#Anim PRO &OS/2 GA
11 messages in this thread
Hi. I have just purchased a copy of Animator PRO. I am waiting for the
delivery but the dealer was kind enough to lend me the manuals ( I actually
read them must be a left over from my MainFrame days). I am also an OS/2
user. I have the GA release and in operating system heaven. It boils down
to this : Are you planning an OS/2 version of Animator PRO ? Can you give
me details on your protected mode memory expansion methods. What do you use
XMS,DMPI, VCPI… I know you do not use EMS. The reason for the second
question is that OS/2 v2.0 VDM's ( virtual DOS machines [ a DOS box ] )
supports XMS,DPMI and EMS. In fact with DPMI I have access to 512Mg Virtual
memory with ever DOS box and a very large disk. Using OS/2 and running PRO
in a DOS box would allow me maximum utilization of my computer during LONG
animation render operations. hope you get a chance to answer me. Thanks in
advance Doug Vaughan.
Hi this is Bob
I also have OS/2 GA and I am running on it now. I also would like to know
myself if the Animator Pro can be made to run on OS/2. OS/2 with the HPFS
is great and the performances better than anything running including
Windows. I hope there will be some positive feed back on this however I am
in the process on eperimenting with the Animator Pro right now.
Good Luck
Bob
(Chicago)
Ani Pro uses VCPI only, and since OS/2 wants DPMI, you're not going to be
able to run it in a DOS box.
– G
Animator Pro uses the Phar-lap Dos extender, which supports VCPI. Autodesk
has a policy not to discuss future releases of software, so trying to find
out if animator pro will be ported to other platforms will like pulling
teeth, only a lot harder!
Martin, thanks for the responce. OS/2 v2.0 really screems. I hope they jump
on the band wagon. Ever day I use the version 2.0 makes it harder to boot
into DOS.
— Doug
Martin
I am also intrested in seeing a OS/2 version of The Animator Pro or some
type of support to run on that platform. There are just to many things that
OS/2 can offer to be ignored for marketing reasons. And because the market
is slow on OS/2 does'nt mean one won't exist. One of the things I was
hoping to try was the use of the HPFS with large animating flics and how
fast they would run. Large rendering flic file while doing something else.
Full pertection from the application in case somthing wants to take a dive
in the program. And last over all speed in performaces. I quite sure with
Dos out the way completly that will
be a change also. Many of the apllication that I have which are Dos runs
better under OS/2 but I will have to send a word to Autodesk and I hope
other's who want this will do the same.
Bob
(Chicago)
Robert,
There are several good reasons that OS/2 may not fly very high or long.
First, Autodesk created an OS/2 version of AutoCAD. Only a few people like
me gave Autodesk any money for their efforts. Sad, but the effort would
have been better spend on other software people wanted to buy. It may be a
year before we really know if OS/2 is gonna fly. Why shouldn't it?
Well… Microsoft is developing a microkernel OS, using all the work that
they put into OS/2 (remember, they wrote it). It should be at *least* as
good as OS/2, and will be much easier to port Windows 3.1 apps, since it has
a sub-set of the Windows API. So, *lots* of Windows developers will port to
Microsoft's "OS/3". They decided to call it Windows/NT (New Technology) for
marketing reasons. BTW, like UNIX, Win/NT (or OS/3 as I had been calling
it) is written in C and is very portable. That means it will be running on
workstations based on non-Intel chips. How would you like to be able to
change to a totally different system, but still keep your OS and
application experience? My money is on Microsoft to beat the hell out of
IBM on the OS wars.
Ken ///
Yes Microsoft wrote their version of OS/2 but it never made it, why?
IBM took away OS/2 that they were jointly involve in developing with
Microsoft and turn it into a superior operting system known today in a
short time.
Why didn't Microsoft do this first?
If you are considerng the marketing aspect than you maybe right and than
these things could change. There are too many individuals on forums like
Compuserve
as well as Prodigy who are Windows users who plan to switch to OS/2 2.0.
Because of the full protection on the
software,HPFS,multitasking,multitreading with little to no degradation in
proformance as well as backward compatiblity which protects their software
investments while giving them a clear path to the future on the machine
that they own now. By the time NT arrive OS/2 probably will beyond what
it's doing now and more. That is far easier for user to migrate in that
particular enviorment rather than having to buy totally differant machine
to take full advantage of an operating system. Maybe some will go in to
Windows NT direction but it may not be a dominant force. And BTW there are
32 bit application plan for release this year for OS/2 along with Windows
3.1 to be added to OS/2. >From what I seen at the Comdex show and on the
BBS's, marketing my not refect the intrest in OS/2 but beleve it or not the
intrest is very high. It is just a matter time before you see it.
Bob
Robert,
Actually, Microsoft wrote the core of OS/2 2.0, then passed it on to IBM for
the "finishing touches". Certainly, IBM added a lot of stuff Microsoft
didn't. Microsoft was intrested in finishing their version of the product,
Win/NT. I think Win/NT will make us forget about OS/2. NT is portable,
while OS/2 is strictly for Intel machines.
Of course, I may be completely wrong. It happened several times this year
alone!…<g>
Ken ///
Ken:
How important do you think portability is? After all, the vast majority of
desktop computers are intel based.
You pay a penalty for portability. The code is most often big, fat and
slow. It requires massive computer resources. In general, portability
breeds piggishness.
Evan
Evan,
A Microkernel OS (like NT) should to be much better than traditional portable
systems like Unix. In some cases, a microkernel can be *faster* because
most of the effort can be applied to the kernel, rather than spreading
limited resources by trying to develop an entire OS. Notice the reduction
in new OSs developed in the last 5 years? Unix has managed to grow over 20
years, with portability as the prime reason. Who can afford to develop an
entire OS these days? Unix is fairly cheap to port. I believe this is the
basis for much of its success. Remember Apollo's Domain OS?
Most tests I've run indicate that a 32 bit app (AutoCAD) runs faster under
DOS than Unix on my Intel machine. But most of the fast workstations run
Unix because the speed benefit of a faster system more than offset the
slower OS. I think most of us are tired of DOS and want to change our OS,
but switching is too painful. I have both Unix and DOS on my home machine,
but find myself slow to pickup Unix, since nearly *all* my DOS apps are
unavailable on Unix. OS/2 is much easier to move to, since many of my apps
continue to run. NT offers an easy move from Dos/Windows. Looks the same.
Dir does what's expected. Many users will never really notice the
difference. Plus NT promises to offer easy (POSIX) porting from Unix.
I think our current OS choices limit our hardware choices. Running 3D
Studio on my 486-50 clearly shows hardware lags far behind software (I want
realtime rendering). Most computer suppliers don't really care what OS they
run, as long as you buy their machine. A portable OS will increase
competition as the workstation market has shown us. Look how little PCs
have actually changed since the introduction of the 386.
Ken /// <Heard about the Mac port of NT? No wonder Apple ran to IBM..<g>>