 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew McDavid <tot### [at] iname com> wrote:
> You said you decided _not_ to make it an NT service. I was just
>wondering if that meant, if you had decided otherwise, there wouldn't
>have been a 95/98 verson?
Ah, I see. Yes - we had considered a NT-only version, but decided not to
because not everyone can afford to purchase NT. If it had been more available
things may have been different. There's probably a half-dozen other reasons
that it's not NT-only, too, but because of the cost it didn't even get past
first base.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <6l8g03$33j$1@oz.aussie.org>,
"aardvarko" <aar### [at] geocitiescom> writes:
>>>Also, the STOP's are a pain. Whenever an app crashes badly, NT generates a
>>>STOP; just what it sounds like, a STOP halts the operating system and
>forces
>>>you to restart.
>
>>Not the OS my friend, the _processor_ ;)
>
>If it halts the processor. then why does the option "Automatically reboot"
>in System Properties under "When a STOP message occurs" work?
>
>It must be... uh... the FLOPPY DRIVE that automatically reboots it! Yeah! ;)
Ok, you got me wondering... but... ever heard of the BIOS? ;)
/Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a little question : does it exist a NT-only version of PovWin ?
Maybe its a little faster, more secure, etc... ? I'm wrong ?
Where may I download it, if affirmative ?
FD
<35781705.124961064@news.povray.org>...
>Andrew McDavid <tot### [at] inamecom> wrote:
>> You said you decided _not_ to make it an NT service. I was just
>>wondering if that meant, if you had decided otherwise, there wouldn't
>>have been a 95/98 verson?
>
>Ah, I see. Yes - we had considered a NT-only version, but decided not to
>because not everyone can afford to purchase NT. If it had been more
available
>things may have been different. There's probably a half-dozen other reasons
>that it's not NT-only, too, but because of the cost it didn't even get past
>first base.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Just a little question : does it exist a NT-only version of PovWin ?
>Maybe its a little faster, more secure, etc... ? I'm wrong ?
>Where may I download it, if affirmative ?
There's no real point in having a NT-only version - the Win32 version is fully
32-bit and there's little we could do (while keeping it single-processor) to
make it faster on NT.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There seems to be a lot of interest in NT judging by the amount of messages.
Since you decided not to make a NT only version, I am wondering if you
could make
the rendering engine multi-threaded which would not cause any problems in
Win95/98 but would run almost twice as fast on a 2 CPU NT platform. Is the
programming difficult to do? I don't know how many of the POVRay fans own
that kind of machine. It seems to be getting a lot cheaper these days. I
have one
myself.
povray.org admin team wrote in message <3580426c.8338169@news.povray.org>...
>There's no real point in having a NT-only version - the Win32 version is
fully
>32-bit and there's little we could do (while keeping it single-processor)
to
>make it faster on NT.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:46:06 -0400, "Stephan Vogt"
<sno### [at] mindspringcom> wrote:
>There seems to be a lot of interest in NT judging by the amount of messages.
>Since you decided not to make a NT only version, I am wondering if you
>could make
>the rendering engine multi-threaded which would not cause any problems in
>Win95/98 but would run almost twice as fast on a 2 CPU NT platform. Is the
>programming difficult to do? I don't know how many of the POVRay fans own
>that kind of machine. It seems to be getting a lot cheaper these days. I
>have one
>myself.
I've looked at this, and sad to say, it would be a horrible job to get
it to run multithreaded, due to the proliferation of global variables
used in unsavory ways. You're better off just running two copies of
POVRay and using a script or batch file of some kind to coordinate the
rendering.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Lundahl <d93### [at] efdlthse> wrote in article
<6lbgc7$9oh$1@oz.aussie.org>...
> In article <6l8g03$33j$1@oz.aussie.org>,
> "aardvarko" <aar### [at] geocitiescom> writes:
> >>>Also, the STOP's are a pain. Whenever an app crashes badly, NT
generates a
> >>>STOP; just what it sounds like, a STOP halts the operating system and
> >forces
> >>>you to restart.
> >
> >>Not the OS my friend, the _processor_ ;)
> >
> >If it halts the processor. then why does the option "Automatically
reboot"
> >in System Properties under "When a STOP message occurs" work?
> >
> >It must be... uh... the FLOPPY DRIVE that automatically reboots it!
Yeah! ;)
>
> Ok, you got me wondering... but... ever heard of the BIOS? ;)
>
Bollocks! The BIOS has nothing to do with it, it's not the processor
stopping, processors don't just stop, it _is_ NT. NT isn't anywhere near as
stable as Microsoft would have you believe, in fact, if you've got dodgy
software, it'll crash far more often than '95.
--
Scott Hill
Sco### [at] DDLinkscouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
"The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't
exist..."
- Verbal Kint.
"the Internet is here so we can waste time talking about nothing in
particular when we should be working" - Marcus Hill.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:29:48 +1200, Ross Smith <r-s### [at] ihugconz>
wrote:
>
>So don't take those "blue screen of death" tales too seriously. Yeah, it
>happens, but an average of one system crash per year is good enough for
>me.
Situation:
First manned mission to Mars;
"Ah, Houston, we a have a BSOD"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've been running NT (3.51 and 4.0) for about four years, on several
> different boxes, using it for intensive development work as well as many
> other applications (including POV-Ray) (not counting editors and web
> browsers, the program I run most often is probably EGCS). In all that
> time, I've had exactly three system crashes (and one of those was under
> an early beta of NT4, so I don't think it's fair to count it), plus two
> occasions when the OS was malfunctioning badly enough that I rebooted to
> fix it. My record for contnuous up time is about two months. (The usual
> reason for rebooting is badly written installers that insist on a
> restart.)
Two months of continuous uptime? Two months for NT is unusual from what
I have heard, though two months is still not very much. Is this on a
home system, or a business system? From what I have heard NT is neither
stable nor secure for most business and engineering uses - it's a big
headache for system administrators. It is no replacement for Unix, and
it is insanely expensive. For some interesting perspective on the NT vs.
Unix question see:
http://www.kirch.net/unix-nt.html
http://www.isdmag.com/Editorial/1998/CoverStory9807.html
jb
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
>
> > I've been running NT (3.51 and 4.0) for about four years, on several
> > different boxes, using it for intensive development work as well as many
> > other applications (including POV-Ray) (not counting editors and web
> > browsers, the program I run most often is probably EGCS). In all that
> > time, I've had exactly three system crashes (and one of those was under
> > an early beta of NT4, so I don't think it's fair to count it), plus two
> > occasions when the OS was malfunctioning badly enough that I rebooted to
> > fix it. My record for contnuous up time is about two months. (The usual
> > reason for rebooting is badly written installers that insist on a
> > restart.)
>
> Two months of continuous uptime? Two months for NT is unusual from what
> I have heard, though two months is still not very much. Is this on a
> home system, or a business system?
Business (software development).
> From what I have heard
You keep using that phrase. Perhaps there would be less OS bigotry
around if people were a bit more skeptical about hearsay. I have several
years of software development on both Win32 *and* Linux (and OS/2 and a
little Irix) behind me (and, I hope, several more in front of me :-) ),
so I think I can claim to know what I'm talking about. The rumours of
NT's death (blue screen of) are greatly exaggerated.
> NT is neither
> stable nor secure for most business and engineering uses - it's a big
> headache for system administrators. It is no replacement for Unix, and
> it is insanely expensive. For some interesting perspective on the NT vs.
> Unix question see:
>
> http://www.kirch.net/unix-nt.html
> http://www.isdmag.com/Editorial/1998/CoverStory9807.html
Not relevant, since they're talking about servers and I'm talking about
workstations. I'd be the first to recommend Linux over NT for a
*server*. But for my desktop box, the one I cut C++ on all the live long
day, no amount of money would persuade me to use Unix.
--
Ross Smith ..................................... Wellington, New Zealand
<mailto:r-s### [at] ihugconz> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
"Remember when we told you there was no future? Well, this is it."
-- Blank Reg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
