 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've updated Tweener to include focal blur
controls and a startup option so that up to 3500
objects can be animated at once (by adjusting your
maximum keyframes).
Tweener is, as ever, found below, and works with
Moray v2.02/v2.5b (the DOS versions) and Polyray.
--
Yeah, but ask yourself... why are you really
interested?
http://www.teleport.com/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote:
>
> I've updated Tweener to include focal blur
> controls and a startup option so that up to 3500
> objects can be animated at once (by adjusting your
> maximum keyframes).
>
> Tweener is, as ever, found below, and works with
> Moray v2.02/v2.5b (the DOS versions) and Polyray.
> --
> Yeah, but ask yourself... why are you really
> interested?
> http://www.teleport.com/~dearmad
Well, I for one am glad someone else still uses DOS. I still us the dos
versions of POVRAY and Moray simply because I don't want to have to put
up with Megacrashes junkware. I am in the process of migrating to Linux,
and now have a Linux box, but still have a ways to go before I am ready
to complete the transision. So, until then I will continue to use DOS
and DOS programs, and in fact intend to keep my old DOS 486 around for
some time to come.
Ken Matassa
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I for one am glad someone else still uses DOS. I still us the dos
> versions of POVRAY and Moray simply because I don't want to have to put
> up with Megacrashes junkware. I am in the process of migrating to Linux,
> and now have a Linux box, but still have a ways to go before I am ready
> to complete the transision. So, until then I will continue to use DOS
> and DOS programs, and in fact intend to keep my old DOS 486 around for
> some time to come.
Just to let you know, I have been running win 2k for some months now, and in
that time I have had no fatal crashes, a couple of apps have gone belly up
from time to time but that has to be expected. machine is running 24/7 month
in month out, and only ever gets rebooted when something I install requests
it.
when you move to Linux, look at vmware (if you have the pc for it), and run
a win 98 box on a virtual machine so you can use the windows version of
moray, which is well worth it (I started using it back in the dos days so I
know!)
spatch, moray (and now rhino) are my main reasons for sticking with windows
as my OS
as to making the move - just jump!, and figure the rest out when you land
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glad to here you're not having too much trouble with win2k. I understand
that it is a lot more stable than previouse win encarnations. I have
alot of other issuse with MS that contribute to my desire not to use
thier products.
I have been using Linux for about a year and a half noe at work, So have
enough expereance to be at ease with it. I have my Linux box up and
running with Caldera 2.4 and have had no problems. I just need to get
email properly configured, I will retire my DOS box to side use. My
Linux box has swapable hard drives so I can use different OS's without
haveing to duel boot. I will eventualy get a drive for Win 98 so I can
use such thing as Poser.
Ken Matassa
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken Matassa" <kma### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:3AC### [at] pacbellnet...
> Glad to here you're not having too much trouble with win2k. I understand
> that it is a lot more stable than previouse win encarnations. I have
> alot of other issuse with MS that contribute to my desire not to use
> thier products.
Win95 sucks, Win98 doesn't suck as bad, WinME is terrible, WinNT is nice,
Win2K is awesome.
I don't know about WinXP, but it's looking pretty promising (minus the
backwards compatibility).
I love Win2K...I don't even use Windoze 98 anymore (in fact, I might just
convert it to FAT16 and make it a DOS 6.22 partition...or perhaps Linux?)
> I have been using Linux for about a year and a half noe at work, So have
> enough expereance to be at ease with it. I have my Linux box up and
> running with Caldera 2.4 and have had no problems. I just need to get
> email properly configured, I will retire my DOS box to side use. My
> Linux box has swapable hard drives so I can use different OS's without
> haveing to duel boot. I will eventualy get a drive for Win 98 so I can
> use such thing as Poser.
Don't use Win98, for your sake. Unless you have simplistic hardware, it
WILL crash. Get Win2K if at all possible...it'll save you a LOT of trouble!
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: I don't know about WinXP, but it's looking pretty promising (minus the
: backwards compatibility).
And minus USB support? At least I have heard something that it will not
support USB at all. So if you have any USB device, say bye bye to it.
: Get Win2K if at all possible...it'll save you a LOT of trouble!
But it will certainly not save you memory and other resources.
For some reason Microsoft thinks that "stability" implies taking hundreds
of megabytes of memory.
You can run a basic internet server with a 386 with 2 Megs of RAM if you
use Linux. I suppose that Win2k would refuse to even install on it.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3b249706@news.povray.org...
> Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> : I don't know about WinXP, but it's looking pretty promising (minus the
> : backwards compatibility).
>
> And minus USB support? At least I have heard something that it will not
> support USB at all. So if you have any USB device, say bye bye to it.
What? That'd be totally stupid!
The source is probably wrong...Microsoft isn't so stupid that they'd cut out
support for some of their own products! (for instance, I have a USB
Microsoft mouse on my desk right now)
> : Get Win2K if at all possible...it'll save you a LOT of trouble!
>
> But it will certainly not save you memory and other resources.
> For some reason Microsoft thinks that "stability" implies taking
hundreds
> of megabytes of memory.
> You can run a basic internet server with a 386 with 2 Megs of RAM if you
> use Linux. I suppose that Win2k would refuse to even install on it.
Windows 2000 runs with 128MB, which is almost like a standard. My friend
had it running nicely on 64MB. It's hard to find a system that comes with
less than 128MB, because applications need the space!
And I would _not_ trust a company server to a 386 with 2MB of RAM. Maybe a
486 ;-)
Hint: Never install Windows 95 on less than a 486 DX2 66MHz, and never
install Windows 98 on less than a 486 DX4 100MHz...you'll never forgive
yourself ;-)
That's what's nice about Linux. I have a 486 SX 25 MHz system with 8MB of
RAM running downstairs with Red Hat Linux 6.0 (yes, I know it's outdated...)
and DOS 6.22 (with Windows 3.1) and it works great! I can't say the same
for Windows 95 (don't even try it!)
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hay! - we should change the subject as there is at least 3 of us - our own
private group perhaps?
> Windows 2000 runs with 128MB, which is almost like a standard. My friend
> had it running nicely on 64MB. It's hard to find a system that comes with
> less than 128MB, because applications need the space!
I have it running with 256 here, it really makes a big difference and i
would not concider using less.
> And I would _not_ trust a company server to a 386 with 2MB of RAM. Maybe
a
> 486 ;-)
I would - those old 386 boxes will plug along (slowly) for years - and they
make great linux firewalls
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: Windows 2000 runs with 128MB, which is almost like a standard.
If win2k needs 128 Megs to run, then what's left to applications?
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If win2k needs 128 Megs to run, then what's left to applications?
it needs 64, it like more
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
: it needs 64, it like more
Hmm... Somehow I don't like the idea of spending 64 Megs of my expensive
memory for the OS alone. I could use that memory for more useful things.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On topic to the original thread :o) my stinking site
has changed to the one below... Tweener is still
there, of course.
Back to the windows discussion... ;o) (in a DOS group)
--
CG images, *obscure* home-brewed graphics utils
and animation http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
After reviewing all the above recent posts, they only serve to bolster
my decision to more over to light side of the force, i.e. Linux. I will
sitll keep my old workhorse 486 running
DOS 6.22 and (sometimes, Win 3.1). Ant to those who may ask, yes I have
worked with Win2000, and, yes, it is the best of the lot, but that
dosn't do anything to ease my dis-ease with Microsoft.
Ken Matassa
--
+-----------------------------------------+
| If I can't see it, it can't get me! |
+-----------------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hmm... Somehow I don't like the idea of spending 64 Megs of my expensive
> memory for the OS alone. I could use that memory for more useful things.
memory isn't that expensive, its halved in price since I last bought some -
it now only £99UK for 256mb
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3b25da3c@news.povray.org...
> Hay! - we should change the subject as there is at least 3 of us - our own
> private group perhaps?
LOL :-)
> > Windows 2000 runs with 128MB, which is almost like a standard. My
friend
> > had it running nicely on 64MB. It's hard to find a system that comes
with
> > less than 128MB, because applications need the space!
>
> I have it running with 256 here, it really makes a big difference and i
> would not concider using less.
Yeah, I have 256MB now, too. I'm just saying that it runs real nice with
128.
> > And I would _not_ trust a company server to a 386 with 2MB of RAM.
Maybe
> a
> > 486 ;-)
>
> I would - those old 386 boxes will plug along (slowly) for years - and
they
> make great linux firewalls
Slowly is right :-)
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3b26152e@news.povray.org...
> Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> : it needs 64, it like more
>
> Hmm... Somehow I don't like the idea of spending 64 Megs of my expensive
> memory for the OS alone. I could use that memory for more useful things.
Expensive?? Memory's not that bad!
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:04:52 +0100, "Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com>
wrote:
>> Hmm... Somehow I don't like the idea of spending 64 Megs of my expensive
>> memory for the OS alone. I could use that memory for more useful things.
>
>memory isn't that expensive, its halved in price since I last bought some -
>it now only £99UK for 256mb
Where I live, some people have to vegetate for three months with this
much money. My significant other, for example.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
paid professional vegetators?? Where DO you live???
Peter Popov wrote:
<snip>
>
> Where I live, some people have to vegetate for three months with this
> much money. My significant other, for example.
>
> Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
> Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
> TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:06:45 -0700, Dearmad <dea### [at] qwestnet> wrote:
>paid professional vegetators?? Where DO you live???
Bulgaria.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
