Holger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.07.2021 um 17:24 schrieb HKarsten:
> By the way, I fully support Leroy at this point: PovRay is an old program. I am
> using it since 1991! And there are a lot of tools, running under DOS, Win95,
> Win2K.
> So what if you can run PovRay on Vista, or Win7 up to Win10 or Win11 only?
> Do you like to run an emulator within an emulator to run your tools one day?
The problem is that as time goes on, there comes a point where we want
to add new features that we can't implement without breaking
compatibility with (a) those old operatings systems and/or (b) even the
newest build tools we can find that still target those operating systems.
One day, the Visual Studio 2017 toolkit will no longer be supported by
Microsoft, and some time thereafter we will no longer have access to a
sufficiently secure build environment featuring that piece of software.
When that happens, that'll be the day when we will definitely have to
cease supporting XP for good.
You just can't expect to forever have access to the latest and greatest
new POV-Ray features on the oldest and coldest operating systems.
So what's the solution to continue to use those old tools? Well, use a
matching POV-Ray version, obviously. One from those olden golden days.
That, or indeed run those tools under DOS-Box. I'm not sure how that
emulator works, but it surely will have ways to export and import files
from it, right?
But the point has been taken: There are still POV-Ray users out there
who want XP support, so we'll see what we can do.
That's why we've asked.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi clipka :)
As far as I understood, you wound use new features in PovRay, that can run under
Windows only. PovRay will run on Linux, BSD, MACOS and so forth.
This means,
1) you don't need to use a programming-environment that is limited to a hand of
operating-systems only. If you use an older programming-environment your
application is till running on newer systems.
2) another option is to compile a new PovRay statically under Cygwin. Statically
means, cygwin.dll has to be in the same folder, as PovRay's exe-file and it will
run under XP with no cygwin-environment installed.
Is it than impossible to implement new features to PovRay by taking the source
of PovRay 3.7 and the programming-environment that was compiling it for good and
just add these features?? What could it be for you, NEED to have a new
programming-environment for this?
Best rgds,
Holger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
"HKarsten" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> ...
> If you can't use all this within one system, it's going to become something
> between difficult to freaky.
that's an impressive list of POV-Ray's you've got. somewhat disagree with yr
argument(s) though. Windows Server 2003 was "put out to pasture" ten years ago,
and the world has kept turning. if you used VmWare (for example), you could
turn your existing machine into a VM, and yr Win2003 becomes just "another"
window on yr desktop.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi jr, :)
If I would have a system, small enough, this would be an option.
Several times I tried to virtualized my System. Sometimes the drivers are poor
and my 3D-Programms, like 3DS-Max, or Maya does not run properly or other
things happened.
And I still didn't find a host-system, small enough for not being in the way.
So: as long as my System can run natively, it turned out to be the best way.
BTW: my 2003 is a pure offline System. It never was connected to the internet
for even a fragment of a second, and it never will be.
For being connected, I an using Puppy-linux:
distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=puppy
Its running from RAM, so if it's going to be compromised, next time booting it
has forgotten all about it.
For my 3D-Printer the sclicer is not running on XP for example, and I have to
use my Linux for it. It's pain in the as to do a reboot just for slicing!
Having a PovRay as plain-static cygwin-exe would be the much nicer way, instead
of rebooting the machine.
Best rgds,
Holger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> You just can't expect to forever have access to the latest and greatest
> new POV-Ray features on the oldest and coldest operating systems.
>
>
> So what's the solution to continue to use those old tools? Well, use a
> matching POV-Ray version, obviously. One from those olden golden days.
>
> That, or indeed run those tools under DOS-Box. I'm not sure how that
> emulator works, but it surely will have ways to export and import files
> from it, right?
So, just thinking out loud:
This whole legacy workflow / tool-chain that he's got going as an example of why
it would be nice to have a growing collection of analogous in-house tools to
perform the scene-building part of the workflow, instead of parting-it-out to
whatever third-party external software things might be available.
I remember Sam Benge posted a very nice pile of rocks/grains that he made using
a dataset generated with Voro++. It would be nice to have the crackle pattern
points and knobs exposed to the SDL so we had something like that - since making
piles of rocks is something people invariably try to do in POV-Ray.
Chris Cason was generous enough to purchase the rights to Moray so that someday
we can have a GUI modeler for the things that modelers are good for. And a
modeler like Moray is irrefutably desireable and (in)directly used in
raytracing.
I know that the current paradigm is that "POV-Ray is a raytracer", but creating
the things that will be raytraced by POV-Ray I think is an integral part of the
POV-Ray experience. And the more "pieces" we own in our own little toolbox, the
less will be lost to changes in OS's, 3rd-party blackbox software, licensing
changes, and other links in the scene-creation chain.
I know that I have suggested a few things in the past that at first glance
"don't have much relation to raytracing", but I do hold firm in my opinion that
they would be valuable scene-creation and modification tools. There are many
people who are, or were, enthusiastic POV-Ray enthusiasts, and would likely be
happy to donate/license the use of their already-written code for various
algorithms to use in future distributions.
Some might even be winding down their careers in computer science and related
fields, and would find contributing new features to the POV-Ray codebase an
enjoyable and rewarding activity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
"HKarsten" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Hi jr, :)
> If I would have a system, small enough, this would be an option.
> Several times I tried to virtualized my System. Sometimes the drivers are poor
> and my 3D-Programms, like 3DS-Max, or Maya does not run properly or other
> things happened.
persist. ;-) VmWare definitely, and VirtualBox etc likely too, "can do".
> And I still didn't find a host-system, small enough for not being in the way.
> So: as long as my System can run natively, it turned out to be the best way.
> BTW: my 2003 is a pure offline System. It never was connected to the internet
> for even a fragment of a second, and it never will be.
good policy. even for current systems, in some cases.
> For being connected, I an using Puppy-linux:
> distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=puppy
>
> Its running from RAM, so if it's going to be compromised, next time booting it
> has forgotten all about it.
yes, I like (the development of) "live" distributions, they all share that
advantage.
> For my 3D-Printer the sclicer is not running on XP for example, and I have to
> use my Linux for it. It's pain in the as to do a reboot just for slicing!
>
> Having a PovRay as plain-static cygwin-exe would be the much nicer way, instead
> of rebooting the machine.
I probably misunderstand, but why then not compile that "slicer" (and or povray)
under cygwin?
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
