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

In article <3718FF7F.2B31014B@panama.phoenix.net>, Anthony Bennett
<ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:
>Is this group really necessary?

Though I run Win95 on my machine I've never downloaded the Windows version of 
POV. The download time isn't worth the multi-tasking I don't do anyway (with 
POV anyway). I run POVDOS in a DOSBox on Win95 with as much CPU time and 
memory alotted to it as possible, only allowing me to ALT-TAB out to use the 
calculator or Spatch.

I don't run a Pentium and I don't have 16MB of RAM (let alone 32 or 64 that 
most Win users have available to Windoze). POVDOS runs great, the only limit I 
really run into is the Max_Trace_Level which under the DOS version only allows 
for about 32 levels of trace... but I've not really needed more than that yet 
(anything more would keep my little AMD busy for days).

Eventually I'll get the latest Bill Gates machine running that Win98 thing 
(yuck) and this computer will get some minor upgrades allowing me to run Linux 
comfortably. At that point I should be running both the Win version as well as 
the Linux version, I also plan to network the two computers together so I can 
share files. Stuff that's just too slow for the AMD I'll do on the new 
machine.

DOS isn't dead, there are 3 or 4 DOSes still around (even if MS won't sell it 
anymore), people all over the world still use it. Internet access is mainly 
what pushed me over to using Win95 full time, but even then I used a DOS 
program for 1/2 of my access (Arachne) because I only had 4MB of ram for a 
while.

Sorry any spelling mistakes, my newsgroup reader doesn't have spell check.

PHIL

---------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Duh, yes. If you really want things done fast, Windows shares resources with
other programs, which slows down your trace. Read the Windows documentation.
Also, a DOS version can run on other platforms which aren't supported, but
run DOS programs, like IBM's OS/2.
Anthony Bennett wrote in message <3718FF7F.2B31014B@panama.phoenix.net>...
>Is this group really necessary?
>

Post a reply to this message

Uh, last I checked Windows Nt can run DOS proggies in NTFS. It's the
operating system, not the file system. Accessing HPFS partitions from DOS,
you're on the money there.


Margus Ramst wrote in 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

James Cannon <jam### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:38883210@news.povray.org...
> Windows shares resources with other programs, which slows down your trace

If so, answer me the following questions:

1. In Windows, how come DOS Quake gives me a 5 FPS framsboost over true DOS
(6.22)?
2. How some people report WinPOV faster then DOSPOV?
3. How can you prefer DOS over Linux? ;)

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)

Post a reply to this message

Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: 1. In Windows, how come DOS Quake gives me a 5 FPS framsboost over true DOS
: (6.22)?

  Actually dos-programs have to share time with 16-bit code such as the
timer interrupt. Switching between 32-bit protected mode and 16-bit real mode
18 times per second can slow things down noticeably.
  Under windows this changing is not necessary since the timer interrupt is
handled by windows in 32-bit protected mode (or at least I suppose so).

: 2. How some people report WinPOV faster then DOSPOV?

  Because MSVC++ can optimize code better than watcom for DOS.

-- 
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

On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:16:30 -0500, Ian Burgmyer wrote:
>3. How can you prefer DOS over Linux? ;)

DOS is just better for some things.  Go see the answers to last week's 
Slashdot interview with the leader of the FreeDOS project for some
examples.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: DOS is just better for some things.

  What things? I can't think of any.
  (Ok, there might be some DOS-programs which are not available for Linux
right now, but that doesn't make DOS better than linux.)

  Disclaimer: I use the dos-box (well, actually the 4dos-box) a lot when
I use windows. Some things are a lot easier to do in the command line than
with windows explorer.

-- 
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