In article <E0HHO0EhuTOWNmP4VLZsjPZ6O9dk@4ax.com> , Glen Berry 
<7no### [at] ezwvcom>  wrote:

>>  It's funny that you first hear lots of stories about unstability, but when
>>you try yourself, you don't see any.
>
> Well, I DID try it myself, and I suffered from system instability.

I think then you really have problems with your system in general.  Maybe to
much overclocking? ;-)

Seriously, I have yet to see a system that was more unstable using IE 4 than
using IE 3 assuming it was stable in the first place. IE 5/6 are a bit
different, but surely not IE 4.  You can be sure I am the last person in
favor of M$, but IE 4 is a serious improvement over IE 3 on PC in every
possible way.  I have been using a Win 95 system running in a full emulator
(Virtual PC) on Macs for over three years now on average for a few hours a
week, and IE 4 has not introduced any problems or crashes ever since I
installed it.  And my mother's PC (a crazy collection of old parts) ran Win
95 until a year ago, also using IE 4 ever since it was available without a
problem.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:58:28 +0200, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:


>* Don' use POV-Ray 3.5.
>
>Nobody is forcing you to use the current beta.  Use POV-Ray 3.1g if you like
>it more.
>
>
>* Don't use POV-Ray
>
>Again, nobody is forcing you to use POV-Ray.  If you want a different help
>system, you may try a different program.  I don't know, but maybe 3D Studio
>Max, Cinema 4D or Maya have a help in a format you like more.  As you seem
>to dislike HTML help so much is probably won't be a problem for you to pay
>for what makes you happy ;-)

I knew that some variation of these two comments was coming. Whenever
someone doesn't like a certain aspect of POV, these comments always
surface. I've always considered them to be petty, and in poor taste.

I *WANT* to use POV-Ray for Windows version 3.5 (or higher).

I *DON'T* want to use IE4 (or higher).

These two desires shouldn't be mutually exclusive. 

As for waiting for the end of the beta period, in order to get help
files in another format, I've been led to believe that this will only
be "generic" POV-Ray help, and not cover most of the Windows-specific
issues of the Windows version of POV-Ray. This includes such things as
documentation for the POV Editor, but probably a few more things as
well. For example, I wonder if I/O restrictions are covered? I don't
see them in the TOC of the web-based documentation.

As for switching OS, that won't fix the problem with POV-Ray for
Windows, which happens to be one of the friendliest and most popular
POV-Ray versions. This version deserves to be implemented in a manner
that doesn't rely on a bloated, buggy, security hazard, like IE4.

Later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:55:13 +0200, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>I think then you really have problems with your system in general.  Maybe to
>much overclocking? ;-)

I don't overclock.

>Seriously, I have yet to see a system that was more unstable using IE 4 than
>using IE 3 assuming it was stable in the first place. IE 5/6 are a bit
>different, but surely not IE 4. 

I just checked something, and I have a retraction and a clarification
to make:

The version of IE that I installed was actually IE5, and not IE4. It
was IE5 that made my system lock up, and not IE4. 

However, I'm still against requiring any Microsoft browser "upgrades"
just to run POV-Ray for Windows properly.

Later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

In article <LUzHO=AQFHIGR5JkuStP5dP1tNlO@4ax.com> , Glen Berry 
<7no### [at] ezwvcom>  wrote:

> The version of IE that I installed was actually IE5, and not IE4. It
> was IE5 that made my system lock up, and not IE4.

Sounds more like it.  I am not sure M$ still has IE 4 for download, but if
you can find it somewhere, it does a really better job than IE 3.


    Thorsten


BTW, as far as I know the HTML help can be used with IE 3, just not
everything might work.

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> BTW, as far as I know the HTML help can be used with IE 3, just not
> everything might work.
> 

It works without error messages, but the text is not really usable (just
enough to look if something is there, not to read it).

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
: What's worse, the POV-Team has seen to it that I can't run the latest
: version of POV-Ray without also installing a certain buggy, high
: security risk, grossly bloated, 64 Meg (when still compressed),
: "web-browser"  package. 

  The latest version of POV-Ray is 3.1g.
  Don't forget that 3.5 hasn't been published. The fact that you have been
invited to beta-test the current development version doesn't diminish this
fact.

  What makes you think that HTML help format will be the only format available
when POV-Ray 3.5 comes out?

  I myself hate microsoft and the quality of most of its software. Still I
prefer the MS HTML help format when using POV-Ray in Windows.

-- 
#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

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
: I knew that some variation of these two comments was coming. Whenever
: someone doesn't like a certain aspect of POV, these comments always
: surface. I've always considered them to be petty, and in poor taste.

  Perhaps, but it's still true.

-- 
#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 12 Oct 2001 16:47:17 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>  Don't forget that 3.5 hasn't been published. The fact that you have been
>invited to beta-test the current development version doesn't diminish this
>fact.

How can I argue with logic like that?  :)

Post a reply to this message

In article <FxjHO3LiiUznSx=cB1yQjal21Fty@4ax.com> , Glen Berry 
<7no### [at] ezwvcom>  wrote:

> Chris had no other choice? Microsoft made it that way?
>
> That's nonesense!

Actually, what I don't get is why users constantly have to second guess
POV-team decisions.  From what I read frequently I get the impression most
people think we are idiots who don't know how to solve a particular problem.
Why can't the assumption be that if we make a change we did do so
considering all options, including our time and resources*?

    Thorsten

* And certain tools are very expensive, I remember either Chris Young or
Chris Cason wasted a lot of money and time buying tools that didn't do what
they were supposed to do to solve problems generating a decent documentation
during the 3.1 alpha/beta development.


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

The following is my personal opinion on the general issue of 
non-constructive complaints or opinions.  In no way is it meant to be
offense towards you or any other person who has expressed similar opinions
in the past.  I just feel I have to say it when looking at many similar
messages in this group or received by email...

-----

If we just say that something doesn't work we get comments like "nonsense"
or "explain it"; every time questioning our decisions.  If we try to explain
detailed technical problems in advance we in turn get other people who
second guess our problems and again start _discussing_ the problems and
telling us what we _should_ do and jumping to conclusions without actually
having tried, knowing about or even understanding the problem.

On the one hand very, very few of the people complaining actually go and fix
a problem themselves.  There are many limits in 3.1 that are low priority
for the team, i.e. the 256 entry limit in maps, but we would surely have
added a change if it had been written - the no-source-code-for-3.5 excuse
doesn't cut it in many, many cases.

On the other hand we got a fairly big pile of junk when looking into
individual patches we considered for 3.5 because the patch authors didn't
finish or cleanup their code.  Everybody who has been seriously programming
for some time knows that writing a program that works most of the time is
10% of the work while fixing all the bugs is 90% of the work.  This is what
the POV-Team did for three years now.

If you give us your opinion of our work the way you did, please don't be
surprised if we give you our opinion on your opinion in return.  We always
try to give reasonable explanations and argue as far as it makes sense, but
IMO there is a time when the only response possible seems to be: "Fix it
yourself or shut up!" (this is a quote, I am *not* saying it to you!).  Now,
this would surely be unfriendly and we won't do this as discussion is
something we do want, but we do *not* want constant questioning of our
decisions or abilities.

If you look closely, we get lots of bug reports that are incomplete on three
lines and then all what follows are guesses and wild ideas about the inner
working of POV-Ray on another 25 lines where the person reporting the
problem is trying to do our task of debugging POV-Ray.  This costs valuable
time on both sides.  Us reading what we don't need to know (because 99% of
the time it is wrong and the other 1% we could have found out in 10 seconds
looking at the source code) and the person writing the additional 25 lines
nobody needs.

Yes, a good bug report needs lots of detail, but *only* details *relevant*
to the problem.  These are the steps to reproduce the problem (including
configuration, command-line settings, buttons pressed, etc, etc), the
expected results (what did happen), the actual results (what the user thinks
should have happened) and a workaround (if any - this assumes the user did
take more than five seconds trying different things which help us find the
problem faster).

If you point out a problem with POV-Ray we *do* want to hear about it!  What
we don't want is to hear that we could fix it but don't want to for some
reason because that is simply not true!!!  Or that there is a problem and
arguing over the existence of a problem based on some assumptions about the
inner workings of something the person can't even have seen (because the
source code is not public yet).

Apart from this arguing, if one of our responses is short it sometimes seems
to be taken as disinterest.  Not so!!!  Keep in mind we have been looking at
POV-Ray source code for the past three years, and those who have been
working on a long term project before can surely understand how everyone
will eventually react to something reoccurring after three years.  Even more
so if writing the response in the spare time which is usually late in the
evening or night after a long and busy day.

Our interest is to make POV-Ray as good as possible taking into account that
we don't have a 200 programmer, 100 tech writer and 500 marketing people
company to develop POV-Ray.  We have our spare time and fun to drive us and
POV-Ray forward!

All core POV-Team developers have university degrees in Computer Science or
equivalent qualifications in related fields.  At least Chris Cason and Ron
Parker have considerable decade-long experience developing for Windows and
other systems because they do so for a living.  Nathan Kopp has been working
in the field for nearly two years now.  I am getting a post-Bachelor
university education.  We are not idiots who do not know what to do, we do
*not* need someone else to tell us what is nonsense and what is not!

We may occasionally appear to be less friendly or elaborate when responding
than we should be, so don't take each and every word we say and analyze if
for flaws in our reasoning.  We all do make mistakes, introduce bugs or are
unclear in responses or documentation we write.  All this is human, I think.

-----

This is my opinion, and only my opinion.

Please note that I will (try to) ignore any further discussion responding to
this.

    Thorsten Froehlich

Post a reply to this message