TrueSpace7.6 at no charge (Free)

[gmd3d]

I'll have to wait until finances improve .. bit dicey lately

[evil_genius_180]

I hear that one. I worked extra odd jobs and saved the extra money for a while to have the money for a refurbished computer. Times are tight all over the world right now.

[Kai]

actually XP has been multicore enabled from the start. it just reads each core as a CPU... thats been around since NT 3.51. (NT3.51 > NT 4 > XP) just your software has to be able to use it.....

(XP Pro reads 2 CPU/Cores right out the box. you then need to add licenses for each additional CPU/Core)

[evil_genius_180]

Originally Posted by Kai

actually XP has been multicore enabled from the start. it just reads each core as a CPU... thats been around since NT 3.51. (NT3.51 > NT 4 > XP) just your software has to be able to use it.....

(XP Pro reads 2 CPU/Cores right out the box. you then need to add licenses for each additional CPU/Core)

Sorry, I misspoke. I didn't mean that you couldn't use a DC in XP, but there are issues with it. They were supposed to be solved and those upgrades are available in SP3 but I never heard if everything all got fixed. 'Cause I was going to build a PC until I realized that you could get a refurb for cheaper and one thing I was researching was the compatibility of XP and DC processors, to decided if I wanted to buy one or stick with SC.

[Kai]

what issues? ... seriously..I've not heard of any.... I'm running a dual core here and it's sweet as a nut with XP Pro... got any links on what the issues are?

[Kai]

oh! you mean the hotfix that M$ released around then SP2 was released? aah now I getcha... never bothered with it.. loaded the AMD Dual core driver and forgot all about it... I think there's an Intel one but never needed it, so never looked...

[evil_genius_180]

That's because the big difference between XP Home and XP Pro is that XP Pro has multi-core processor support, so there were less issues with it than with XP Home (which is what I have on CD.)

It was all on the Microsoft website before they released the SP3 upgrade (it might still be there.) XP (especially XP Home,) had issues with not reading a processor as a DC. It was especially bad with AMD processors, I don't know if there were issues with Intel at all. Apparently, on AMD processors, it wouldn't read both cores, it would only read 1, or it would read the processor as a single core processor running at the speed of the two cores added together, so you didn't get the full benefit of a DC. Microsoft had a patch for this and there was also an optimizer thing you could download from AMD, which I think you needed even if you had the patch. Also, there were issues like some DC computers freezing when they came off of stand-by mode in XP. I'm pretty sure that one was an issue in both versions of XP.

Edit: Yeah, the problem they had the hotfix for. I think that was mostly for XP Home users to fix the problem with it not reading the two cores correctly. You probably didn't need it with Pro.

There were known issues with XP Home and multi-core CPU's some time back when multi-cores were still relatively new on the mass market scene. XP Pro didn't have any real issues that I can remember encountering.

XP was built on server core code instead of legacy workstation OS code, which already had multi-core/multi-CPU code built into it. That's why so many games had problems and DirectX was a nightmare around when XP came out. The server code simply never needed to do what was being asked of the workstation OS. They fixed all of that (obviously) but XP Home is a newtered vesion of XP Pro so I think that's where the problems with multi-=core CPU's stemmed from.

I'm running XP Pro 32-bit and 64-bit on a dual boot with 4Gig on a dual-core AMD 6400+ black edition, and even though the current machines wipe the floor with it, it rocks for my purposes. Besides, I got the CPU for a song because Intel are beating AMD hands-down at the moment!

UA

[Kai]

been thinking on this and I think the main problem many have with Vista is the hit and miss factor to it.... when it works, it's great. but there's no guarantees it will work. I've seen ppl with machines that are far better than the minimum have major problems with it, yet someone with a similar machine in all respects have it work perfectly. it's basically a gamble if it will work perfectly for you...

tis one of the reasons (the other is why change when I don't really have a pressing need) I'm still on XP Pro for my workstations.. I know it will work and reliably. (I have Vista Business Upgrade on the shelf - came with my machine as update)

[evil_genius_180]

In that case, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. I've had a few minor hiccups but, other than that, my copy of Vista Basic seems to be working fine so far. I wonder if the different versions of Vista make a difference, Basic, Premium & Ultimate. I figure it might at least make a difference on the RAM issue, even though they all list the same minimum RAM (which we know is BS anyway.)

OK, now here's the real story, sorry I'm kind of a techie and have spent a lot of time working on and fixing machines. Vista Basic is for all intent a pretty version of XP, yeah that's right! Vista Home Premium is the really Vista operating system that includes Aero and the media center functions. Vista Business removes the things like the Media center functions and adds business features like Heavy Encryption, Communications and Networking features. Vista Ultimate is a combining of Vista Home Premium and Vista Business.

Yes, in order to run Vista Home Premium, Business or Ultimate you really need a base of 2 gigs of ram, MicroShaft has admitted this and that they lied in order for manufactures to sell Vista machines.

Fun stuff these computers and operating systems!!!

[evil_genius_180]

That certainly explains a lot. Hmmmm.... now I'm really glad I got Vista Basic on my PC. 'Cause that Aero and media center don't sound that exciting to me (I already have software that pretty much has the same functions as the media center) and I like having an OS that runs on less RAM, even though the RAM for my PC is really cheap. Plus, I like the pretty version of XP. I like being able to change the colors of my 3D objects to any color I want instead of blue, silver and olive. I also like some of the other stuff they've changed.

Thanks for the info.

[RedEyes]

Late to the party, but just a note for anyone looking at TS 7.6 as a 'portable app' to take with them. (I love LW, but 64 bit and a dongle pretty much locks it to my desktop) TS7.6 runs great on mojopac and a XP laptop. I'm using it with a WD 320 drive on a Dell M70 2.0ghz single core notebook, very nice.

[gmd3d]

welcome aboard redeyes good to know

One more bloody learning curve to go through...

...but it's free--I'll go for it

[gmd3d]

let us know how you get on with it .. i hope to compile these into an aid for new and old member who want to try other programs

Unfortunately, I'm not that familiar with TrueSpace.

What I really need is an app that can manipulate the .obj format better than Carrara does.

When I first got started, I had Poser4 and used Ray Dream Studio 5.5 and early versions of Carrara to help me build my special characters. Carrara's UI wasn't nearly as easy to uses as Poser, but it worked out since I sometimes had problems in RDS with verticies at certain angles to the available cameras.

However, computer crashes forced me to lose RDS completely--XP simply will not let you run it! I've since learned how to work Carrara's UI, but it can still be frustrating as all hell.

Have you tried Hexagon?

http://www.daz3d.com/i/software/hexagon?_m=d

or, maybe Silo?

http://nevercenter.com/

Sorry I'm so late in joining...

For free I'm willing to learn something beyond what I've been doing...

I'm running XP on my desktop & Vista on my laptop... No real issues either way...

. . .and you will be, umm, yes!