 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi folks
Does Povray make use of two processors and if so does having two
processors speed things up much?
What about running under WinNT? How does this affect performance?
Cheers
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Varley wrote:
>
> Hi folks
>
> Does Povray make use of two processors and if so does having two
> processors speed things up much?
> What about running under WinNT? How does this affect performance?
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike
This is maybe a also worth an entry to the VFAQ. This question has been
asked several times before.
None of the official builds do!
For Linux (I guess this is only for Linux maybe for UNIX in general as
well (Hi Mika! ;-) )) exists a version called PVMpov which i slocated
at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6386/pvmpov/index.html
About NT I can't say anything. Never used it.
Maybe this answer helps.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Schimmler <sch### [at] ica uni-stuttgartde> writes:
> Mike Varley wrote:
>
> None of the official builds do!
> For Linux (I guess this is only for Linux maybe for UNIX in general as
> well (Hi Mika! ;-) )) exists a version called PVMpov which i slocated
> at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6386/pvmpov/index.html
It works perfectly with Sun/Solaris. According to
http://www.haveland.com/cgi-bin/getpovb.pl?search=&submit=Submit
it works also with Cray/UNICOS, Onyx/irix, HP/UX, IBM/Aix.
> About NT I can't say anything. Never used it.
Theoretically, it should be possible to compile PVM-Pov using cygwin
(www.cygnus.com). I never heared of a successful compilation, though...
Thomas
--
http://www.fmi.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(you can see the other posts to this thread for compat with POV-Ray)
NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!
It is also much more stable. Dual processor compatibility is in NT only,
95/98 can't handle it. You can also go up to 6 processors if you want as
long as they are "normal" pentiums, in other words, not Pentium II. As for
the benefits of dual processing. Well, some people say that it isn't that
great... but it is!!! If the program supports multi-threading (most new
high-end graphics and rendering programs do) then it's gonna fly!!!
NT is a good power Operating System. It's lucky that Microsoft have finally
come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows 2000
(aka NT 6.0).
I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
improvements doing so.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:39:01 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!
That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
faster than 98.
>NT is a good power Operating System. It's lucky that Microsoft have finally
>come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows 2000
>(aka NT 6.0).
NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
more quickly and uses far less memory. As for availablility of
drivers for your weird hardware, better use Linux instead.
>I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
>improvements doing so.
Nope. None. In fact, because of the swapping thing, it will run
slower on moderately large scenes unless you throw memory at it.
POV-Ray is mainly dependent on FPU speed; the operating system has
almost no effect on rendering speed (especially if you render with the
display off.)
NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
fact that MS is pushing it as the next desktop OS is proof of just
how much they care about money and how little they care about users.
It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
eats so many resources when idle. So of what use IS NT? Well, it
makes MS, Intel, and Micron a whole heap of money. Isn't that enough?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glad to hear this rebuttal in the debate.
"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:39:01 +1000, "Lance Birch"
> <zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>
> >NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!
>
> That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
> amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
> just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
> eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
> faster than 98.
>
> >NT is a good power Operating System. It's lucky that Microsoft have finally
> >come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows 2000
> >(aka NT 6.0).
>
> NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
> me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
> more quickly and uses far less memory. As for availablility of
> drivers for your weird hardware, better use Linux instead.
>
> >I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
> >improvements doing so.
>
> Nope. None. In fact, because of the swapping thing, it will run
> slower on moderately large scenes unless you throw memory at it.
> POV-Ray is mainly dependent on FPU speed; the operating system has
> almost no effect on rendering speed (especially if you render with the
> display off.)
>
> NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
> fact that MS is pushing it as the next desktop OS is proof of just
> how much they care about money and how little they care about users.
> It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
> eats so many resources when idle. So of what use IS NT? Well, it
> makes MS, Intel, and Micron a whole heap of money. Isn't that enough?
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike wrote:
> I've also heard that Xwindows can be as unstable as 95/98.
Well that's at least not true for my installations. I use Linux for four
or five years now and even on my old 386 it never crashed. Don't ask how
many times WIN 3.11 or WIN 95 crashed during that period.
It's not that it's very much faster than the M$ operating systems (see
post by Jens at 11/12/98 named thanks) but I think I have prove that
LINUX makes more out of my resources.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think that you are the one speaking rediculously...
An obscene amount of memory? You've got to be joking? Besides, NT is for
those that need and use large amounts of memory. It's also far more stable
with large amounts of memory.
>NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
>me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
As do I. I'd much prefer NT over 98. You say NT takes longer to boot? The
only response I've got for that is to ask you a question... Would you
rather boot once a day and have it take a little longer than have to reboot
10 times a day? In my personal experiance, the former is better. I'm sick
to death of getting illegal operations!!!
>I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
>improvements doing so.
Hmm, that's interesting. From my benchmarks, NT renders 5 times faster than
98 in 3D Studio MAX R2.5. Now if that isn't a substantial increase I don't
know what is. Obviously POV-Ray is an exception to this as it wasn't
specifically built for NT.
>NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
>It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
Well, those two statements I can't agree with either.
For the first: Why not? The rendering station at my school seems to cope
well with it. It is also only a P233 with 64Mb of RAM. It runs a
Perception DSP drive and a video output subsystem. I've NEVER had a crash
or the slightest problem. A DSP drive won't even run under 98 or 95 because
of it's useless subsystem, even if the processor is much more powerful and
you have more RAM.
And for the second statement: What else are you planning on using? Some
out-of-date operating system that is totally incompatible with all major
network standards... I don't think so. At work we run NT perfectly well.
It acts as a server for a network and also as an internet pipeline and proxy
server. It has never crashed in the time I've been there and I don't
believe it ever will. It usually has to cope with being online for several
days, even weeks at a time without restarting. It is fully compatible with
all hardware and the drivers all came with the hardware anyway. It's been a
total breeze. On the other hand, if you were to try to do that with another
operating system I think that you would find you'd have major problems.
Now back to the original subject: Multi-processing.
If Windows 98/95 DID support multi-processors I'd suppose that they could be
viable for rendering, however the lack of memory support and fixed system
resource setting is a pain and causes high-end apps like 3D Studio MAX to
crash frequently. One of the biggest problems of running MAX on 95/98 is
fixed resources. Not many people understand the way 95/98 handles system
resources. I have to make this clear, memory has nothing to do with
resources in 95/98. The resources are ultimately fixed. NT doesn't have
this problem, it has infinite resource allocation, something MAX needs to
run correctly. When using MAX on 98 I will have to restart everytime I
leave the program, simple because 98 can't handle the resource allocation,
even with 160Mb of RAM. The same setup running NT: it will never crash, I
can't even get it to. I never have to restart and it uses memory much more
efficiently (yes, in NT you generally need more than to run 95/98, but as I
said before, high-end apps need higher memory anyway). Rendeirng times are
faster, multi-processors speed up rendering to higher levels than I've ever
seen before, and the usefulness of being able to run several instances of
MAX is a bonus beyond comparison. The architecture of 95/98 means that
unfortunately it is impossible to open a second instance of MAX.
I do however agree with you on the pricing of NT, which I believe is far
overpriced (as is the way with Microsoft products unfortunately).
I'm a naturally argumentive person I think, so don't take it personally.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I''ve tried rendering torus1.pov (file provided with povray) at 640x480
aa0.3 with the following results.
Machine dual PII 450, 128MB default settings for everything else.
Win 98 2m 5s
Win NT 2m 6s
If I watch CPU utilisation on NT it hovers around 45-50% as if its only
using one processor (even though this percentage is split between the
two processors on the chart). This is born out by the above times.
Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
Cheers
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ronald L. Parker <par### [at] mailfwicom> wrote:
: That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
: amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
: just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
: eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
: faster than 98.
I have seen win95 working just fine in a 486 66MHz with 8M of RAM.
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Was it running any applications ?
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:23:05 +1000, Lance Birch
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>I think that you are the one speaking rediculously...
>
>An obscene amount of memory? You've got to be joking? Besides, NT is for
>those that need and use large amounts of memory. It's also far more stable
>with large amounts of memory.
I agree. NT is for those who need and use large amounts of memory. But
how many desktop users with 32M of RAM are going to "upgrade" to win2k
because they think it's the next logical step? Do you think MS is going
to tell them that's a bad idea?
>As do I. I'd much prefer NT over 98. You say NT takes longer to boot? The
>only response I've got for that is to ask you a question... Would you
>rather boot once a day and have it take a little longer than have to reboot
>10 times a day? In my personal experiance, the former is better. I'm sick
>to death of getting illegal operations!!!
If I only had to boot once a day, that'd be nice. Since I'm doing real work,
however, developing device drivers and applications, I have to boot NT far
more often. Real operating systems don't require you to reboot to change
your IP address, or to install or remove a video driver, or to change the
size of your swap file.
>Hmm, that's interesting. From my benchmarks, NT renders 5 times faster than
>98 in 3D Studio MAX R2.5. Now if that isn't a substantial increase I don't
>know what is. Obviously POV-Ray is an exception to this as it wasn't
>specifically built for NT.
Obviously raytracing is a completely different task than 3DSMAX and has
different priorities. I thought we covered this.
>For the first: Why not? The rendering station at my school seems to cope
>well with it. It is also only a P233 with 64Mb of RAM.
Then it's four times the machine most consumers currently running 98 have.
The average machine in the field is probably no better than a P166, and
I'm guessing most users have 32M or less RAM.
>It runs a
>Perception DSP drive and a video output subsystem. I've NEVER had a crash
>or the slightest problem. A DSP drive won't even run under 98 or 95 because
>of it's useless subsystem, even if the processor is much more powerful and
>you have more RAM.
Then that is an application for which NT is suited. But it's hardly an
average desktop machine.
>And for the second statement: What else are you planning on using? Some
>out-of-date operating system that is totally incompatible with all major
>network standards...
There is only one major network standard, and there's only one OS
that was designed from the ground up to support it. The standard is
TCP/IP and the OS is Unix.
>I don't think so. At work we run NT perfectly well.
>It acts as a server for a network and also as an internet pipeline and proxy
>server. It has never crashed in the time I've been there and I don't
>believe it ever will. It usually has to cope with being online for several
>days, even weeks at a time without restarting.
Most Unix servers stay online for months or years without restarting. Before
MS came along, rebooting or even shutting down a machine was virtually unheard
of.
>If Windows 98/95 DID support multi-processors I'd suppose that they could be
>viable for rendering, however the lack of memory support and fixed system
>resource setting is a pain and causes high-end apps like 3D Studio MAX to
>crash frequently.
Ah. Perhaps you're thinking of that dialog box that popped up on our NT
server a week or two ago, telling us that our swap file was too small
and telling us it would be happy to resize it for us if we didn't mind
rebooting? This is dynamic memory allocation? I'm not saying Unix does
it any better, mind, but I think it at least allows you to add a swap
partition if you have the extra space without having to reboot.
>One of the biggest problems of running MAX on 95/98 is
>fixed resources. Not many people understand the way 95/98 handles system
>resources. I have to make this clear, memory has nothing to do with
>resources in 95/98. The resources are ultimately fixed. NT doesn't have
>this problem, it has infinite resource allocation, something MAX needs to
>run correctly.
Pardon me, did you miss the part where I said I write software for NT and
Windows 9x? I know how resource allocation works, in excruciating detail.
Because of what I do, I have had to reverse-engineer the resource allocation
scheme by disassembling the kernel to find out things MS didn't want me to
know (and they told me so, in person). It is not infinite, and it is still
shared between processes. The result is the same: one resource-hogging app
can kill every other app on the system, no matter what they tell you.
Granted, the pool of available resources is a bit larger, but it is still a
fixed-size pool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22 Jan 1999 06:08:51 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> I have seen win95 working just fine in a 486 66MHz with 8M of RAM.
I've run it on that configuration. I think your definition of "just fine"
must be a bit different from mine. :) But at least it does install and
run.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: Was it running any applications ?
Cakewalk, Vienna SF Studio, Goldwave, etc. (yes, he IS a musician).
I was surprised too. It seems to work well.
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <36A8529F.4AB9ABA4@void.nacstock.ac.uk> , Mike Varley
<mik### [at] voidnacstockacuk> wrote:
>Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
>of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
No, not with a *lot* of work and massive changes to the code, also this depends on
the way you plan to use it. Running two POV-Rays at the same time, however, might do
the trick.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <36a8af8a.0@news.povray.org>, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
>In article <36A8529F.4AB9ABA4@void.nacstock.ac.uk> , Mike Varley
><mik### [at] voidnacstockacuk> wrote:
>
>>Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
>>of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
>
>No, not with a *lot* of work and massive changes to the code, also this
depends on
>the way you plan to use it. Running two POV-Rays at the same time,
however, might do
>the trick.
Is there any way to tell the operating system in a dual-processor
environment to use both processors in floating-point operations? Does
processor-switching occur fast enough for small operations like this to
speed up otherwise non-dual-supporting applications?
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
>
> In article <36a8af8a.0@news.povray.org>, "Thorsten Froehlich"
> <fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
>
> >In article <36A8529F.4AB9ABA4@void.nacstock.ac.uk> , Mike Varley
> ><mik### [at] voidnacstockacuk> wrote:
> >
> >>Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
> >>of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
> >
> >No, not with a *lot* of work and massive changes to the code, also this
> depends on
> >the way you plan to use it. Running two POV-Rays at the same time,
> however, might do
> >the trick.
>
> Is there any way to tell the operating system in a dual-processor
> environment to use both processors in floating-point operations? Does
> processor-switching occur fast enough for small operations like this to
> speed up otherwise non-dual-supporting applications?
Not that I am aware...
//Spider
> Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alright, I just had to write back :)
> Do you think MS is going to tell them that's a bad idea?
No, because they're a bunch of scumbags, we all know that :) Actually,
better watch what I say here or the MSGang might come and attack me ;-)
> more often. Real operating systems don't require you to reboot to change
> your IP address
I agree there, that's anoying.
> The standard is TCP/IP and the OS is Unix.
I've never used Unix (infortunately), but NT seemed to work well for me in
that respect, maybe in more complex situations it falls.
> Most Unix servers stay online for months or years without restarting
That's not exactly what I meant, I just meant it does pretty well,
considering we always shut it down every few weeks, just to give it a rest.
I'm sure it could go longer. The only thing I'm worried about is that one
day when we turn it back on, the hard drive will seize up!!! (I've heard a
few cases of it happening, I just hope it doens't happen to me!)
>Pardon me, did you miss the part where I said I write software for NT and
No, just explaining it to anyone else reading, I understand fully that you
know your way around NT! I was suprised to hear that it still is fixed
though, looks like MS has been lying... again...
I suppose it all comes down to what you want to use it for. Obviously for
high-end work it is great, I guess for low-end work it isn't worth it.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My brother has a 486 running 98 and it runs it fine. It's actually sitting
next to me right now (well not sitting, but you know!). It's pretty fast
really, more than I'd suspected running 98. It even run Excel reasonably
fast, but I must say that the Developer Studio and VC++ don't run that
great. It's been through many years of POV-Raying so I guess that's why
it's so fast in it's retirement :) Unfortunately, it is going to be
obsolete in 5 days time when a new Dell laptop arrives *BIG GRIN*
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> My brother has a 486 running 98 and it runs it fine.
> --
> Lance.
I was really questioning the ability of w-95 to run on 8 megs
of memory rather than it's ablilty to run on a 486. I guess
that is what swap files are for - OUCH !
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <36A8C89B.D8DE77AF@bahnhof.se> , Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:
>> Is there any way to tell the operating system in a dual-processor
>> environment to use both processors in floating-point operations? Does
>> processor-switching occur fast enough for small operations like this to
>> speed up otherwise non-dual-supporting applications?
>Not that I am aware...
You are not aware of it...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Linux is better for old hardware. If you have new hardware, chances are
> there are no Linux drivers for it.
true, if you take a random pick of the newest hardware, chances are it won't
work. so choose your hardware wisely. for example, buy a G200 for 2D, and a
Voodoo 2 for 3D. pick what works. that G200 *flies*.
> I've also heard that Xwindows can be as unstable as 95/98.
only on some drivers. most servers are pretty solid. last time I've had
X crash was a long time ago, and I telnetted in and restarted X. the OS
never went down.
> I can't attest to this because I could not get it to run on account of
> the aforementioned driver problems, although Linux seems to be used most
> frequently in text mode for servers and render farms, where a GUI is not
> needed.
http://www.gnome.org/
> This NT user is very happy with the OS. It doesn't crash all the time,
> doesn't slow down, and doesn't balk at me every 5 minutes. When I got 5
> programs running and am copying data between them it never slows down.
?.. the NT machines at work choke when I do something as simple as copy from
a floppy disk. and if that disk happens to have a bad block, NT just halts
until you remove the floppy. pathetic.
> I for one am looking forward to the death of the 90's line of windows!
I'm looking forward to the death of the entire line of windows.
and to pull this all ontopic: POVray rules on this dual PPro/200 Linux box.
easy scripting and a job queueing system keep both my CPUs busy when I need
to render stuff. and when I do, I don't notice any slowdown of interactive
applications at all. NT just doesn't compare, it doesn't come close.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I Use NT 4 too and :[
I fully AGREE with Ronald !!!!!!!!!!!
NT4 :eats RAM -is NOT so stable - and is NOT faster !
Ronald L. Parker ha scritto nel messaggio
<36a7c2f3.90621449@news.povray.org>...
>On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:39:01 +1000, "Lance Birch"
><zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>
>>NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!
>
>That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
>amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
>just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
>eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
>faster than 98.
>
>>NT is a good power Operating System. It's lucky that Microsoft have
finally
>>come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows
2000
>>(aka NT 6.0).
>
>NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
>me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
>more quickly and uses far less memory. As for availablility of
>drivers for your weird hardware, better use Linux instead.
>
>>I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
>>improvements doing so.
>
>Nope. None. In fact, because of the swapping thing, it will run
>slower on moderately large scenes unless you throw memory at it.
>POV-Ray is mainly dependent on FPU speed; the operating system has
>almost no effect on rendering speed (especially if you render with the
>display off.)
>
>NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
>fact that MS is pushing it as the next desktop OS is proof of just
>how much they care about money and how little they care about users.
>It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
>eats so many resources when idle. So of what use IS NT? Well, it
>makes MS, Intel, and Micron a whole heap of money. Isn't that enough?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
All I can say is, have you tried using 3D Studio MAX with Windows 98? You'd
go running back to NT faster than you could say "Blue Screen of Death"...
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:32:14 +1000, Lance Birch
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>All I can say is, have you tried using 3D Studio MAX with Windows 98? You'd
>go running back to NT faster than you could say "Blue Screen of Death"...
All I can say is, if you have the $$$$ to buy 3DS MAX, you can
probably afford an extra few hundred for NT and some more RAM.
The point I was originally trying to make is that NT doesn't run
POV any faster, and on the average desktop machine it will
actually run far more slowly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I agree. NT is for those who need and use large amounts of memory. But
>how many desktop users with 32M of RAM are going to "upgrade" to win2k
>because they think it's the next logical step? Do you think MS is going
>to tell them that's a bad idea?
Considering that I regularly use most of my 96Meg memory using POV I think
that counts as "large amounts of memory"
>If I only had to boot once a day, that'd be nice. Since I'm doing real
work,
>however, developing device drivers and applications, I have to boot NT far
>more often. Real operating systems don't require you to reboot to change
>your IP address, or to install or remove a video driver, or to change the
>size of your swap file.
Windows2000 (aka NT 5.0) does that... we have two machines running the Beta
and we were pleasantly surprised when we changed the network driver, changed
the protocols and the IP addresses and it just happily used the nw
settings....
I write client server software for a mission critical system using NT. My
developement machine gets rebooted (on average) less than once a month. We
have NT servers (single and dual processors) that have been running
continuously for nearly a year....
>Obviously raytracing is a completely different task than 3DSMAX and has
>different priorities. I thought we covered this.
Look at the POVBench site... I noticed almost no difference between the
different OSs... apart from DOS being about 10% behind everyone else!
>>For the first: Why not? The rendering station at my school seems to cope
>>well with it. It is also only a P233 with 64Mb of RAM.
>
>Then it's four times the machine most consumers currently running 98 have.
>The average machine in the field is probably no better than a P166, and
>I'm guessing most users have 32M or less RAM.
P233/64Meg... you cannot find a machine in the shops less than P266 or P300
now!!!!
With RAM being so cheap (about $2/Meg) 64Meg is becoming the minimum spec...
>There is only one major network standard, and there's only one OS
>that was designed from the ground up to support it. The standard is
>TCP/IP and the OS is Unix.
We run NT servers for Web, news, mail, real-time data all over TCP/IP with
no trouble at all...
>Most Unix servers stay online for months or years without restarting.
Before
>MS came along, rebooting or even shutting down a machine was virtually
unheard
>of.
Thats because it took four men in white coats to get it up and running
again! I repeat that we have NT servers that haven't been rebooted since
their last hardware upgrade a year ago!
>The result is the same: one resource-hogging app
>can kill every other app on the system, no matter what they tell you.
>Granted, the pool of available resources is a bit larger, but it is still a
>fixed-size pool.
Fixed by the size of virtual memory, rather than an arbitrary ("they'll
never need all that") limit in the OS... A badly behaved app kan shaft ANY
OS even UNIX... I know I've done it!
I am the last person to claim that NT is perfect, but it is better than
w95/98 and is no worse than UNIX for a processor/memory intensive task like
running POV...
Rarius
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
