View Full Version : *OS/Lightwave Preference..?*

07-29-2003, 12:39 PM
How'dee all...

I was wondering if I could get some insight into established Lightwave'rs preferences when it comes to using Lightwave and a perticular Windows Operating system... I'm thinking of having a system thrown together and I'm sitting here at present using XP Home and I think I can honestly say that although it looks clean... I have found that it has, shall we say,.. "Brain Farts." Forgets settings, and just a bunch a little quircks that makes me question my real need to keep using it with the new system. I've used NT4 in the past and I actually like it,... never crashed, just worked like it was suppose to. "But damn'it, I couldn't play my Unreal!

Anyway, I think you can see where I'm going with this... I'm not really stuck on any one OS... So I'm looking for Likes/Dislikes when it comes to Lightwaves functionality & smoothness shall we say as opposed to each OS...

Well Thanks in Advance for All Your Time...


07-29-2003, 01:10 PM
Well I use LW with w2k at home and work and have no probs with LW. I was debating on upgrading to XP at home just because the new intel chips have hyperthreading but from what i've read hyperthreading only works with XP.

07-29-2003, 01:19 PM
Lightwave runs VERY well on Windows 2000 Professional.

In my opinion, W2K Pro is Microsoft's best (which ain't sayin much) OS.

I'd move to linux in a heartbeat if Newtek had a linux version developed.

But I am fine with the way it is... for a while.

07-29-2003, 01:30 PM
I've used Win2k and XP, I prefer XP. Also using hyperthreading, so it's not much of a decision anyway.

07-29-2003, 02:30 PM
No question, XP Professional. I've tried about every OS since CPM and every Microsoft OS and would never flinch to recommend XP. All the silly gripes you hear about Microsoft and XP etc. are from a productivity viewpoint, well, just silly.

I've used Unix and tried to use Linux and trust me, apart from a PhD in computer science there aren't enough books or user forums or geeky websites in the world that will ever help you to get it to be really productive. I have so much software that would never run on Linux that it just isn't funny. As far as harware goes, everything I have works properly on XP, period.

Its soooo cool to hate Microsoft and to bash their products. But if you want to be productive and get things done. Choose XP and once you get over the pain of the initial investment, you won't regret it.

07-31-2003, 08:04 AM
hey JohnL...are you working at microsoft?

...hardware working properly?
...productivity???(how much time you spend to maintain your registry and your partition??you call that..productive?)
...PhD...?...you are using a 3D graphics program...that is beyond average computing...and far beyong double clicking...and you say that linux is hard to learn?
And how hard can it be if you limit yourshelf in using lightwave?
Linux is STABLE...and linux is good for your eyes...linux is fun, and free and it does maintain your dignity...
Like milkman says..."I'd move to linux in a heartbeat if Newtek had a linux version developed."
Last remark:
Even though I still think that

*Lightwave is far better and easier to use than Maya*

...I still think of adopting Maya for good...it has a Linux and Irix release and plus...it *is* maya you know...

07-31-2003, 08:22 AM
I have also used many different OS's everything from apple to Suse, and for my money, the best all round OS is W2K. XP is moving toward being a good product, perhaps we'll see the fruition of that with Longhorn, but it's too immature for my liking. By the way, I have it running on a PC as well but not with Lightwave.

W2K just works, it's stable, reasonably secure, if you keep up with the security releases and add some of your own outside interface protection. And Lightwave works well on it.

07-31-2003, 02:43 PM
No I don't work for Microsoft. Considering that they employ some of the smartest humans on the planet I'll consider your insinuation as a compliment!:)

As I mentioned I don't have hardware problems with XP. I could post a long list of hardware goodies that I own and run without a glitch. And if I have a problem during installation, usually caused by my own impatience (trying ot do too many things at once) I can use the rollback function which is an XP exclusive.

You ask how much time I use maintaning the registry and my partition? None. Seriously. I let the OS take care of these tasks, these things are not an issue.

Linux is stable, no excuse me STABLE, great, so is XP. Linux is free. This is true but my concern is total cost of ownership. I don't want to spend my time tweeking the OS when I could use it being more creative and productive. Giving my clients more for their money and allowing me to get home before dinner and play with the kids. Besides, WinXP costs less here in Denmark than 3 tanks full of gasoline. Not terribly expensive in my view.

On the other hand I think using Linux as a render node on a Screamernet is a great solution. I can picture 5 or 6 cheapo clones humming away in my garage rendering my creations night and day. A cheap clone costs about the same as 6 tank fulls of gasoline. So in this scenario, WinXP is too expensive. Linux would be perfectly suited for this task. I'm looking forward to hearing about someone who figures out how to do this painlessly and I'd implement it tomorrow.

We use XP Pro on our workstations and Win2k on both of our servers. Which version of XP to you use? I only have experience with XP Pro and I don't know much about XP Home. But what I do hear it is only suited for small networks and can't be used to join a domain. And if you can't join a domain you don't enjoy NT security and use of active directory. BTW active directory is sweet! I can add a new workstation onto our domain with all the necessary priviledges and add networked printers, network fax, network scanner, backup client etc. without lifting my butt and going over to the server. All of which I can do without rebooting! Talk about lazy!! :D This I could never do with Win2k workstation.

07-31-2003, 03:00 PM
Hi there John,

I'm using XP pro on one work station W2k on another, and we're using 2003 Server for our development server as well as our outside interface at the office. I have no problem with XP as stated earlier, my opinion is it's not quite there, and I've had better luch with LW on W2K than XP.

Performance seems to lag a bit, but this could be related to the hardware configuration nothing more.

There are some great features, the roll back is just one. It is the easiest OS to work with for sure, and if you've done any network admin, as I see you have, it can make life lot simpler.

Longhorn appears to have some promise as well. One thing for sure, MS aren't resting on any laurels, they're aggressively innovating.. have you managed a peek at the new office?


07-31-2003, 03:41 PM
Hi Fausto,
Yes Longhorn sounds promising. Especially the new file system that remembers all references to files that have been moved or changed!!! No more lost texture files or shared objects!

No, I haven't taken a peek at the new Office. I'll have to take a look. I hope they have strengthened their collaboration tools. The new Messenger 6 is really promising. I hope the new Office integrates well with Messenger.

07-31-2003, 06:24 PM
I have been a Windows user since Windows 3.1. The only OS from MS I haven't used after 3.1 is Me. I have also used Red Hat Linux and Mandrake (my favorite Linux Distro).

Here are some observations:

+ Never buy the "home" edition of anything Microsoft. They make the mistake of assuming all users want Windows to manage everything.

+ Always second guess the OS. Clean up files you don't need. Uninstall software you installed to try out (like demo-ware stuff) when you are done with it. Try to remember what some file was six months later, and you'll probably not be able to do it. It'll just hang around on your drive and take up space, unless you get rid of it before you forget what it is.

+ Defrag the drive. Just let it defrag overnight every so often (month or so, depending on personal usage).

+ Forget 95, 98, Me and NT. NT was good, but is now "legacy". Win2K is cool. There isn't really that much difference in 2000 and XP. XP likes newer hardware. XP has a rollback feature. XP is (or can be) "prettier".

Now, I am a programmer and have been writing code for the Windows OS for years. It's cool, pretty stable, a mess to find information on half the time, prefers VB programmers (yuck! but I still have to do it!). It is probably the best Internet hosting platform (but I'm not an Apache genius)!

I would STILL rather use Linux. I can't though. The closest I can get is dual booting, but every time I do this I end up removing Linux for three reasons: I don't want to keep booting into a different OS to do different work, 2) I need the drive space back, and/or 3) The apps I want to run are for Windows.

Being a programmer I am making a somewhat informed opinion here: Linux is a better OS. Did I say more cost effective? No, it isn't always. Did I says easier? No, it's not usually easier to use Linux.

But Linux is there. It is by the people, for the people. It is after my own heart, very stable on hardware that is common or whose manufacturers aren't afraid to share info about. It manages memory better, hard drive space better (ever seen a Linux defrag tool?), screen management better -- everything. But you gotta work for it!

07-31-2003, 06:41 PM
JohnL: It really depends on what linux distribution you use.

A lot of distributions of Linux are geared towards techies such as Slackware or Debian.

Redhat is easier... I'd consider it the middle of the road. Same with Mandrake, and possibly SuSE(never used suse).

Xandros Linux is by far the easiest OS I've ever installed, and ever used. It's far easier than Windows!
And to a newbie, installing windows on a barebones PC can be daunting.
It is much easier in my opinion. Xandros set up ALL my hardware instantly, no fuss at all. Took about 10-15 minutes to install. Well, it may not be EASIER, but its certainly not any harder.

How long does XP take to install? Ugh. like an HOUR. And if your formatting a 80gb partition to install Windows onto, the formatting takes a good 30-60 minutes as well.

In my opinion XP (and Microsoft) is evil. I should be able to install my OS on whatever computer I choose to install it on. XP gives you grief if you install it too many times on different setups.

We who dislike Microsoft do not dislike it to be "cool." That is an incredibly ridiculous statement to make. We dislike Microsoft because we see it as a greedy, anti-competetive company. Look where it is now... it has a stranglehold on computer software.

A plus about linux for me is that, it being not nearly as popular as Windows makes it less popular of a target for hackers, it seems. Much less threat of viruses and whatnot.

I agree with you on a point you made, JohnL, that I own far too much Windows only software to permanantly switch to Linux, which is a shame.

With Windows, being a closed-source OS, you don't really ever know what the operating system is doing behind the scenes. Unless you are on top of things and have firewalls and whatnot, you aren't ever really sure what the OS is transmitting to the Internet.

Out of all the OSs that Microsoft has developed though, I would have to say 2000 is the best. In my opinion, its low on the bloat, (as low as a Microsoft OS could be I spose) pretty fast, doesn't assume it knows what you want right from the start (I have to configure XP for a while before it acts the way I want it to, and thats bothersome.) It seems pretty stable and secure as a Microsoft OS could be.

I heard you can get Lightwave to work near perfect under Mandrake and SUSE running WINE now. I'm planning on checking it out for myself in the near future.

08-01-2003, 02:45 AM
I agree with you on almost every issue you raised here. The only thing I do differently is that I don't spend as much time housekeeping my HD, removing old files etc. Back in the early windows days when I earned my wings tweeking win.ini and sys.ini files not to mention config.sys and autoexec.bat files I felt like it was necessary to do so. Nowadays if I really feel that my computer is getting too sluggish I might invest the time necessary to reinstall everything. Sometimes this is done while upgrading an older HD. The result is always like getting a whole new machine.

I'm not a programmer so I don't have the insight into the inner workings of each OS. I get the impression that you respect my opinion as a layperson and the reason for my choices. This thread is about which OS to choose, so while we might not agree, we might help others make a more educated decision.

Thank you for you insight into the different Linux distributions. I look forward to someone making a Screamernet distribution that I can set up really easy.

You say that XP and Microsoft are evil. I don't agree with you. And it upsets me when you misuse the word. You use the word evil for something that disagrees with you, something you think is bad. Evil is something completely different. Geocide is evil. Incest is evil. Child abuse is evil. Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Sadam Hussien, etc. are evil. Being the biggest software company in the world because you sell a lot of product isn't evil. Its called competition. While the competitors slept at the wheel, Microsoft beat them by selling more products.

While I agree we don't have a lot of choice, I do wish some other software companies would step up to the plate and give Microsoft some needed competition.

This thread is about which OS to use with LW. While Linux has its merits, apart from Screamernet, Linux isn't an option for LW. I still would recommend XP Pro any day.

08-01-2003, 05:19 AM
I have to agree with you, the comment that MS / Bill Gates are evil is rediculous. MS is a successful company, in fact, it's often times described as the best run corporation on the planet.

I only wish I could replicate this result in my business.



PS, is LW8 going to be an incredible product or what? I'm seriously stoked!.... who was that?

08-01-2003, 08:58 AM
You are correct, I respect your OS choice (and anyone else's personal choice too!). Use what you are comfortable with.

If we rule out Linux because of it not officially supporting LW, when the thread asks "what OS", isn't it really asking "what platform"? I mean, if you have an Intel machine I think you can only choose Microsoft, and if you have an Apple machine I think you can only choose OSX, right?

If this is the point, I would buy whatever is cheaper to keep during its intended life-cycle. I can go to Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Office Depot, etc. and get stuff for my Intel box. I'm not sure if I can do that for the Mac. Also, what are the price differences in the hardware upgrades/repairs?

08-01-2003, 09:22 AM
I just find it hard to believe that Beamtracer hasn't posted here yet trying to get you to move to a G5 with OS X...it's just a mater of time...:)

08-01-2003, 10:45 AM
I used the term "evil" very loosely in that context. Perhaps I shouldn't have put that in there at all.

By the way, I almost have mandrake downloaded... I'm going to install it and see how Lightwave runs on it.

if it runs well, then I might finally be switching to linux.

08-06-2003, 11:07 AM
ok... a comparison...

Linux is more reliable. We have had servers up at the university for over one year without any downtime. Microsoft's Windows 2000 is much more stable and reliable than previous versions, but there are still cases where servers require a reboot to resolve an issue.

Clustering: Linux has an edge here. It has been used to make enormous clusters of computers. In October 2002, ComputerWorld magazine said: "Linux clusters provide supercomputer-type performance at a fraction of the expense." The same article reported that Merrill Lynch runs a cluster of 50 Linux computers. Now immagine all that power in terms of rendering.

Windows must boot from a primary partition. Linux can boot from either a primary partition or a logical partition inside an extended partition. Windows must boot from the first hard disk. Linux can boot from any hard disk in the computer.

Compared to Windows, Linux is virus-free. Many more viruses run on Windows than on Linux.

Windows is developed by faceless programmers whose mistakes are hidden from the outside world because Microsoft does not publish the underlying code for Windows. They consider it a trade secret. In contrast, Linux is developed by hundreds of programmers all over the world. They publish the source code for the operating system and any interested programmer, anywhere in the world can review it.
NO SECRETS,faster debbuging, more reliable.

Linux is free...windows is not.

Linux, in one form or another, will run on everything from a 486 doorstop with 8MB of RAM (try that with Windows XP) to clusters of high-speed servers. It won’t be the same version of Linux running the same applications, but Linux is good at fitting in where Microsoft leaves machines behind with Windows’ ever-increasing minimum system requirements.

Most Linux distributions let you choose between multiple GUIs, including the two most popular, KDE and Gnome. These share features familiar to Windows users, such as a “Start button” in one corner where you can launch programs, and a trash can icon on the desktop where you can find deleted files. On older hardware, you can run Linux without a GUI at all, or with one of several feature-light GUIs. Windows is a one-GUI-fits-all system: No Windows applications — even the command-line tools — will run outside of Windows’ bulky GUI, making XP unusable on older, slower systems.

For Microsoft the customer is not something to attract, or to sadisfy, but something to control...(don't deny that...just think of what media player does by default...)

I don't know...the way I see it...microsoft is evil indeed.

08-06-2003, 02:02 PM
For Microsoft the customer is not something to attract, or to sadisfy, but something to control...(don't deny that...just think of what media player does by default...)
Microsoft isn't any worse or any better than any other non-open source software company. Its called capitalism. Get used to it.

OK, you prefer Linux. Fine, I respect that. You explain why. Excellent. But nothing in you post even suggests evil doing on Microsofts part. Like I wrote before, evil is something completely different.

Get a grip on the language. When you misuse important words like evil you are helping to degenerate the language. Keep it up and the words lose their meaning and with it their power

Its the same as people who swear all the time. At one point they lose the power to disturb us with their choice of words. In the end it won't make any difference what you say. Nobody will care what kind of words you use.

"Evil is as evil does"
Forest Gump

08-06-2003, 05:58 PM
JohnL, you are exactly right, unfortunately some people just like to repeat what others say and not investigate and think for themselves... They follow fads and fashion and carry popular opinions... Be sceptical!