Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id TAA24938 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 19:14:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzyrn25035; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:53:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA10492; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:52:31 -0500
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:52:31 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <199601160116.RAA15042@you.got.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Ace Miles <ace@got.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: Lightwave Rev C renders 250% faster - why?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
>> The major speed increase was with Win95. Running LW under NT was sped up
>> a bit (up to 10% in some cases), but that doesn't seem as dramatic as a
>> 200-300% increase in 95. This has all taken place in Rev C. > JG
>
>With a 200-300% increase under Windows 95, doesn't that make Windows 95
>faster than Windows NT now? I don't remember WIndows NT EVER
>outperforming WIndows 95 by 2 or 3 times. I assume the 200-300% increase
>is only geared towards certain functions and not the actual speed
>increase in rendering, correct?
>
>MC
>
No, it's a rendering increase. But that much of a speed increase is only
while performing certain rendering functions.
For example the Blade scene. It used to take FOREVER compared to NT. 95
didn't seem to like things such as shadow maps and lens flares.
