 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:55:23 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlin netau> wrote:
>I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
I do. I imagine that there would be several others as well. I also use
the Windows version, but if I need to squeeze the most out of my
available system resources, then the DOS version is my choice. There
have been several scenes that I could render with the DOS version
entirely in RAM, while the WIN95 version went into swap quite early.
This isn't a problem with POV, of course, but a characteristic of
using WIN95. DOS simply demands far less of my computer's resources,
which leaves more for POV-Ray.
I hope there will always be a DOS version of POV-Ray. I also hope that
it never gets to be a neglected orphan.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have measured this, and (to my surprise) the MSVC compile of WinPov
renders a bit faster than any DOS compile when there's no need for swapping
or when both have to swap. Of course when the scene uses just as much memory
to need swapping in windows but not in DOS, there may be a difference in
favor of the DOS compile, but I think it's a rarer situation.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This sounds like a good solution as well.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> writes:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:55:23 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
>
> >I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
>
> I do. I imagine that there would be several others as well. I also use
> the Windows version, but if I need to squeeze the most out of my
> available system resources, then the DOS version is my choice. There
> have been several scenes that I could render with the DOS version
> entirely in RAM, while the WIN95 version went into swap quite early.
> This isn't a problem with POV, of course, but a characteristic of
> using WIN95. DOS simply demands far less of my computer's resources,
> which leaves more for POV-Ray.
Have you tried Linux (or another free Unix)? I haven't compared it
directly in respect of POV-Ray, but I guess that it can be configured
to be almost as modest as DOS. A boot disc might be enough in your case.
Follow'up to povray.unix
Thomas
--
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 May 2000 03:53:24 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I have measured this, and (to my surprise) the MSVC compile of WinPov
>renders a bit faster than any DOS compile when there's no need for swapping
>or when both have to swap.
Unless I'm mistaken, not everyone can run the MSVC compile. Doesn't
that require a recent model of Pentium processor to work properly?
>Of course when the scene uses just as much memory
>to need swapping in windows but not in DOS, there may be a difference in
>favor of the DOS compile, but I think it's a rarer situation.
This is *exactly* the situation I was referring to. It isn't nearly as
rare as you make it sound. It has happened to me several times.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, not everyone can run the MSVC compile. Doesn't
> that require a recent model of Pentium processor to work properly?
The MSVC pentium II compile can be run on any windows machine as
far as I know. I have a PI 200 mmx and it runs with no problem.
In fact even though it is optimized for a PII I still realize a
little faster performance over the watcom compile of the program.
The standard Windows distribution is compiled with watcom PII
optimized so there is little difference.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> PoD wrote:
>
> > I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
>
> Still quite a few using it from what I have heard. Chris Colefax
> for example still uses the dos version for all of his include file
> development work.
>
OK, I didn't think that many people would be using it and I didn't mean
any offence.
However there's no reason to limit all other platforms to 8.3 filenames
anyway.
The proposal to use an #ifdef seems the best solution.
PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote in message
news:3922F223.BA027B9D@merlin.net.au...
> Warp wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest some #ifdef's in the povray source code. If we
are NOT
> > compiling for DOS, then just use as long file names as needed. If
we are
> > compiling for DOS, then truncate and don't care about the
consecuences.
> >
>
> I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
I do for one, and my other box doesn't even have windoze installed.
I would accept Warp's suggestion though.
--
Alf
http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 May 2000 02:14:06 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
>The proposal to use an #ifdef seems the best solution.
Yes, but which #ifdef proposal? I hope you are refering to the one
that uses #ifdef to modify the DOS version to create subdirectories,
and place sequentially numbered files into it.
There was another proposal that involved #ifdef and filename
truncation/mangling, without subdirectory creation. I don't like that
idea nearly as well.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
: Yes, but which #ifdef proposal? I hope you are refering to the one
: that uses #ifdef to modify the DOS version to create subdirectories,
: and place sequentially numbered files into it.
: There was another proposal that involved #ifdef and filename
: truncation/mangling, without subdirectory creation. I don't like that
: idea nearly as well.
I really don't care which one as long as I get long filenames here :)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
