#Autodesk Confirms NT 3ds
28 messages in this thread
IBM has released to ISVs a listing of Win32 (Windows NT, Windows95)
API calls (over 1,000 of them) that will be supported in future
versions of OS/2 (presumably including the microkernalized Workplace
OS and OS/2 for the PowerPC, OS/2 Warp Server, OS/2 Warp SMP, etc. as
well as Service Pack upgrades to existing versions of OS/2 Warp and
OS/2 Warp Connect). I'm not sure which APIs are included, but it will
likely include all of the commonly used ones for general application
operation, user interface, file and memory management, etc., plus
such Win32- specfic ones as multithreading, OpenGL, etc.
Just a suggestion: if 3DSr"5" uses these API calls and doesn't use
the ones not on the list, then it will run not only on Windows NT but
also under OS/2, which would expand its market. At the present time,
OS/2 Warp is outselling Windows NT by a substantial margin in the
general PC marketplace, and of course WAY outsells WinNT among 3DS
users due largely to the fact that existing versions of 3DSr3 and
r"4" that use Phar Lap 386|DOS-Extender run and multitask wonderfully
under OS/2 but won't even come up under Windows NT.
<< At the present time, OS/2 Warp is outselling Windows NT by a substantial
margin in the general PC marketplace, >>
SO?? NT is way more superior than OS/2 Warp. With 3DSr5 comming out
for NT I don't understand why someone would want to use Warp as it is
very hard to get it up and running.
Uh, have you actually tried both? Warp's installation has been
praised in comparative reviews as being easier than NTs in most
circumstances (of course, there are exceptional configurations that
will confuse both, but that goes for any significant software
packages: witness all the threads in this very Forum regarding
getting certain video cards, memory managers and the like to work
with 3DS). Warp's user-interface is VASTLY superior (indeed, almost
EVERY SINGLE SIGNIFICANT NEW FEATURE of Win95's "new" user-interface
was in OS/2 first!).
In some respects, NT is technically superior to Warp (NTFS beats
the socks off of HPFS, for instance–of course, Warp could easily add
NTFS support with a simple add-on). In others, Warp is superior (DPMI
1.0 is the only REAL DPMI. DPMI 0.9 is a beta specification only,
yet that's all that NT or any other version of Windows supports).
The latest Warp (Warp Connect) installs client connections to
Novell and other networks much easier than Windows for Workgroups or
even Windows95, let alone Windows NT. And finally, Warp MULTItasks
3DS RIGHT NOW, and has for well over a year! Windows NT can't even
SINGLEtask 3DS and won't be able to until 3DSr"5" comes out! Why
wait? Or do you honestly think that having to REBOOT YOUR SYSTEM
just to switch to a paint program and then REBOOT AGAIN to switch
back to 3DS is an acceptable use of your productivity time while
waiting for the new version? If so, we'd love to have you as a local
competitor!
<< Uh, have you actually tried both? >>
Yes I have, right now NT is happily on my computer and OS/2 Warp is long gone.
<< Warp's installation has been praised in comparative reviews as being easier
than NTs in most circumstances >>
I don't think so, Warp's installation program wouldn't reconize a few things on
my computer that the manual said were supported. And NT picked up on EVERY
SINGLE THING ON MY COMPUTER. And my computer is not an "exceptional
configuration"
<< Or do you honestly think that having to REBOOT YOUR SYSTEM just to switch to
a paint program and then REBOOT AGAIN to switch back to 3DS >>
Reboot?? I believe you are trying to say quit 3DS and run it again after you
work in the paint program.
Oh, I got a few more things to say… Autodesk will not gain many customers at
all if it runs in OS/2 Warp because 3DS is SO important in peoples lives to
care about what OS in runs under.
And one more thing, here is a quote from the May issue of 3D Artist "Wright
says Softimage NT and 3D Studio NT won't go head-to-head. Rather, he and
others at Microsoft claim there will be "cohabitation" – a mutually beneficial
coexistance between the two"
IMO, if Autodesk and Microsoft are working together I wouldn't be suprised if
r5 doesn't run under OS/2.
Mark
What were those "few things" that Warp wouldn't support? Your
network? No big surprise there if so, because that's what OS/2 Warp
CONNECT is for. OS/2 Warp was for stand-alone PCs. Oh, and OS/2
Warp Connect's network installation generally works much more
smoothly than NT "3.5"'s. Of course, NT "3.51" may change that.
Know why I put NT's version numbers in quotes? Same reason I refer
to the current version of 3DS as 3DSr"4". It's not REALLY version
3.5. It's version 1.5. NT started with 1.0, then jumped to "3.1"
whose numbering was solely to make it match that of the then-current
16-bit desktop Windows. Version Numbering by Marketing, not by
actual product maturity. OS/2 Warp, on the other hand, really IS
OS/2 version 3. (Actually, so is Windows NT — back when Microsoft
and IBM were still friends, and jointly owned and developed OS/2,
they were working on OS/2 Version 3 when the split occurred. Microsoft
took their portion of it and turned it into Windows NT 1.0 and rushed
it out the door loaded with bugs and gaping feature holes. NT "3.5"
is STILL not selling as well as the real OS/2 from which it came is!
IBM, on the other hand, took their time and did OS/2 Version 3
RIGHT.) Do you really want to base your company's future on Version
1.anything of something as major and important as an operating
system!?
If you think NT is better just because it's Microsoft, and thus is
backed by a bigger force in the industry, I might remind you that IBM
itself used to be way bigger than Microsoft — in fact, if IBM had
not chosen Microsoft's MS-DOS 1.0 as the operating system of choice
for the new IBM PC, Microsoft would not be nearly as big as it is now
— certainly Applesoft BASIC and Commodore 64 BASIC 2.0 and Flight
Simulator for the Apple II wouldn't have been enough to make Gates a
billionnaire! IBM made some bad marketing decisions (can you say
"Micro Channel Architecture Bus?") that had nothing to do with the
quality of OS/2 that cost it its dominance in the industry, but
others have also had dominant positions in their fields, lost them,
and then regained them (can you say "Intel"? Remember the Zilog
Z-80?). As for Microsoft, remember that others have also been
equally dominant in their fields and now are either way down on the
list or are no more to be found among the living (can you say
"Digital Equipment Corporation"? "Digital Research" [maker of by far
the most popular OPERATING SYSTEM of its day, same as Microsoft!]?
"VisiCorp"? "Ashton-Tate"? "Lotus"? "Borland"?). If mighty IBM can
falter, so can Microsoft.
But remember, the question here isn't whether NT is better than
OS/2 or vice-versa. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. And
frankly, on sheer technical merits, neither is anywhere NEAR the best
for Intel-architecture CPUs (Taos is the best I know of, followed
distantly by NeXTstep). The question here is whether Autodesk would
be wise to make 3DSr"5" compatible with BOTH rather than locking it
into one. After all, five years ago no one would have expected that
Lotus would be struggling for its very existence, that IBM would be
an underdog, etc. Ten years ago it would have been unthinkable that
mighty Ashton-Tate would be no more in less than a decade. Right now
it is unthinkable that anything could happen to Microsoft. But if
there is any certainty in the computer industry, it's the fact that
there are no certainties. If 3DS is locked into NT and anything
happens to Microsoft (imagine what would happen if the released
version of Windows95 were to contain some subtle but serious
data-destroying bug that got in after all the beta versions and so
wasn't found until too late — it was that sort of thing that killed
off Ashton-Tate! — remember dBASE IV 1.0? Even fixing the bugs in
1.1 was too little too late, yet just prior to that Ashton-Tate was
King of the Database Hill, Now and Forever, Amen and Amen!), what
would happen to 3DS? But if it also happened to run on another
operating system like, oh, say, OS/2, then the loss of either one of
them would not be critical to Autodesk.
The OS/2 arguments resurface…
I use OS/2 Warp when I am rendering; primarily so I can do things like eMail
without interrupting my render jobs. And if you haven't seen Windows 95 yet,
then be prepared to use an interface that is almost identical to Warp.
Now, whether or not Autodesk would be wise to make r5 compatible with OS/2 is
an interesting question. You were absolutely right about the software giants;
they fall from existance on a decade-by-decade basis; but what company has
never so much as stumbled? Yep, Microsoft. Besides Microsoft and Novell,
everyone else has felt the crunch at one time or another. Microsoft might have
had some growing pains, but they were a long time ago.
As for r5 being cross-platform; why? AutoCAD used to be supported on all kinds
of platforms, but I don't think the RS6000 version was what kept Autodesk in
business. It has been, since the early 1980's, the DOS versions of software
that make the industry go around (Windows is still a DOS program to me!). And
who wrote DOS? Microsoft. Windows has been the standard for about four years
now. OS/2 may be more powerful (and I certainly prefer it), but I have to use
Windows if I want to or not.
So what does this have to do with Windows NT? It's simple. Why should
Autodesk spend the money to make a product for a very small market (OS/2)?
Most of us use 3D Studio as a primary (or in my case, secondary) form of
income. If Autodesk came out with r5 and it only ran on PCs with SCO Unix, I
would have to switch operating systems. Would I care? A little bit, because I
would have to run Windows through SCO, but I don't make money using my Windows
programs. I make money with 3D Studio. And if it runs in Windows NT, so be
it. I'll switch to it like I switched to OS/2.
Whatever works best will enhance my business. My first concern is to have a
rock-solid, high-speed modeling system; the operating system it requires is not
a top priority.
Oh yes Microsoft has TOO "so much as stumbled!" Or have you forgotten
MS-DOS 4.0 already? Not to mention all and I do mean ALL versions of Windows
prior to Windows 3.0? Remember when Windows was considered "Microsoft's
attempted clone of GEM"?
And most of the other companies I mentioned had never stumbled much if any
prior to their big declines. Ashton-Tate was unquestioned king of the database
hill until dBase IV. IBM was where Microsoft is now up until a very few years
ago. Indeed, they are still a very powerful force to be reckoned with, or have
you forgotten the billion$ they still make off of their DB2 and mainframes and
"big iron" systems? This is revenue that they are funnelling into OS/2. Note
that it's IBM, not Microsoft, who is in the process of buying out Lotus,
another company who had never so much as stumbled until recently.
In this business, a company only has to "stumble" ONCE. If they "stumble"
badly enough and/or with very bad timing, then it may be their own headstone
they "stumbled" over, as in the case of Ashton-Tate. Sometimes, though,
companies that "stumble" manage to regain their feet and become king of the
hill once again, as in the case of Intel. If Zilog had had their Z-8001 16-bit
CPU ready when IBM came a-knockin' back in the early '80s when IBM was looking
for a CPU for their new Personal Computer, then the only place you would hear
about Intel these days would be in a "Whatever Happened to . . .?" column in
some computer magazine. But because Zilog dropped the ball they had picked up
from Intel earlier, and Intel was ready with their 8088, the rest is history,
and now Intel once again is king of the CPU market. The same could happen with
IBM. Or Intel could lose it yet again (note that Compaq, the largest
manufacturer of personal computers, has sworn to stop using all Intel chips in
their computers within two years).
Make no mistake: Microsoft is no more certain to be a major force ten or
even five years from now than any other company is. Who would have dared
predict five years ago that Borland would be on the verge of utter doom, that
Ashton-Tate would be gone, that Lotus would be swallowed up, etc.?
Autodesk should also take note of all of this. They may be king of the PC 3D
and CAD markets NOW, but they are no more immune than Lotus and Borland and
Ashton-Tate and Digital Research.
As for OS/2, the main reason IBM is buying out Lotus is to have major
popular applications (Notes and SmartSuite and the combination thereof) that
are specific OS/2 applications. This, combined with Microsoft's recent
backpedalling on Windows95 (it won't have the promised DCI that would have made
it king of multimedia, among many other things), may turn the tide. Or it may
not. The point is, Autodesk can easily HEDGE THEIR BETS by making it
compatible with BOTH OS/2 AND NT! There is no real reason not to. The APIs in
common cover everything that normal application software needs — only things
like disk utilities would need features not included in the common API. Last
time I checked, 3DS was not a disk utility.
The point here is that if this is done and anything happens to Microsoft or
Windows NT flops, 3DS still has OS/2 to run on. And vice-versa (I'll admit
that is a somewhat more likely scenario). Or if there really is room in the
market for two major operating systems and both are successful (which I feel is
more likely still), then 3DS is attractive to users of both.
A good many users of 3DS use OS/2 right now, because it is the ONLY
effective way to multitask 3DS Releases 3 and "4." 3DS will not run AT ALL
under Windows NT at present. Period. If you're using Windows NT, you must
REBOOT YOUR MACHINE and load MS-DOS if you want to use 3DS. If you then want to
use a 32-bit multithreaded paint program to touch up a material map, you must
REBOOT AGAIN to get back into Windows NT! (Of course, you COULD just use a
standard 16-bit Windows paint program, but then why have Windows NT in the
FIRST place if you're not going to USE it?) With OS/2 you can simply have both
3DS (complete with both a Render Slave and a Foreground Modelling task running
at the same time) and still have a Windows or OS/2 or even Win32s paint program
running and toggle between them easily — even while the Slave task is doing
rendering! Since OS/2 works so well for us now, why must we loyal 3DS users
buy yet ANOTHER operating system and have to install it and buy more RAM (NT
requires more than OS/2 just to run) and learn it, when 3DSr"5" can be made
compatible with both!?
Actually, there's an even better solution than the common API — TAOS!
I don't think you read the message I sent you; or at least your understanding
is limited to what I meant. You spent a lot of type typing a message that
basically reiterated everything that it always said about OS/2…
Lighten up a little bit, and stop attempting to predict the future.
You can "what if…" all day long. If a bomb hits the Microsoft headquarters,
they will probably go into a slump (this is me using your reasoning about the
Zilog processor statement).
You really seem to be trying to make a point that has made before…and one we
already have discussed time and time again. Yes, 3D Studio runs under OS/2
better than DOS. We all know it won't run off Windows NT. And, like it or
not, OS/2 will probably never be as influential as the Microsoft products. And
yes, Microsoft may not be around in 10 years, but I doubt it. And DOS 4.0? It
was a mistake that was quickly corrected (and it occured before everyone and
their grandmother had PCs on their desks.) As for all the versions of Windows
before 3.x…look at the old versions of OS/2 (like 1.3)…if you don't have a
copy, i'll give you mine.
As for your comments about OS/2 being superior to NT, I think you are wrong. I
was a beta tester for the original NT product and have used both it and OS/2
since both products were betas (I actually ran MS OS/2). OS/2 is a nightmare
to install (even Warp) and maintain, the file system (HPFS) has a very low
tolerance for disk troubles and isn't as fast or secure as NTFS. NT takes a
lot of RAM to run, but I wouldn't consider running animation software with less
than 48 megs, anyway.
And why not make r5 compatible with OS/2? Because you have to hire programmers
to make the port, have a support staff to help people with it, market it (which
may be an insult in itself) for OS/2, and find storage for all the empty boxes
that no one has purchased. OS/2 is a toy; it's neat for people who look for an
alternative. I know a lot of them, they use OS/2 for about 2 weeks, say it was
real "neat", and switch back to NT or 3.11.
Lighten up; this is a forum discussion.
BRADLEY, NO! You STILL DON'T GET IT!! You do NOT have to do ANY of that!
One more time, with feeling: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT **PORTING** 3DSr"5" TO
OS/2!! I am talking about making the WINDOWS NT version (read that again,
Bradley: THE WINDOWS NT VERSION!!) capable of running under OS/2, just as most
Windows 3.1 and Win32s programs can do RIGHT NOW! IBM is doing all the work to
make that happen! ALL AUTODESK HAS TO DO IS MAKE SURE 3DSr"5" DOESN'T USE ANY
OF THE NON-SUPPORTED WIN32 API CALLS! And since the ones that aren't supported
are mainly stuff that only low-level techie-type utilities would need anyway,
that really shouldn't be a problem!
There need not be any programmers making a port, since there IS no port.
There need not be any more support staff. There need not be any marketing done
for the OS/2 version since there IS no OS/2 version (though it wouldn't hurt
sales to be able to put in the ads the single line, "Runs under Windows NT 3.51
and OS/2 Warp SMP [or whatever]!"). No need for storage for unsold boxes since
it will be the SAME BOX!
Do you get it now, Bradley? Has it sunk in yet?
Since you brought up OS/2 1.3, I might remind you that the latest Windows NT
is only 1.5 at best. They CALL it "3.5" but that's even more bogus than
3DSr"4". There was never a 3.0, or even a 2.0 for that matter. You don't go
straight from 1.0 to 3.1. Of course, Microsoft has a history of pulling such
shenanigans (Word for Windows 2.0 followed immediately by Word for Windows 5.0,
and the latest and greatest example: Access 2.5 is the current version of that
product, while the next version will be — Access 7.0!!).
Though in another sense, Windows NT really is up to Version 3.5, since NT
1.0 was in reality MS-OS/2 3.0. Which makes Warp actually OS/2 4.0!
I will agree with you (and have already) about the relative merits of HPFS
vs. NTFS. I will also point out that both are SLOWER than good ol' FAT unless
you have at least TWICE the recommended RAM for the OS in question.
What is your problem? We're having a discussion, not an argument.
If you still don't get it, then perhaps a few things should be reiterated (and
then I really doubt I'll respond to your rude, immature messages again).
1. By saying that Autodesk can't use any of the restricted Win32s API calls
may restrict them to what they can with the program. A good example of this is
Corel Draw! 5.0 under OS/2 Warp. It uses some 16-bit Windows calls that don't
run under OS/2. Corel's only way to make it work was to create an OS/2
version. I've never seen the OS/2 version–it was such a poor seller that they
dropped it. But many high-end graphics programs need to take advantage of an
operating system; therefore, they must use restricted calls. Has that sunk in
yet? There is a damn good reason why AutoCAD and 3D Studio use the Phar-Lap
extender for DOS; it gives both programs the management they need. Even though
many of these calls may be "low-level techie-type", they may be essential.
Don't forget that "low-level calls", according to Microsoft C++ for NT, will
include things like the Menu Bar, the Dialog Boxes, etc…
2. Have you ever tried to write a program that runs across multiple
environments? I have. It is difficult to say "well, we'll write it in Windows
leave out this-and-that and it will run in OS/2." It doesn't work that way.
It's a pain to ensure operation across both environments. And you will need
programmers. You can't just say, "well, it worked in Windows; so put OS/2 on
the box". Programmers debug things. Programmers can beta test things and
speak to other programmers about things before an embarrasing product is
released.
3. Have you ever worked for an Autodesk dealer? I have. Many of our support
questions were solved by having the user reconfigure the operating environment.
Therefore, you need people qualified in OS/2 to help them. Whether or not the
program is ported to OS/2, you have to publish OS/2 installation instructions,
and have OS/2 support. Programs don't run by themselves, you need an OS.
4. Who cares about the numbering system of programs? I was using OS/2 1.3 as
a reference because we all know what it is. If I would have referred to
Windows NT 3.51 as "Windows NT 1.5", no one would know what I was talking
about.
5. Why bother making sure a product works under an operating system if you
don't plan to market it for that OS? (you made the point that you wouldn't have
to market it). Like it or not, it costs money to test products (and it would
have to be tested under OS/2 — or do you suggest we ignore testing, too?
Calm down. I'm not attacking your knowledge (though your responses lead me to
believe that you think I am). I was discussing the problems with making 3DSr5
OS/2 compliant.
Discuss it intelligently, and with dignity.
If you check my original post on this subject, you will see that it came
from an IBM announcement that a major subset of Win32 API calls would be
supported by OS/2. I said that _IF_ 3DSr"5" doesn't _need_ API calls that
aren't on this list, it would be compatible with OS/2 automatically. That was
my point. There is no special effort needed beyond that.
The "special OS/2 version of CorelDRAW" is CorelDRAW 2.0 for OS/2. There was
never a CorelDRAW 5.0 for OS/2. I don't know if it will run under OS/2 or not.
Perhaps not, since the main limitation of OS/2's 16-bit Windows emulation is
that it still does not support most VxDs, and I do believe Corel uses some.
My previous post was a reaction mostly to your statement that a separate
PACKAGED version of 3DS for OS/2 would be required. That led me to assume that
you still thought I was talking about a separate OS/2 version of 3DS, which I
NEVER said since the NT version was announced (I have said many months ago that
an OS/2 version would be preferrable if they were going to go to any 32-bit
operating system, since so many 3DS users already have OS/2 since it's the only
way to multitask r3 or r"4", but once the NT announcement was made I have never
advocated a SPECIFIC OS/2 version).
Why bother to make a version of a product compatible if you don't plan on
marketing it? Gee, I dunno. I've never seen Microsoft mention in their ads
that, say, Windows Write works just fine under SoftWindows running on a Power
Macintosh, for instance. Yet it does. I did say that _if_ 3DSr"5" does indeed
work under a version of OS/2, that it wouldn't hurt to state that fact in ads
(perhaps just by placing the OS/2 compatibility logo that IBM authorizes in a
corner of the ad).
You are correct about testing, etc. Betcha there would be plenty of people
right here in this forum who have OS/2 and would be willing to beta-test r"5"
under it to make sure it runs, so it's not like it would be a major expense.
> The question here is whether Autodesk would be wise to make 3DSr"5"
compatible with BOTH [NT and OS/2] rather than locking it into one. <
Have you considered the possibility that the economics of supporting a second
OS may not be fiinancially viable? The expense of development efforts (both
1st and 3rd), customer service, documentation, and quality assurance more than
double when adding a second OS because of the extra task of insuring parallel
operability of the application versions. What about cross-network
compatibility? There is another can of worms.
— James — Choreo Motion —
Uh, James, uh, no one is talking about doing a SEPARATE OS/2 version. I am
only talking about making the ONE AND ONLY version able to run under BOTH
Windows NT _AND_ OS/2, which is feasible since IBM will support the vast
majority of the Win32 API under future versions of OS/2 Warp. Thus there are no
different "application versions" to "insur[e] parallel operability" of. As for
networks, no, it's not "another can of worms" because both Windows NT and the
forthcoming OS/2 Warp Server can act as both clients and servers to each other
as well as to Novell Netware, Banyan Vines, 3Com, LANtastic, and every other
single operating system in current existence. And 3DS doesn't use networking
calls anyway. It does all of its "network rendering" communications using
shared files, which don't care what network they run under so long as it
supports file sharing, which all do. In fact, you can use OS/2 RIGHT NOW to
implement a "network" for Network Rendering under 3DSr3 and r"4" using just ONE
MACHINE, because OS/2 lets you multitask multiple copies of those versions of
3DS (and NOTHING ELSE DOES unless you count Windows 3.1's ability to "crawl"
["run" is definitely not the operative term here] 3DSr3 and "4") and thus share
the networking control files.
Actually, the way I think AutoDesk should go is TAOS, as that would let ONE
VERSION of 3DS (that means one set of binary executables) run AS-IS on EVERY
SINGLE 32-BIT OPERATING SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, WITHOUT
CHANGE! At FULL NATIVE SPEED of the host CPU(s)! ONE VERSION of 3DSr"5" would
run at full speed on a Pentium, MIPS, or Alpha under Windows NT, or a Sun
UltraSparc under Solaris, or a PowerPC (IBM or Apple PowerMac) under OS/2 for
PPC or Windows NT or AIX or any other operating system you care to name, at the
FULL SPEED of the CPUs! The user need not even know that the program is a TAOS
program! The programs carry the TAOS operating system with them, like the game
Doom from ID does with its own Doom Operating System when it runs under MS-DOS!
I"ve been listening and can't help jumping in.
The thought on the support issue is a very real one. Getting it 3DS to "run"
under one or more OS's is the easy part. Supporting it is the expensive part.
When people install an application as complex as 3DS, half of their problems
are environment problems. Go read the forum e-mail if you don't believe me. I
don't really care what OS 3DS is under. I would rather see the Yoster's spend
their limited time and resources adding features that will make me successful
with 3DS than supporting multiple OS platforms. Suppose NT fails ? And surely
it won't. Do you really believe that it would sink overnite and take 3DS with
it? Come on. Get real!
Gotta go, (I feel better now, thanks.)
Steve
M&M,
>> TAOS
I've heard you mention this a few times; how about filling us uneducated folks
in on what *exactly* this is? Details!
John
> Uh, James, uh, no one is talking about doing a SEPARATE OS/2 version. I am
only talking about making the ONE AND ONLY version able to run under BOTH
Windows NT _AND_ OS/2 <
For every OS it runs under, there will be added overhead in support. I am not
in a position to evaluate whether the added market offsets the overhead. I'm
just pointing out something oft overlooked.
TAOS sounds a lot like a DOS window: The secondary OS is loaded redundently
(overhead) for each application and access to native OS services may be
unavailable. Is this the case?
— James — Choreo Motion —
Well, as long as operating systems that no one has heard about is becoming the
conversation, how about a 3DS version for Linux? Why not? Then we could all
have 32-bit multitasking, and all the other jazz in a $30.00 UNIX operating
system. It's real fast, real easy to install, and real popular.
Or how about a VIC-20 version? It could be used as your OS/2 render slave;
after all, we're looking for the cheap solution, right? VIC-20…4k and a tape
drive. Raw power.
(I'm joking, of course)
🙂
Brad
Hi M&M (from the UK)
I Like your thought process …. where has TAOS been all this time …. sounds
like raw power …. … (by the way I don't think you need to "lighten up", you
seem to have more knowledge than many) …. I wonder who will have the final
word on this scintillating debate ….. following with interest 🙂
Yours,
Richard Garton
TAOS is sort of a "stealth" OS. It runs under other OSes, so you don't
install it on a computer system. Instead, you bundle it with an application.
It's sort of like Phar Lap 386|DOS-Extender in this regard — everyone who has
3D-Studio (or Animator Pro or AutoCAD 386 for that matter) has Phar Lap, but
many don't know it, and very few actually go out and purchase Phar Lap (mainly
developers who want to write their own IPAS routines or other extended plugins
such as extensions to Animator Pro's built-in POCO language). To most people,
3D Studio seems to be an MS-DOS application, but it isn't. It's a Phar Lap
application. Phar Lap runs on top of MS-DOS and extends it, allowing 32-bit
execution, memory management, virtual memory, etc. that DOS alone can't do.
TAOS is similar, but it does much, much more than Phar Lap, and unlike Phar
Lap is not limited to MS-DOS, but can run as an add-on to any OS on any CPU for
which a V-code translator has been written. Hypothetically this means ANY CPU,
as V-code translators already exist for many CPUs and can be written for any
CPU that exists or is likely to exist unless some really major breakthrough
happens that renders (ooog!) the current CPU model obsolete.
As I said, anyone who has RayMan has seen TAOS in action. This is not some
rosy future promises thing like Cairo or Taligent Pink or Copland. This is
Right Now stuff. And because it can run under other OSes, it can succeed
without needing to be a mass-marketing phenomenon like Windows 3. It's
something DEVELOPERS purchase and use, not the end-users, and so is far more
likely to succeed on its enormous technical merits than on how well it's
marketed.
Besides, I wasn't saying that Autodesk should abandon Win NT and go
for OS/2 instead. What I was saying was that they should, if
feasible (i. e. if they don't need any of the esoteric Win32 API
calls that aren't on the list that IBM says OS/2 will support),
simply make 3DS compatible with both by using just the compatible
Win32 API calls. The program would still be a WindowsNT program, not
an OS/2 program. It would just be able to run under future versions
of OS/2 that support those Win32 API calls (OS/2 Warp right now
supports almost the complete Win32s API subset, which means it can
run FreeCell and many other programs based on Win32s, which is a
subset of Win32 that can be made to "run" ["stroll" would be a better
term] under Windows 3.1 [by installing the Win32s VxDs and other
components into Win3.1] and supports all significant Win32 features
except multithreading).
The choice is simple: should Autodesk cut out a significant chunk
of their potential market if they don't need to, if it would cost
little or nothing to keep that market? I say no.
PMJI, but I have tried both OS/2 and NT, and while I am really not emotionally
attached to either one, I _am_ emotionally attached to 3DS. I personally would
much rather see them push NT to its very limits, than hold off for
compatability reasons at the expense of speed, features, etc…
-Dave
As I understand it, the Win32 API calls not on the list are mostly
Really Obscure ones used primarily for NT-specific system utilities,
which something like 3DS would have no reason to ever want to call
anyway. The only "features" 3DS would be "giving up" would be things
like the ability to format NTFS partitions, etc. — things that an
application (as opposed to a utility) has no business doing anyway.
>With 3DSr5 comming out for NT I don't understand why someone would want to use
Warp as it is very hard to get it up and running.<
Definately, counting others like Lightwave 3-D, Real3D, Playmation,
Elastic Reality, ect.. for NT to Intel/Mips/Alpha, the OS/2 seemed
to not holding strong in the 3-d graphic arena.
>>>With 3DSr5 comming out for NT I don't understand why someone would want to
use Warp as it is very hard to get it up and running.<
Probably like many of you, I have purchased NT 3.5 Workstation to
prepare for R5. As far as "hard to get it up and running" goes, I
have had nothing but a nightmare with it. Sometimes boots, sometimes
doesn't. Typestry2 (32 bit) will crash it everytime I envoke a
processor hungry task like shadow casting. I have also been able to
crash PhotoShop 3.0 (32 bit) and Painter3 (16 bit).
I have been only using the NT supplied drivers for my Adaptec SCSI
controller and S3 Diamond card. Drivers for NT seem to fall short of
stable at this time. Fortunately, there is lots of good help on the
WINNT Forum…but no solutions yet. Everybody is hoping V 3.51 will
provide many fixes. I am about ready to return it for a refund.
"Probably like many of you, I have purchased NT 3.5 Workstation to
prepare for R5. As far as "hard to get it up and running" goes, I
have had nothing but a nightmare with it. Sometimes boots, sometimes
doesn't. Typestry2 (32 bit) will crash it everytime I envoke a
processor hungry task like shadow casting. I have also been able to
crash PhotoShop 3.0 (32 bit) and Painter3 (16 bit). " Yup, yup, same
here. Still haven't gotten my HP Scanjet to work and the Canon
printer driver waits 15 seconds BETWEEN EACH Line that it prints!
MS's solution to that was: Print a "garbage" page first, stop the
printer when doing that, reset the printer into regular mode
manually, and presto the next page(s) print just fine at regular
speed… And you think those guys give a damn…Tsk,Tsk..
Your Painter problem however, is a Painter problem (had the same). Go
to the fractal forum and get the new update to Painter 3.1, it works
for me…
"I have been only using the NT supplied drivers for my Adaptec SCSI
controller and S3 Diamond card. Drivers for NT seem to fall short of
stable at this time. Fortunately, there is lots of good help on the
WINNT Forum…but no solutions yet. Everybody is hoping V 3.51 will
provide many fixes. I am about ready to return it for a refund."
Believe me, I was ready too, now I'm just waiting to see the rel.3.51,
maybe that will sway me (?)
Just want to jump in quickly, here, and let you know what is happening in our
office…
We recently recieved NT 3.51 with the Win95 Shell. We can load either Shell,
the standard or Win95 (which is obviously still in beta). Very slick. I have
not had alot of time with it, but I do know that it runs Photoshop 3.0 very
quickly. More quickly than under WFWG3.11. We are using the drivers than came
with the system, and have not loaded everything, yet, but what is loaded works
well.
Now, I have not had alot of time with it. Really only a couple of days. But
it seems to work and hold together well!
Can't wait for 3DSR5!
-Mike.
Are you running 3DSr4 or r3 under WinNT? Are you doing this in a virtual DOS
machine? I am not too familiar with NT, and am curious how this is working.
(It seems when 3DSr5 comes out, I will have to get more familiar with NT!)
Thanks for any insight you can share!
– Darin Lenderink
Flat Earth Games
Darin Lenderink – Flat Earth Games
I am not trying to run 3DS under NT at all. I *am* running Excel/Word/ and
Photoshop with great success.
I'll wait for 3DSR5 to use NT and 3DS.
-Mike.