POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.msdos : Re: Question Server Time
19 Mar 2024 01:34:21 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Question (Message 1 to 10 of 33)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Andrew Cocker
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 17 Apr 1999 21:30:18
Message: <3719279a.0@news.povray.org>
Anthony Bennett <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:3718FF7F.2B31014B@panama.phoenix.net...

> Is this group really necessary?


Yes. I think that when a new version of pov is released, the msdos version is put out
first (before the windows version anyhow), so this group will be needed for feedback
in
place of the Compuserve forum. I could be wrong.

--
----------------------
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--The Home Of Lunaland--
--visit my POV-Ray gallery--
--listen to my music--
www.acocker.freeserve.co.uk


Post a reply to this message

From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 19 Apr 1999 19:56:49
Message: <371BB489.756DDB68@aol.com>
May be and may not be.
I thought the DOS version was being phased out in future versions since
DOS is, after all, MS-made and MS isn't going to be using DOS per se
anymore in future version of OSs. I would think this more the hold out
of DOS users with that version POV-Ray to get specific minus the Win,
Mac, etc. platform talk and focus on DOS related stuff.
Right? Or wrong....?


Andrew Cocker wrote:
> 
> Anthony Bennett <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
> news:3718FF7F.2B31014B@panama.phoenix.net...
> 
> > Is this group really necessary?
> 
> Yes. I think that when a new version of pov is released, the msdos version is put
out
> first (before the windows version anyhow), so this group will be needed for feedback
in
> place of the Compuserve forum. I could be wrong.
> 
> --
> ----------------------
> Andy
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> --The Home Of Lunaland--
> --visit my POV-Ray gallery--
> --listen to my music--
> www.acocker.freeserve.co.uk

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News


Post a reply to this message

From: Nieminen Mika
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 21 Apr 1999 10:28:58
Message: <371dd29a.0@news.povray.org>
Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: I thought the DOS version was being phased out in future versions since
: DOS is, after all, MS-made and MS isn't going to be using DOS per se
: anymore in future version of OSs.

  Not true.
  Microsoft has to support dos programs because most of people use them
(games etc). Sometimes those programs just don't work under windows.
  You also must be able to boot from a floppy disk. Suppose that your
computer gets infected by a virus. You have to boot from a clean floppy
and run a virus scanner from that floppy disk. You can't make a clean
boot to windows from a floppy disk. If you boot to windows, the virus will
also load itself to memory. If it has some sort of stealth capabilities or
something like that, there you are.
  That's why f-prot is still a dos-program.

  Have you ever tested the speed of msdos pov (from raw dos) and winpov?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/


Post a reply to this message

From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 21 Apr 1999 19:49:45
Message: <371E55D8.4D5932C8@aol.com>
Guess I'm becoming a victim of hype.
Yes, I even used PovPro (speed enhanced dos version of P-R) some, and I
need to use it more really for 3.0 compatible scenes. I have the DOS POV
here and seldom ever get to it anymore with all the editing being done
in CodeMax these days. I used to jump over into DOS for final renders
and haven't done that in a long time.
Any idea if the 3.1e DOS POV is better than ever render speed wise? I
only have 3.02.


Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   Have you ever tested the speed of msdos pov (from raw dos) and winpov?
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News


Post a reply to this message

From: Nieminen Mika
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 22 Apr 1999 09:03:28
Message: <371f1010.0@news.povray.org>
Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: Any idea if the 3.1e DOS POV is better than ever render speed wise? I
: only have 3.02.

  If you are asking if 3.1e is faster than 3.02, then the answer is: yes.
Specially lathes and sor objects are a lot faster.
  If you are asking if 3.1e for DOS is faster than 3.1e for Windows, then
the answer is: I'm not sure.
  I'm right now testing the DOS and Windows versions for speed comparison.
The testing is not finished yet, but I will post the results here soon.
Right now I can say that at least the official compile of 3.1e for DOS
is _not_ always faster than the MSVC compile of the Windows version
(this result surprised me a little). I will also test with a custom
compile made with djgpp with pentium pro optimizations turned on.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/


Post a reply to this message

From: Margus Ramst
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 22 Apr 1999 17:08:34
Message: <371f81c2.0@news.povray.org>
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <371dd29a.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>  Not true.
>  Microsoft has to support dos programs because most of people use them
>(games etc). Sometimes those programs just don't work under windows.
>  You also must be able to boot from a floppy disk. Suppose that your
>computer gets infected by a virus. You have to boot from a clean floppy
>and run a virus scanner from that floppy disk. You can't make a clean
>boot to windows from a floppy disk. If you boot to windows, the virus will
>also load itself to memory. If it has some sort of stealth capabilities or
>something like that, there you are.
>  That's why f-prot is still a dos-program.
>

Well, if Win2000 has a file system similar to NT, MS-DOS simply can't read
the partition, right? Even Win98 is a horrible pain when running classic DOS
apps.


>  Have you ever tested the speed of msdos pov (from raw dos) and winpov?
>


Yes. And given enough memory, POVWin is only slightly slower, if at all.

Margus


Post a reply to this message

From: Ron Parker
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 22 Apr 1999 17:41:50
Message: <371f898e.0@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:06:45 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>Well, if Win2000 has a file system similar to NT, MS-DOS simply can't read
>the partition, right? Even Win98 is a horrible pain when running classic DOS
>apps.

Well, since Win2000 *is* NT, of course it's similar.  In fact, it's NTFS 5,
which is not compatible with NTFS 4, so even NT4 SP3 has trouble with it.
There are drivers available that can read (but not write) NTFS partitions 
from DOS, however (they ignore security, too!)


Post a reply to this message

From: Margus Ramst
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 22 Apr 1999 20:23:03
Message: <371faf57.0@news.povray.org>
Ron Parker wrote in message <371f898e.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Well, since Win2000 *is* NT, of course it's similar.  In fact, it's NTFS 5,
>which is not compatible with NTFS 4, so even NT4 SP3 has trouble with it.

And people dream about backward-compatibility with DOS?! <grim laugh>

>There are drivers available that can read (but not write) NTFS partitions
>from DOS, however (they ignore security, too!)

Well, if it can't write, it's not much use, is it? Except, of course, for
blatantly bypassing security (dare I assume these drivers are not endorsed
by MS)?

Anyway, only the need for a large partition drove me to Win98. Any
additional benefits are over 95 negligible. I'm not quite sure what would
prompt me to get Win2000 before software compatibility becomes a problem. So
I could probably use POVDOS for yet a few years. Unless I decide to get
Linux. And I probably will.

Margus


Post a reply to this message

From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 23 Apr 1999 01:10:01
Message: <371FF265.AAC3DD60@aol.com>
Yep, thankyou sir for that and the upcoming statistics.
I had heard the Windows version was catching up with the DOS in 3.1d or
e. What would be great is if someone did another souped up or stripped
down custom compile again based on 3.1. That PovPro one was lightning
fast by comparison to the official 3.0*, got typically 25 to 40% faster
renders.


Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
> Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> : Any idea if the 3.1e DOS POV is better than ever render speed wise? I
> : only have 3.02.
> 
>   If you are asking if 3.1e is faster than 3.02, then the answer is: yes.
> Specially lathes and sor objects are a lot faster.
>   If you are asking if 3.1e for DOS is faster than 3.1e for Windows, then
> the answer is: I'm not sure.
>   I'm right now testing the DOS and Windows versions for speed comparison.
> The testing is not finished yet, but I will post the results here soon.
> Right now I can say that at least the official compile of 3.1e for DOS
> is _not_ always faster than the MSVC compile of the Windows version
> (this result surprised me a little). I will also test with a custom
> compile made with djgpp with pentium pro optimizations turned on.
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News


Post a reply to this message

From: Ron Parker
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 23 Apr 1999 10:49:09
Message: <37207a55.0@news.povray.org>
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:21:18 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>>There are drivers available that can read (but not write) NTFS partitions
>>from DOS, however (they ignore security, too!)
>
>Well, if it can't write, it's not much use, is it? Except, of course, for
>blatantly bypassing security (dare I assume these drivers are not endorsed
>by MS)?

There is a limited-write version available from the same people for a fee
that allows you to do simple things like rename or delete files.  If you've
ever had an NT machine decide to fall over at boot time, you know how useful 
something like that could be.  The last time I had something like that happen, 
I had to transplant the drive from the dead machine into a live NT machine to 
fix the problem.  It would have been nice to be able to boot a DOS floppy with
NTFS drivers on it.

But you assume correctly, the drivers are based on reverse-engineering of the
undocumented NTFS format and are not endorsed by MS.


Post a reply to this message

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.