I bet the memory requirements would be alot more reasonable without the web
browser, but so many things (including the system itsself) use components of
IE, there is little that can be done about that. I Tripled my memory before
I setup Windows 2000. Linux doesn't have the interated web browser ( does
it?) or alot of other little gizmos and dohickeys hanging out in memory.
But when W2k does crash, it also recovers astoundingly well (at least it
seems so when your used to Windows 95).
I like Linux too, but it isn't yet universal enough for me to use it at
home.

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3958d119@news.povray.org...
> In povray.windows Halbert <hha### [at] capitalnet> wrote:
> : I think I have noticed an improvement to all my 3d applications like
Povray,
> : MegaPov, and the swarm off modeling tools I've been using. W2k is very
> : stable, me likey very much.
>
>   Still it requires a lot more resources than should be reasonable.
>   It seems that microsoft thinks "the higher the stability, the more
memory
> and other resources needs to be used" when it's more or less the other way
> around. IIRC the recommended amount of memory for Win2k is 128MB while the
> recommended amount of memory for Linux is something like 16MB.

Post a reply to this message

linux's recomended may only be 16mb
but no one in there right mind is going to run X with only 16mb of ram....

and you will see an improvement in rendering and such switching to w2k 
since NT is a true pre-emptive multi-tasking system, where as win98 is only 
cooporative....


war### [at] tagpovrayorg (Warp) wrote in <3958d119@news.povray.org>:

>In povray.windows Halbert <hha### [at] capitalnet> wrote:
>: I think I have noticed an improvement to all my 3d applications like
>: Povray, MegaPov, and the swarm off modeling tools I've been using. W2k
>: is very stable, me likey very much.
>
>  Still it requires a lot more resources than should be reasonable.
>  It seems that microsoft thinks "the higher the stability, the more
>  memory 
>and other resources needs to be used" when it's more or less the other
>way around. IIRC the recommended amount of memory for Win2k is 128MB
>while the recommended amount of memory for Linux is something like 16MB.
>

Post a reply to this message

It comes out soon and it is not worth it as far as I can tell.  It has
stuff for video editing and other useless junk for the most part.  I do
not know if they upgraded the mem model.  ME is a glorified version of
win98.  Microsoft wants more money, it knows stupid people will upgrade
to it.  Another reason it came about is because 2000 did not have gaming
support like it was supposed to.  

ryan constantine wrote:
> 
> isn't windows ME supposed to be the gamers' solution to an upgrade?
> it's not win2000 right?  anyone know when winME comes out?
> 
> Warp wrote:
> >
> > In povray.general Rick <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> > : yes but there is win2000
> >
> >   Win2000 is more WinNT than Win9x. It's made more for the same uses as NT
> > is rather than for games and such. I think that many win9x games don't even
> > work in Win2000.
> >
> >   Of course Linux (and other free unix systems) support multiple processors
> > and still there is no multithreaded povray for them.
> >   PVM-pov exists no more, and even when it existed it didn't work with
> > radiosity.
> >   Multithreading has also many other problems. It's more problematic than
> > it may sound. I wrote an entry in the VFAQ about this.
> >
> >   Another thing is that since it's not made by the povteam, this version will
> > always be one step behind the official version.
> >
> > --
> > 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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:39586434@news.povray.org...
>   Too bad that Windows9x doesn't support multiple processors. NT supports,
> but I think that the number of NT users are an extremely small percent of
> the Windows9x users.
>   So I think it would be a waste of time.

Around 10 %.


--

Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://www.BeingFound.com
web design and seminars
+43 699 17343674

Post a reply to this message

daishi wrote:

> but no one in there right mind is going to run X with only 16mb of ram....

I've tried it.  It's not pretty.  Of course, the sucky video card
contributed to its not being pretty, at least in the literal sense.

-Mark Gordon

Post a reply to this message

por### [at] pilotmsuedu (Nick Portelli) wrote in
<395927CB.8E70B8C6@pilot.msu.edu>: 

>It comes out soon and it is not worth it as far as I can tell.  It has
>stuff for video editing and other useless junk for the most part.  I do
>not know if they upgraded the mem model.  ME is a glorified version of
>win98.  Microsoft wants more money, it knows stupid people will upgrade
>to it.  Another reason it came about is because 2000 did not have gaming
>support like it was supposed to.  
>

um, like what, usb or directX? (both of which w2k has)

from the stuff I've read most games run on w2k with only a marginal 
performance hit. in my mind stability is more important then a few fps, 
this is especially true in the workstation market. 

I'm not planning to go to ME personlly, I'm gonna skip it and go straight 
to w2k, which should be right around the time I go smp. pov might not 
support smp but most professional graphics applications do. photoshop, 
lightwave, 3dsmax, etc etc

Post a reply to this message

In article <8F60B7B88dashixpressnet@204.213.191.228> , das### [at] x-pressnet 
(daishi) wrote:

> and you will see an improvement in rendering and such switching to w2k
> since NT is a true pre-emptive multi-tasking system, where as win98 is only
> cooporative....

This is not correct.  Windows 9x, NT and 2000 are all pre-emptive
multitasking systems.


     Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general Halbert <hha### [at] capitalnet> wrote:
: But when W2k does crash

  The point is that it shouldn't.
  The efforts have been put in the wrong side of the crashing.

-- 
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

In povray.general Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: This is not correct.  Windows 9x, NT and 2000 are all pre-emptive
: multitasking systems.

  Win9x is only partially it.

-- 
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

> isn't windows ME supposed to be the gamers' solution to an upgrade?
> it's not win2000 right?  anyone know when winME comes out?

hardware manufacturers have ME now, and it should start appearing on oem
machines by September end.

Rick

Post a reply to this message