Author: Slater Wold
Date: 16:16:32 10/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2001 at 18:50:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >On October 27, 2001 at 18:26:48, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On October 27, 2001 at 17:53:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2001 at 04:59:13, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On October 27, 2001 at 03:11:10, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 26, 2001 at 19:20:47, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I all: >>>>>>A couple of days ago I wrote a list of some programs that does work and those >>>>>>that does not in XP environment. No reply appeared, so I ms asume I left all >>>>>>people in amazement, frozen in awe so nobody could write a word. >>>>>>Well, I like that. Kind of an exercize in humility. So here goes the second one >>>>>>about XP perfomance. I have been using it intensively for 5 days and this is it: >>>>>>Pros: >>>>>>It has not hang at all >>>>>>It has not frozen until now >>>>>>No blue screen >>>>>>My internet connection -by now a simple Dial-Up one- is running two or three >>>>>>times faster. >>>>>>Fritz 6 went from around 390 Knodes to near 500 in the same 500 Mhz AMD-K6 where >>>>>>I runned Windows Me. Maybe I did a bad measurement before? >>>>>>Faster loading of all programs, including itself. >>>>>>Far prettier interface. >>>>>>Cons: >>>>>>It is not very friendly with AMd cards, but, although putting an unhappy face, >>>>>>it has worked with every driver on the integrateded card I use. Until now... >>>>>>Some chess programs definitively does not run: the worst case is century and to >>>>>>my chagrin as it is one of my favourites. >>>>>>Until now is not easy to find an AV program that is compatible. I found one that >>>>>>is more or less so, Panda Platinum, but still give me some reports of >>>>>>malfuntioning. But I have not tested NT AV's. Maybe they fits better. >>>>>>Now, say something... >>>>>>Fernando >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Fernando, >>>>> >>>>>Please send an email to info@rebel.nl with a description what goes wrong. >>>>>While XP's kernel more or less is Windows 2000 we have noticed that a too >>>>>small swap-file (the virtual memory) may cause a problem at times. So my >>>>>hint would be to increase the size of the swap-file. Windows works best >>>>>if you make the swap-file 2 x the available memory. So if you have 256 Mb >>>>>in your PC make the swap-file 512 Mb. >>>>> >>>>>When it still does not work sue Bill or less stressy let me know and we >>>>>do his job in the form of a patch. >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>No disrespect, but Bill isn't the one who has the problem with updating his >>>>software. >>>> >>>>No disrespect again, but DOS has been "officially" dead for about 8 years now, >>>>and you still have *new* versions of Century running exclusivly in DOS. >>>> >>>>From what I do know about XP, it's going to be no easy task to get Century to >>>>run "happily" with XP. >>>> >>>>Perhaps MS is doing us all a favor killing DOS. Perhaps one day you might >>>>actually be forced to write a Windows GUI for it! >>>> >>>> >>>>Slate >>> >>> >>> >>>You are just assuming that Rebel will not run in a DOS box under Windows XP, and >>>I'm almost certain that this assumption is wrong. >> >>Not at all. There is a good chance it will. I said, "happily". >> >>> >>>Rumours of the death of DOS are greatly exagerated. >> >>They are not rumors. MS has been trying to kill DOS for over 10 years, it's >>only a matter of time before they succeed. > > >Slate, your statement is wrong. The skin of XP is Win2000 and Rebel runs >perfectly well under Win2000. The fact a few users aren't able to run >Century under XP does not mean all Century users have this problem, ok? XP is at the very basic level, Win2k. No arguements there. I have 2 computers at home with Win2k installed, and Century runs on one, and not the other. So I decided to do a *little* test: My AMD 1.2Ghz computer will run Century 3.1 on Windows 2000. So I installed XP, and Century doesn't work. >Furthermore I had no single plan to release Century 4, DOS is also dead >for me but I changed my mind after the numerous requests I got. You know >there are still many people left who just love the Rebel interface and >don't care at all it is a DOS program. For them is Century 4. Yes, there are MANY people out there still using DOS. And there are people out there still dressed like they are in the 70's. Some people get stuck in the past, most don't. >Last, there is some good news, it is found on: > >http://www.rebel.nl/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000332.html I am *thrilled* to hear that. When Century comes out for Windows, I will be the *first* to purchase it! (Or will at least try.) >Ed > >PS, the MS statement made in 1995/96 "DOS is dead" was a joke. Windows >2000 still has full DOS support and I expect the same for XP. The reason >is obvious as there are too many DOS applications that in reality hide >under a Windows skin. For computer chess Winboard is a good example. MS >can not kill DOS yet. Full DOS support? NO. 16 bit applications don't have full support. There are TONS and TONS of things that MS will simply tell you, "..not going to happen in Win2k or XP.." Winboard and Crafty DO hide in DOS. But it's not the "DOS" you're writing Century for. It's considered a "Console Application", and there is a HUGE difference. Crafty and Winboard both compile with *NO* problems in MSVC++ 6.0 as "Console Applications", have you ever tried to compile Century as one? As far as the "Console Applications" dying, it won't happen. But in doing another little test, no periphels I have in my computer right now come with DOS drivers. I meant no disrespect. I like Century, and I like the whole Rebel team. You and Chris are *great* guys. I was simply stating, time for writing DOS programs are quickly coming to a close. Sorry if that upsets you.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.