Hi, I was wondering whether anyone here uses NT 4.0...  I've just bought 3D
Studio MAX and I was wondering whether there is a huge speed and reliability
increase.  I've heard that it is better than Windows 95 but that it's about
the same as Windows 98 (except 98 doesn't have Multi-Processor threading).
Does anyone here know about NT and 98?  This may not be the best place to
ask but I couldn't really find anywhere else.  Thanks.

--
Lance Birch
Remove the smiley to e-mail.
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/

Post a reply to this message

Actually, I forgot something too.  How does NT use and manage memory above
128 Mb compared to 95 and 98?

Thanks again!

--
Lance Birch
Remove the smiley to e-mail.
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> Hi, I was wondering whether anyone here uses NT 4.0...  I've just bought 3D
> Studio MAX and I was wondering whether there is a huge speed and reliability
> increase.  I've heard that it is better than Windows 95 but that it's about
> the same as Windows 98 (except 98 doesn't have Multi-Processor threading).
> Does anyone here know about NT and 98?  This may not be the best place to
> ask but I couldn't really find anywhere else.  Thanks.
> 
> --
> Lance Birch

Lance,

   I have a friend who's been a 3D studio user for years through all
of its permutations. I seem to recall that he'll only run MAX on 
NT. Either it won't run on 95, or it's very crash-prone on that system.

Post a reply to this message

I have been using NT4.0 ever since it came out.  It runs 32 bit application
about
30% faster than 95, has better memory management ( I have 128 Meg) and
supports
multiple processors.  There is a good article in this month's issue of Byte
magazine,
saying that even '98 is not as good as NT for serious computing.  I run
POV_Ray on it
ever since version 3.0 came out.  Some renderings I tried take up to 100 Meg
of ram
and they run without a glitch.  The only thing is that some games don't run
and it
does not support a lot of no-name brand hardware.

Stephan
remove "not" to e-mail

Lance Birch <:-)Lan### [at] tpgicomau> wrote in message
<6kv7mp$57a$1@oz.aussie.org>...
>Hi, I was wondering whether anyone here uses NT 4.0...  I've just bought 3D
>Studio MAX and I was wondering whether there is a huge speed and
reliability
>increase.  I've heard that it is better than Windows 95 but that it's about
>the same as Windows 98 (except 98 doesn't have Multi-Processor threading).
>Does anyone here know about NT and 98?  This may not be the best place to
>ask but I couldn't really find anywhere else.  Thanks.
>
>--
>Lance Birch
>Remove the smiley to e-mail.
>http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Lance Birch" <:-)Lan### [at] tpgicomau> wrote:

>Hi, I was wondering whether anyone here uses NT 4.0...  I've just bought 3D
>Studio MAX and I was wondering whether there is a huge speed and reliability
>increase.  I've heard that it is better than Windows 95 but that it's about
>the same as Windows 98 (except 98 doesn't have Multi-Processor threading).
>Does anyone here know about NT and 98?  This may not be the best place to
>ask but I couldn't really find anywhere else.  Thanks.

Lance - I have used NT 4 for about six months (P2/266, 128mb RAM) and there's
no way I would even remotely consider going back to Windows 95. With the type
of development and application use that I do, I would often see Win95 crash
several times a day. In the six months I've been running NT, it has crashed
perhaps five times. Occasionally (maybe once every few days) it gets into a
funny state and I'll choose to reboot it, but hard crashes are very unusual.

For applications like POVWIN (which is pure 32-bit code) NT will be faster than
95 since it doesn't have to deal with all the Win16 baggage that 95 does.

Post a reply to this message

I only see two possible reasons to use 95 or 98 over NT:

Either you have hardware that doesn't run in NT or you want to play all the
newest games. In the hardware department, NT is getting better and better
(more compatible drivers developed each day), but it is not very compatible
with many games.

For serious computing, NT goes *way* first!

If you can afford it, install double boot: NT for working with your
computer, W95 for playing :-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

It's nice if you can get it working - IRQ juggling was ... let's just say it
wasn't easy. : )

I can't really compare the speed of 95 and NT, as I've got a coupla
machines; a P2-266 with NT, a 166 with 95, a 120 with 95 and a 486/sx 33
laptop running Windows 3.1. Haven't ever put 95 on the P2-266, nor NT on the
other machines.

All I know is the Pentium II is FAST. :) :)

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.

Never used 98. [shrug]

-aardvarko

Lance Birch <:-)Lan### [at] tpgicomau> wrote in message
<6kv7mp$57a$1@oz.aussie.org>...
>Hi, I was wondering whether anyone here uses NT 4.0...  I've just bought 3D
>Studio MAX and I was wondering whether there is a huge speed and
reliability
>increase.  I've heard that it is better than Windows 95 but that it's about
>the same as Windows 98 (except 98 doesn't have Multi-Processor threading).
>Does anyone here know about NT and 98?  This may not be the best place to
>ask but I couldn't really find anywhere else.  Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert wrote:
> 
> I only see two possible reasons to use 95 or 98 over NT:
> 
> Either you have hardware that doesn't run in NT or you want to play all the
> newest games. In the hardware department, NT is getting better and better
> (more compatible drivers developed each day), but it is not very compatible
> with many games.
> 
> For serious computing, NT goes *way* first!
> 
> If you can afford it, install double boot: NT for working with your
> computer, W95 for playing :-)
> 
> Johannes.
How about the fact that it costs ~200 dollars, OEM.

Post a reply to this message

In article <6l1vlg$8oe$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_ ;)

/Michael

Post a reply to this message

In article <357370fc.8075051@news.povray.org>,
	new### [at] DESPAMpovrayorg (povray.org admin team) writes:

>I would often see Win95 crash
>several times a day. In the six months I've been running NT, it has crashed
>perhaps five times. Occasionally (maybe once every few days) it gets into a
>funny state and I'll choose to reboot it, but hard crashes are very unusual.

You need to reboot Windows machines!? And they crash?!?!

/Michael, Unix-user, admirerer of long up-times ;)

Post a reply to this message