. Albrecht - I know how you feel <g> about lack of feedback, but that doesn't mean people aren't interested! I'm sure many (like me) download and render the formulas w/o necessarily commenting all the time; I don't expect everyone who downloads one of my animations to jump online and comment how awesome they are, (although I know they are awesome and just a little praise would not hurt...<g>). The multifractal formulas are way-cool; I have tried zooms and parameter animation tests but nothing worth doing (yet); also they take LONG to render. As for the question about FractInt platforms, I will repeat that an old Win9X machine is your best bet. Pentium-2,3 at 500-900 MHz or thereabouts. For current systems, I have found that WinXP itself isn't the problem - it seems to be the hardware a/o chipset configuration. Athlon64 chips are good, Intel not so good. I have and have had several systems over the years; the one I currently am using (Alienware Area51, purchased in 2006) has NVIDIA GeForce 8600, and AMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ -15807.3 Mhz. It is the fastest fractint machine I have ever had - just click on the file in windows and it opens and runs in a command shell. Yet my previous WinXP Gateway system was absolutely unusable with fractint. With both of these I would boot up with a DOS 7.0 boot CD and run on a FAT32 partition. .
JackOfTradez, What about the monitor? Are you using an older CRT or an LCD? So far we have one vote for DOSBox and one for an older machine. I'm interested that you prefer 9x to XP. Jonathan has had good luck on Xp, I've had less so. You may be right that On XP it comes down to drivers and hardware. Since you mentioned booting DOS, did you ever run Fractint from DOS? Thanks, Tim On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, <JackOfTradeZ@comcast.net> wrote:
. Albrecht - I know how you feel <g> about lack of feedback, but that doesn't mean people aren't interested! I'm sure many (like me) download and render the formulas w/o necessarily commenting all the time; I don't expect everyone who downloads one of my animations to jump online and comment how awesome they are, (although I know they are awesome and just a little praise would not hurt...<g>). The multifractal formulas are way-cool; I have tried zooms and parameter animation tests but nothing worth doing (yet); also they take LONG to render. As for the question about FractInt platforms, I will repeat that an old Win9X machine is your best bet. Pentium-2,3 at 500-900 MHz or thereabouts. For current systems, I have found that WinXP itself isn't the problem - it seems to be the hardware a/o chipset configuration. Athlon64 chips are good, Intel not so good. I have and have had several systems over the years; the one I currently am using (Alienware Area51, purchased in 2006) has NVIDIA GeForce 8600, and AMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ -15807.3 Mhz. It is the fastest fractint machine I have ever had - just click on the file in windows and it opens and runs in a command shell. Yet my previous WinXP Gateway system was absolutely unusable with fractint. With both of these I would boot up with a DOS 7.0 boot CD and run on a FAT32 partition. .
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Timothy Wegner wrote:
So far we have one vote for DOSBox and one for an older machine. I'm interested that you prefer 9x to XP.
I currently have 15 machines running in my home: 1 Win-95 2 Win-98 SE 2 Win-XP Home 6 Win-XP Pro 1 Win-Vista Ultimate 64-bit 1 Win-7 Pro 32-bit 1 Win-7 Pro 64-bit 1 Win-8.1 64-bit All of the older ones are in storage at the moment (and they all still function). And I still prefer running the good old DOS version of FractInt under my Win-98 SE systems. A bit slower, but less hassles with trying to get it to run on anything else.
Jonathan has had good luck on Xp, I've had less so. You may be right that On XP it comes down to drivers and hardware.
There have only been a few machines that I have found which will run the same DOS version of FractInt under Windows-XP. I just do not have one which will, unless it is in Disk Mode. My systems newer than XP require me to use DOS-Box, and I just do not care to have to go through such extra configurations. Sincerely, P.N.L.
On 03/03/2014 10:32 PM, Paul N. Lee wrote:
Timothy Wegner wrote:
So far we have one vote for DOSBox and one for an older machine. I'm interested that you prefer 9x to XP.
I currently have 15 machines running in my home: 1 Win-95 2 Win-98 SE 2 Win-XP Home 6 Win-XP Pro 1 Win-Vista Ultimate 64-bit 1 Win-7 Pro 32-bit 1 Win-7 Pro 64-bit 1 Win-8.1 64-bit
All of the older ones are in storage at the moment (and they all still function).
And I still prefer running the good old DOS version of FractInt under my Win-98 SE systems. A bit slower, but less hassles with trying to get it to run on anything else.
My experience with W98Se and DOS Fractint was back in the days when I was dualbooting OS/2 and Windows 98SE. DOS Fractint would run flawlessly under OS/2. Under W98SE, the machine would freeze. I never confirmed this, but I believe it was because W98SE and Fractint were fighting over the display. Linux is much simpler. -- David W. Jones gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com
David wrote: Linux is much simpler. When you say "Linux", do you mean "Linux + DOSBox + Fractint" or Linux + Xfractint? Tim
On 03/04/2014 08:59 AM, Timothy Wegner wrote:
David wrote:
Linux is much simpler.
When you say "Linux", do you mean "Linux + DOSBox + Fractint" or Linux + Xfractint?
Tim
Linux + XFractint is simplest, of course, because it's a native application. Once you sort out the DOSBox start up options (-fullscreen starts it up fullscreen) and the inside DOSBox commands for mounting subfolders as drive letters (mount my fractint subfolder as a drive letter), DOS Fractint works. I don't remember what max screen resolution I was able to get; I migrated to a new laptop with 1920x1080 native resolution and haven't gotten around to seeing if that resolution's available in the DOSBox version that comes with Debian Sid Linux. The old laptop maxed out at 1280x800. Another option is a VM with an installed DOS. My dislike of DOSBox and VM's for fractint, though, is that they're slower than running a native DOS boot. XFractint is faster. -- David W. Jones gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com
participants (4)
-
david -
JackOfTradeZ＠comcast.net -
Paul N. Lee -
Timothy Wegner