 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think that you are the one speaking rediculously...
An obscene amount of memory? You've got to be joking? Besides, NT is for
those that need and use large amounts of memory. It's also far more stable
with large amounts of memory.
>NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
>me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
As do I. I'd much prefer NT over 98. You say NT takes longer to boot? The
only response I've got for that is to ask you a question... Would you
rather boot once a day and have it take a little longer than have to reboot
10 times a day? In my personal experiance, the former is better. I'm sick
to death of getting illegal operations!!!
>I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
>improvements doing so.
Hmm, that's interesting. From my benchmarks, NT renders 5 times faster than
98 in 3D Studio MAX R2.5. Now if that isn't a substantial increase I don't
know what is. Obviously POV-Ray is an exception to this as it wasn't
specifically built for NT.
>NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
>It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
Well, those two statements I can't agree with either.
For the first: Why not? The rendering station at my school seems to cope
well with it. It is also only a P233 with 64Mb of RAM. It runs a
Perception DSP drive and a video output subsystem. I've NEVER had a crash
or the slightest problem. A DSP drive won't even run under 98 or 95 because
of it's useless subsystem, even if the processor is much more powerful and
you have more RAM.
And for the second statement: What else are you planning on using? Some
out-of-date operating system that is totally incompatible with all major
network standards... I don't think so. At work we run NT perfectly well.
It acts as a server for a network and also as an internet pipeline and proxy
server. It has never crashed in the time I've been there and I don't
believe it ever will. It usually has to cope with being online for several
days, even weeks at a time without restarting. It is fully compatible with
all hardware and the drivers all came with the hardware anyway. It's been a
total breeze. On the other hand, if you were to try to do that with another
operating system I think that you would find you'd have major problems.
Now back to the original subject: Multi-processing.
If Windows 98/95 DID support multi-processors I'd suppose that they could be
viable for rendering, however the lack of memory support and fixed system
resource setting is a pain and causes high-end apps like 3D Studio MAX to
crash frequently. One of the biggest problems of running MAX on 95/98 is
fixed resources. Not many people understand the way 95/98 handles system
resources. I have to make this clear, memory has nothing to do with
resources in 95/98. The resources are ultimately fixed. NT doesn't have
this problem, it has infinite resource allocation, something MAX needs to
run correctly. When using MAX on 98 I will have to restart everytime I
leave the program, simple because 98 can't handle the resource allocation,
even with 160Mb of RAM. The same setup running NT: it will never crash, I
can't even get it to. I never have to restart and it uses memory much more
efficiently (yes, in NT you generally need more than to run 95/98, but as I
said before, high-end apps need higher memory anyway). Rendeirng times are
faster, multi-processors speed up rendering to higher levels than I've ever
seen before, and the usefulness of being able to run several instances of
MAX is a bonus beyond comparison. The architecture of 95/98 means that
unfortunately it is impossible to open a second instance of MAX.
I do however agree with you on the pricing of NT, which I believe is far
overpriced (as is the way with Microsoft products unfortunately).
I'm a naturally argumentive person I think, so don't take it personally.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I''ve tried rendering torus1.pov (file provided with povray) at 640x480
aa0.3 with the following results.
Machine dual PII 450, 128MB default settings for everything else.
Win 98 2m 5s
Win NT 2m 6s
If I watch CPU utilisation on NT it hovers around 45-50% as if its only
using one processor (even though this percentage is split between the
two processors on the chart). This is born out by the above times.
Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
Cheers
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ronald L. Parker <par### [at] mail fwicom> wrote:
: That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
: amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
: just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
: eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
: faster than 98.
I have seen win95 working just fine in a 486 66MHz with 8M of RAM.
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Was it running any applications ?
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:23:05 +1000, Lance Birch
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>I think that you are the one speaking rediculously...
>
>An obscene amount of memory? You've got to be joking? Besides, NT is for
>those that need and use large amounts of memory. It's also far more stable
>with large amounts of memory.
I agree. NT is for those who need and use large amounts of memory. But
how many desktop users with 32M of RAM are going to "upgrade" to win2k
because they think it's the next logical step? Do you think MS is going
to tell them that's a bad idea?
>As do I. I'd much prefer NT over 98. You say NT takes longer to boot? The
>only response I've got for that is to ask you a question... Would you
>rather boot once a day and have it take a little longer than have to reboot
>10 times a day? In my personal experiance, the former is better. I'm sick
>to death of getting illegal operations!!!
If I only had to boot once a day, that'd be nice. Since I'm doing real work,
however, developing device drivers and applications, I have to boot NT far
more often. Real operating systems don't require you to reboot to change
your IP address, or to install or remove a video driver, or to change the
size of your swap file.
>Hmm, that's interesting. From my benchmarks, NT renders 5 times faster than
>98 in 3D Studio MAX R2.5. Now if that isn't a substantial increase I don't
>know what is. Obviously POV-Ray is an exception to this as it wasn't
>specifically built for NT.
Obviously raytracing is a completely different task than 3DSMAX and has
different priorities. I thought we covered this.
>For the first: Why not? The rendering station at my school seems to cope
>well with it. It is also only a P233 with 64Mb of RAM.
Then it's four times the machine most consumers currently running 98 have.
The average machine in the field is probably no better than a P166, and
I'm guessing most users have 32M or less RAM.
>It runs a
>Perception DSP drive and a video output subsystem. I've NEVER had a crash
>or the slightest problem. A DSP drive won't even run under 98 or 95 because
>of it's useless subsystem, even if the processor is much more powerful and
>you have more RAM.
Then that is an application for which NT is suited. But it's hardly an
average desktop machine.
>And for the second statement: What else are you planning on using? Some
>out-of-date operating system that is totally incompatible with all major
>network standards...
There is only one major network standard, and there's only one OS
that was designed from the ground up to support it. The standard is
TCP/IP and the OS is Unix.
>I don't think so. At work we run NT perfectly well.
>It acts as a server for a network and also as an internet pipeline and proxy
>server. It has never crashed in the time I've been there and I don't
>believe it ever will. It usually has to cope with being online for several
>days, even weeks at a time without restarting.
Most Unix servers stay online for months or years without restarting. Before
MS came along, rebooting or even shutting down a machine was virtually unheard
of.
>If Windows 98/95 DID support multi-processors I'd suppose that they could be
>viable for rendering, however the lack of memory support and fixed system
>resource setting is a pain and causes high-end apps like 3D Studio MAX to
>crash frequently.
Ah. Perhaps you're thinking of that dialog box that popped up on our NT
server a week or two ago, telling us that our swap file was too small
and telling us it would be happy to resize it for us if we didn't mind
rebooting? This is dynamic memory allocation? I'm not saying Unix does
it any better, mind, but I think it at least allows you to add a swap
partition if you have the extra space without having to reboot.
>One of the biggest problems of running MAX on 95/98 is
>fixed resources. Not many people understand the way 95/98 handles system
>resources. I have to make this clear, memory has nothing to do with
>resources in 95/98. The resources are ultimately fixed. NT doesn't have
>this problem, it has infinite resource allocation, something MAX needs to
>run correctly.
Pardon me, did you miss the part where I said I write software for NT and
Windows 9x? I know how resource allocation works, in excruciating detail.
Because of what I do, I have had to reverse-engineer the resource allocation
scheme by disassembling the kernel to find out things MS didn't want me to
know (and they told me so, in person). It is not infinite, and it is still
shared between processes. The result is the same: one resource-hogging app
can kill every other app on the system, no matter what they tell you.
Granted, the pool of available resources is a bit larger, but it is still a
fixed-size pool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22 Jan 1999 06:08:51 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> I have seen win95 working just fine in a 486 66MHz with 8M of RAM.
I've run it on that configuration. I think your definition of "just fine"
must be a bit different from mine. :) But at least it does install and
run.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: Was it running any applications ?
Cakewalk, Vienna SF Studio, Goldwave, etc. (yes, he IS a musician).
I was surprised too. It seems to work well.
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <36A8529F.4AB9ABA4@void.nacstock.ac.uk> , Mike Varley
<mik### [at] voidnacstockacuk> wrote:
>Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
>of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
No, not with a *lot* of work and massive changes to the code, also this depends on
the way you plan to use it. Running two POV-Rays at the same time, however, might do
the trick.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <36a8af8a.0@news.povray.org>, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
>In article <36A8529F.4AB9ABA4@void.nacstock.ac.uk> , Mike Varley
><mik### [at] voidnacstockacuk> wrote:
>
>>Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
>>of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
>
>No, not with a *lot* of work and massive changes to the code, also this
depends on
>the way you plan to use it. Running two POV-Rays at the same time,
however, might do
>the trick.
Is there any way to tell the operating system in a dual-processor
environment to use both processors in floating-point operations? Does
processor-switching occur fast enough for small operations like this to
speed up otherwise non-dual-supporting applications?
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
>
> In article <36a8af8a.0@news.povray.org>, "Thorsten Froehlich"
> <fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
>
> >In article <36A8529F.4AB9ABA4@void.nacstock.ac.uk> , Mike Varley
> ><mik### [at] voidnacstockacuk> wrote:
> >
> >>Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
> >>of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
> >
> >No, not with a *lot* of work and massive changes to the code, also this
> depends on
> >the way you plan to use it. Running two POV-Rays at the same time,
> however, might do
> >the trick.
>
> Is there any way to tell the operating system in a dual-processor
> environment to use both processors in floating-point operations? Does
> processor-switching occur fast enough for small operations like this to
> speed up otherwise non-dual-supporting applications?
Not that I am aware...
//Spider
> Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
