Re: I have a couple of old machines I hang onto just because .....
. Kim, Hang on to those old machines! Or get an old used one (on the web, computer shows, repair shops - they are everywhere!). You can get pentium-2,3 machines for < $100. Set it up with Win9X and you can use the fractint you love. I can easily render 1600x1200 on my P2-300, which is 10 years old. My P3-733 with Win98SE actually runs fractint much faster than either P4 unit. .
jackoftradez@comcast.net wrote:
Hang on to those old machines! Set it up with Win9X and you can use the Fractint you love.
My P3-733 with Win98SE actually runs Fractint much faster than either P4 unit.
This is usually what I do to generate Jim's FOTD images for inclusion to the web hosting pages. I have a separate machine for every version of Windows that has been released to the public over the last 15 years. Even a couple of old IBM XT and AT machines that still run. :-} I have a lot of clients still running some pretty old legacy software. Sincerely, P.N.L. ------------------------------------------------- http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/PNL_Fractals.html http://www.Nahee.com/Fractals/
Why is it, though, that we can't have a newer computer that will do "everything?!" Am I just an idealistic girl, or what?! I guess when I think of "new," I think of improvement. I just don't find that . . . ! Even as a novice fractalist, I struggle to learn, and it seems the industry taunts me! I work in that industry every day! How can *I* fix this?!! Thanks, Guys! Kim "Paul N. Lee" <Paul.N.Lee@Worldnet.att.net> wrote: jackoftradez@comcast.net wrote:
Hang on to those old machines! Set it up with Win9X and you can use the Fractint you love.
My P3-733 with Win98SE actually runs Fractint much faster than either P4 unit.
This is usually what I do to generate Jim's FOTD images for inclusion to the web hosting pages. I have a separate machine for every version of Windows that has been released to the public over the last 15 years. Even a couple of old IBM XT and AT machines that still run. :-} I have a lot of clients still running some pretty old legacy software. Sincerely, P.N.L. ------------------------------------------------- http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/PNL_Fractals.html http://www.Nahee.com/Fractals/ _______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Kim Hagar wrote:
Why is it, though, that we can't have a newer computer that will do "everything?!"
When a computer is finally created that does "everything", there will no longer be any use for man (other than maybe as a power source). ;-}
I guess when I think of "new," I think of improvement. I just don't find that . . . !
Having been in the field of Information Technology / Data Processing for around 35 years, I feel that not all new ideas and implementations are actually improvements. Microsoft is constantly making decisions on what they feel is best for the User (prime example is their Office Suite).
Even as a novice fractalist, I struggle to learn, and it seems the industry taunts me! I work in that industry every day! How can *I* fix this?!!
But when it comes to fractal generating software, that is one area that I enjoy seeing the majority of improvements (as long as it does not break backwards compatibility). ;-} Your only resolution at present is to have multiple machines. And is is always wise to have a good backup handy anyway. Sincerely, P.N.L. ------------------------------------------------- http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/PNL_Fractals.html http://www.Nahee.com/Fractals/
Thanks, Paul- as always, you are right again! Just bites that more folks aren't asked, "What IS an improvement for a computer system?" AND I'm learning more and more, since last time you tutored me! *grin* I will keep trying, and I WILL hang on to these machines- nothing wrong with them really that a little more RAM won't help! Thanks! Kim "Paul N. Lee" <Paul.N.Lee@Worldnet.att.net> wrote: Kim Hagar wrote:
Why is it, though, that we can't have a newer computer that will do "everything?!"
When a computer is finally created that does "everything", there will no longer be any use for man (other than maybe as a power source). ;-}
I guess when I think of "new," I think of improvement. I just don't find that . . . !
Having been in the field of Information Technology / Data Processing for around 35 years, I feel that not all new ideas and implementations are actually improvements. Microsoft is constantly making decisions on what they feel is best for the User (prime example is their Office Suite).
Even as a novice fractalist, I struggle to learn, and it seems the industry taunts me! I work in that industry every day! How can *I* fix this?!!
But when it comes to fractal generating software, that is one area that I enjoy seeing the majority of improvements (as long as it does not break backwards compatibility). ;-} Your only resolution at present is to have multiple machines. And is is always wise to have a good backup handy anyway. Sincerely, P.N.L. ------------------------------------------------- http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/PNL_Fractals.html http://www.Nahee.com/Fractals/ _______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Kim Hagar wrote:
Thanks, Paul- as always, you are right again! Just bites that more folks aren't asked, "What IS an improvement for a computer system?" AND I'm learning more and more, since last time you tutored me! *grin* I will keep trying, and I WILL hang on to these machines- nothing wrong with them really that a little more RAM won't help!
As Wallis Simpson said 'You can never be too rich or too thin, or have too much RAM.'
participants (4)
-
jackoftradez＠comcast.net -
Kim Hagar -
Michael Traynor -
Paul N. Lee