On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:47:31 +0300, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:58:33 -0400, Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom>
>wrote:
>
>>That sounds like "generic" POV-Ray help, with little or no
>>windows-specific information. It would be nice if all the
>>Windows-specific features were covered in a format other than
>>Microsoft's html-help system. Perhaps that's expecting too much?
>
>Well, Microsoft made it that way. They dropped support for their old
>.hlp format ages ago, and their HTML help format requires IE4.0 and
>everything that comes with its installation. Chris Cason really had no
>other choice.

Chris had no other choice? Microsoft made it that way? 

That's nonesense!

While Microsoft may be trying to migrate the windows help format to
HTML-help, that doesn't mean that there are no alternatives. Even with
HTML-help installed, the older style help files are still readable.
Chris could have stayed with the older help format, like many, if not
most commercial developers seem to be doing.

I've installed some big-name, recent, commercial programs that didn't
rely on the HTML help format. Apparently Microsoft didn't make those
developers use HTML help, and leave them with "no choice." If
companies like Borland, Lotus, and Symantec can get along without
HTML-help, then so could we.

Have you looked at an install disc for IE4? There are over 64 Megs of
*compressed* files on the disc! As we all know, much of this is
actually changes to the operating system, instead of being merely a
web browser installation. I aboslutely do NOT want to have to install
a 64 Meg operating system overhaul, and then actually install the
HTML-help system as an additional component, just to view ONE help
file for just ONE program on my system! Especially when the
installation of all this garbage makes my system unstable and prone to
frequent crashes!

For what it's worth, I would prefer help files written in plain HTML,
over the Microsoft "enhanced" html-help system. An Adobe Acrobat
document would also be better than Microsoft's html-help. In fact, a
word processor document would have been better. At least I don't
actually have to install Word for Windows, in order to open one of its
documents. Last but not least, I would rather have one, large, plain,
ascii, tezt file - instead of html help. 

You can't honestly say that Chris has no choice in this matter. He has
several choices. It's the end users of POV-Ray for Windows version
3.5, that will have no choice. They will have no choice, but to find a
way to live with Chris' choice of Microsoft's html-help.


Later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> Chris had no other choice? Microsoft made it that way?
> 
> That's nonesense!
> 
> [...]
> 
> Have you looked at an install disc for IE4? There are over 64 Megs of
> *compressed* files on the disc! 

I understand that, in fact i was probably the most strict advocate of this
opinion during pre-beta, but i also understand why HTML help is chosen for
the standard WinPov docs.  All the other suggestions you made do not have
the possibility of context sensitive help and most of them do not provide
an index.   

> You can't honestly say that Chris has no choice in this matter. He has
> several choices. It's the end users of POV-Ray for Windows version
> 3.5, that will have no choice. They will have no choice, but to find a
> way to live with Chris' choice of Microsoft's html-help.

That's not true, there will most surely be other formats once the final
version is released.  I understand that the situation is not nice now
during beta since you can't correctly view the docs without a newer IE. 
I'm not able to install IE4+ on my old machine at all since my Windows
partition currently is too small so i know what this means.  

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:
: Especially when the
: installation of all this garbage makes my system unstable and prone to
: frequent crashes!

  It's funny that you first hear lots of stories about unstability, but when
you try yourself, you don't see any.
  Why everyone else seems to have an unstable IE but I don't?

: For what it's worth, I would prefer help files written in plain HTML,
: over the Microsoft "enhanced" html-help system.

  Why? They take more space and are more difficult to navigate. Of course
a HTML version is good as an alternative, but not as the only solution.

: An Adobe Acrobat
: document would also be better than Microsoft's html-help.

  How so? PDF is more difficult to navigate and you have a lot less options
to configure how it looks. And does it support URLs?

: In fact, a word processor document would have been better.

  This is even worse than a PDF. You just *can't* navigate a document.

: Last but not least, I would rather have one, large, plain,
: ascii, tezt file - instead of html help. 

  *puke*

-- 
#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

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

> If
> companies like Borland, Lotus, and Symantec can get along without
> HTML-help, then so could we.

Sure, that is why for their products you (or others) pay to use their
products.  These companies have a _commercial_ interest and a few hundred
well-paid developers to fix and workaround each and every problem they have
with the old help system!

How much do you pay for POV-Ray?  How many developers does the POV-Team pay
to develop POV-Ray?

There are many solutions for you:


* Wait for the final version of POV-Ray 3.5.

As has been stated clearly before, only during the development of POV-Ray we
will NOT provide alternative formats as those take time to generate that we
rather spend on fixing bugs.


* Use another operating system.

For the current beta you can only use Mac OS, but sooner or later a Linux
version will be available.  Both obviously won't have Microsoft HTML Help.


* 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 ;-)


    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 12:54:58 -0400, Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom>
wrote:

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

That nonsense has been agreed upon in private discussions between the
Team, TAG and IIRC the pre-beta testers before even the beta was out
(maybe even at the alpha stage). There are no up-to-date development
tools or converters for the old help format, and there are a lot of
bugs in it, and the last patch was released years ago (1996 I think).
Of course one can't please everyone, and that counts for software
developers even more, but the people involved in POV-Ray development
are trying to please as many as possible. Would you rather make
*everyone*, including the Team, cope with MicroSoft's archaic & buggy
software, than hold your horses for just a while?

As of generic HTML, can you point two browsers that render a page the
same way? Me, I can't... and I used to pass for a web designer.

One thing is sure, when 3.5 is out of beta, the docs will be available
in other formats. So, once again, please hold your horses.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Oct 2001 13:45:08 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 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.

>: For what it's worth, I would prefer help files written in plain HTML,
>: over the Microsoft "enhanced" html-help system.
>
>  Why? They take more space and are more difficult to navigate. Of course
>a HTML version is good as an alternative, but not as the only solution.

Why? Because I can actually access those files on my system, without
adding a huge amount of buggy Microsoft software, that makes my system
unstable. Of course, plain html is more bulky and the navigation is a
bit more awkward, but it *DOES* work on my system.


>: An Adobe Acrobat
>: document would also be better than Microsoft's html-help.
>
>  How so? PDF is more difficult to navigate and you have a lot less options
>to configure how it looks. And does it support URLs?

Once again, I would pick this format over html-help, because it at
least runs smoothly on my system, doesn't require a 64 Meg OS and
browser upgrade, and it doesn't cause any instability on my system. I
think it does support URL's, but I'm not really sure about that.

>: In fact, a word processor document would have been better.
>
>  This is even worse than a PDF. You just *can't* navigate a document.

True, it is worse than PDF in some ways, but it is still better than a
format that my system can't access, without the problems that come
with html-help. 

As for not being able to "navigate a document", and I assume you mean
a word processor document in particular, you happen to be wrong. I can
actually search for keywords easier in a word processor document, than
I can with a dedicated help file system. Isn't searching considered
navigation? I can also turn to any page in the word processor document
I choose. Isn't that navigation?

>: Last but not least, I would rather have one, large, plain,
>: ascii, tezt file - instead of html help. 
>
>  *puke*

What's the matter? Choking on your html-help?

Remember, there are GOOD REASONS that the US Justice Department, as
well as legal officials in other countries, not to mention millions of
computer users worldwide are upset with Microsoft. One of them happens
to be Microsoft's bundling of the OS with its browser. One can't even
install a new Microsoft browser without also drastically rearranging
the underlying OS.

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. 

All I want to do is some 3D rendering, and be able to view some
documentation for the rendering software. I shouldn't need the IE4
albatross to do that.

Later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

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