Re: RosAsm - right click

From: The Wannabee (faq_at_.@.@.@.@.@szmyggenpv.com)
Date: 05/24/04 

Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:02:23 +0200

På Mon, 24 May 2004 12:10:25 +0100, skrev Beth
<BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com>:

> The Wannabee wrote:
>> Beth is even worse. She uses the Fat_32_ filesystem. And those
> really are
>> HUGE.
>
> Wrong; NTFS (Windows) and ext3 (Linux) all the way...only time I
> ever see FAT is for floppies (which are rarely needed these days
> :) because you're not given a choice in the matter there...oh,
> and I suppose there's that ISO / Joliet nonsense for CDs too
> (which I confess to never having looked into to really know
> what's going on there specifically)...
>
> Note: If you're still using FAT32 under XP or some other
> NT-based version, then open up a DOS prompt and type "CONVERT
> /?" to discover a handy little utility that can automatically
> change that situation on your behalf...NTFS has journalling,
> security, quotas, streams, compression and so forth...it's also
> designed to lay out files in a fast access manner...although,
> yes, this otherwise "nice idea" is generally defeated in
> practice by the journalling and the fact that Windows is slow,
> bloat and crap, anyway...

Hi Beth ;-)

So you are even fatter (FETT/FETA!) :-)? No. When it comes to NTFS, I am
against on prinisple matters. Until I know exaxtly what it does. And I
dont. Better safe than sorry. For all I know it has properties that will
one day disallow me to play my MP3s. Strange how you Beth seems to hate
M$ so much, but still promote using their technology. Maybe I am even more
paranoid than you ? XP suck, but you use it. Win98 1st edition, is times
faster. My asm applications that are pretty slow on XP (graphics), are so
fast drawing on win98 1st edition that I have problems sizing them....
because they react so fast to the size operation. Not so on XP. Somebody
told you XP was faster huh? Well, its not. M$ OS are allways slower, than
last time, and XP is no exception. At least here, this is true. Theres
somethings XP seems to do faster, like font drawing, but for the things I
need, antialized stretched bitmaps, or rather HALFTONE bitmaps, Win98 is
at least 3 times faster. I dont know why. Also, I have tried NTFS, and it
is NOT faster. Maybe thats due to using a slower OS, but Win98 is faster
on al things I use it for, except for outputting fonts. Now truth be told,
XP is better to program DirectX in, because its more stable, but when the
app runs, it runs faster on 98. Not really scientifically tested, but for
my own apps at least, this is true.

Another thing I noticed when I tested XP was : they had removed OpenGL
default support, and DirectX on XP ran actually faster than Direct X on
98, when I used Counter Strike. The framerates for DirectX on XP was
identical to my OPENGL frames on 98. What the heck is that all about ? On
98 directX frame rates are 1/3 of openGL for CounterStrike. So DirectX on
XP is faster, above I was talking about GDI. See you.

PS:
Now I have a problem Betty, maybe the oracle will help me?

Read my entry in this thread to learn about the problem. Then come back an
teach me all about it :-)

http://easbell.quanta-it.com/RosAsmForum/viewtopic.php?p=2054#2054

TIA.
The Wannabee.

If you help me, you get a free directshow app, when its done :-)) :-)) I
put you in the credits. Promise.

>
> Beth :)
>
> 

-- 
Lite vit Maver.