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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 'consumer grade' version of Win2000 will be based on the win98 code.  I was
hoping that OS would finally die and when I heard this I was really disappointed.

I'm sure they are doing this so they can throw new features into it without
making them work first.

-Mike

Ron Parker wrote:

> 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

Mike wrote:

> The 'consumer grade' version of Win2000 will be based on the win98 code.  I was
> hoping that OS would finally die and when I heard this I was really disappointed.
>
> I'm sure they are doing this so they can throw new features into it without
> making them work first.

From what I can gather, they are really doing this because they mucked up DOS and
Windows so badly, they just can't get older programs working in the NT model, and
they can't convince everyone to throw out all the dos/Win95 software that they
already own.

Post a reply to this message

Get Linux!  It works!  I know!  I have it!  I'm shouting!  Why am I
shouting?!  I'm hyper!  Too much cappuccino!

Okay, enough of that :)

Anyways, I have a rather painful feeling that Linux will be able to support
DOS (with dosemu, of course DOS will have to be on another partition) longer
then Windows. . .sad, considering Microsoft made both DOS and Windows.  Too
bad. . .

-Ian

Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote in message
news: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