Millturn: XP Server can do software RAID, just like NT server and 2k Server could. Microsoft: Dynamic disks and volumes Spend the $80 and buy a hardware IDE RAID card though - it's much faster. Promise Technology Inc. -jer [ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Jeremy ]

From memory... (take with a grain of salt) On a Windows 2k network: If a the DHCP service is used, then name resolution (the process of determining the IP address from the network name) happens when the client queries the DNS server, which can be the same server as the DHCP server. On a Windows NT network: Whether or not a DHCP server is used, name resolution occurs through the NetBios layer. NetBios can run on TCP/IP, IPX, or NetBEUI.

If any of our customers would like to try a spaceball, let me know. We have a demo unit available. They are not cheap, but I have always maintained that if you are going to invest money in your computer - invest it in the interface between man and machine (i.e. monitor -> eyes, motion controller -> hands). [email protected]

Goldie > Am considering dual processors if Goldie > an hour of crunching on one will Goldie > leave the other free to keep Goldie > working Yes, with two processors in one machine, you can use a second instance of Mastercam while the first crunches numbers in the background. The penalty is that the 2 processors share the memory bus and the hard drive. The benefit is that a dualie is cheaper than 2 computers. Windows is good at figuring out which processor to use, so I would be surprised if affinity settings increase Mastercam's speed. The following is not necessarily accurate: With respect to toolpathing large files, I think that Mastercam is fast when you have loose tolerances/step sizes etc, and slow when you are working with very tight tolerances/step sizes. File size is probably not related to toolpath creation time. Anyone else care to offer a better explanation here?

If you are using Windows 98, ME, 2000 you can go to the Display Properties page (in the control panel) and turn the acceleration down to none (in the Advanced section). If the problem goes away, then the problem is caused by the video card or its drivers. In the order I would try: You can (1) use a different driver, (2) play with the acceleration slider (from above), (3) change your OpenGL driver, or (4) replace the video card. One of these will make Mastercam work to your eye's satisfaction (though not always as fast as one would like).

THE ONE MINUTE VIDEO CARD TEST SEQUENCE If a user suspects video problems in Windows 2000, it is easy to test. Go into the "Advanced" settings of your "Display" Control Panel item, and turn the acceleration down to "None" (on the "Troubleshooting" tab). If Mastercam works properly after applying these settings, then you can blame the video card and/or drivers. If Mastercam still has problems, they are not caused by the video card. Look elsewhere for solutions (patches, HASP, system stability, etc.)

Cnet thinks that Norton is a little better than McAfee. http://www.cnet.com/software/0-806174-7-27....3746-7-2776301 Zdnet also prefers Norton over McAfee. http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/revi...2505177,00.html I use mcafee myself, but I recommend Norton to anyone that does not have a virus scanner. James: can't you post without hoping for (dreading?)another cat fight with Multax?

Mark H: I changed the menu display effect to scroll instead of fade, and I also turned it off. Neither of them fixed the problem. But I installed those whiz-bang new Detonator drivers (version 12.41) and the problem went away. For those who need clarification: Prior to Detonator 12.41, dynamic zoom would leave a "chunk" of the old screen exactly where the second click occured, using Geforce2 MX cards. It did not happen with GeForce 256 or GeForce 2 GTS/Pro/Ultra cards.

Albion: I find most crashes (especially BSOD's) are not from software or hardware, but drivers. A broken driver is a common thing, and users love to have the latest and greatest drivers. So if a driver, not certified by the WHQ Labs, gets dropped onto a system; havoc reigns. In the fall, nvidia will be releasing their motherboard chipset. Not only will it have built in 5.1 audio, and built in GeForce video, but it will also use unified drivers. That means, one driver for your whole system. I'm looking forward to it. Oh, and it supports the Athlon/Duron series.

Despite Multax's missteps (I don't think he is winning Meyette's love), he makes a very good point. There is no Mastercam benchmark. I would love to have a benchmark that can be used for performance testing, stability testing, and proper display testing. For instance, the Geforce 2 is a sweet card. I have recommended it to many users. But the GeForce 2 MX leaves a "chunk" of the screen behind on a dynamic zoom, the same size as the mouse cursor. Some people don't mind the small artifact, and other people ask me to fix the problem. Has anyone tried anything like a benchmark for Mastercam in the past? It could be useful for deciding between the P4 and the P3/Athlon. [This message has been edited by Jeremy (edited 06-19-2001).]

With a nod to Linux (which uses swap partitions), I like to make a partition on my hard drive that is about double the size of my RAM. I use that partition exclusively for my swapfile. This prevents the swapfile from getting fragmented. Note: a fragmented file is spread all over a drive, making it slower for the computer to read.

This link describes how to convert a GeForce into a Quadro. http://www.geocities.com/tnaw_xtennis/GF2U-Q2.htm Thought it was interesting reading.

FYI: Microsoft OS product lineage ---------------------------- Windows 3.1 -> 95 (aka Windows 4.0) -> 95 OSR2 (usb support) -> 98 -> 98SE (bugfixes) -> ME (elimination of most DOS stuff) -> Windows XP (codename Whistler) NT 3.51 -> NT 4.0 (95 style interface) -> NT 4.0 sp3 (cdr support, pnp) -> NT 4.0 sp6a (latest bugfix release) -> Win2k Pro -> Windows XP (codename Whistler) Notice how XP will replace NT *and* windows. It's about time.

An All-In-Wonder is a product only available from ATI. If you are interested in video in, video out, PVR (Personal Video Recording) and a tv tuner - you can use the ATI PCI TV Wonder. It works with any video card (I think) and is around $100 cdn. http://www.ati.com/na/pages/products/pc/tv_wonder/index.html

With the S3 SavageMX graphics in Toshiba's Satellite Pro series, only one release of drivers worked with Mastercam in NT. The newest drivers would cause problems (blue screens or popups that don't disappear). There were no problems that I remember with Win98. Win2k drivers seem ok now too. The 8 Meg Savage MX is much faster than a 16 Meg ATI Rage Pro in a similar (but desktop) system (with Mastercam rotate/zoom/etc.). ATI uses entirely different chips than s3. [This message has been edited by Jeremy (edited 03-22-2001).]

5-axis -> I don't know why your Pentium III can beat your Athlon in speed, but it's not the floating point power of the Pentium III. Floating Point Calculation Performance (@ 1 GHz) "Athlon's pure FPU performance is some 33% percent higher than Coppermine's." (tomshardware) "it will take a Pentium III at 750 MHz to reach the floating-point power of the cheapest Athlon at 500 MHz" (tomshardware) [This message has been edited by Jeremy (edited 02-23-2001).]

Is it possible to use the nVidia reference drivers rather than the Elsa supplied drivers? It looks like that is what Dell has done. http://www.nvidia.com/products.nsf/htmlmedia/detonator3.html

"Who recommended a gaming card" The sentence reeks of whine. Would anyone be surprised to know that those silly games use far more of a 3d card's arsenal than Mastercam? Mastercam uses the most basic of 3d. Fogging? Multiple light sources? Mip-mapping? Trilinear filtering? Texturing? Bump mapping? Full screen anti-aliasing? Hmm, none of these. So the benefits reaped from buying a Quadro are quite small in comparison to the increase in price. The GeForce is the *same chip* as the Quadro (The Gloria II uses the nVidia Quadro). Does anyone think that nVidia has enough money to develop two entirely different product lines, just to sell a few "high end" graphics chips? They use the same approach as Intel (Xeon, Pentium III, Celeron are the same core), AMD (Athlon, Duron are the same core), and many other chip manufacturers. "The Quadro2 MXR is an enhanced version of the GeForce2 MX featuring a 350MHz RAMDAC which will deliver a billion trilinearly-textured pixels/sec. The Quadro2 Pro is based on the workstation version of the GeForce2 GTS chip delivering 400 million texels/sec and 25 million triangles/sec running on a 350MHz RAMDAC." source: http://www.maximumpc.com/content/2000/08/02/11698 2 things to consider: 1: It is generally wise to buy a less expensive version of a good chip, rather than the best version of a cheap chip (thus, avoid ATI). 2: If one does not want to spend the money on a Quadro, the GeForce is comparable.

I would get the 64 MB GeForce 2 Ultra (or Pro) with DDR RAM on the card. It has a pretty fast GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) on the card, freeing up your CPU for things that don't involve drawing triangles on your monitor (like a toolpath). Hercules makes one, and so does Creative Labs and Elsa.

Eric: Be sure to try the Detonator drivers from the nVidia site. They seem to work well with Mastercam, though my experience is limited to GeForce cards, not TNT cards. The chips are similar enough that they use the same driver. If AMD had dual processor systems available, there would be no reason at all to buy Intel.

Celeron (<300 MHz): 0 k L2 cache (slot 1) Celeron A (current): 128 k L2 cache running at cpu speed (slot 1 and s370) Pentium II: 512 k L2 cache running at 1/2 cpu speed (slot 1) Pentium III: 512 k L2 cache running at 1/2 cpu speed (slot 1) Pentium III E: 256 k L2 cache running at full cpu speed (fc-pga) The original Celeron was a bust for anything but floating point 3d (i.e. Quake) and overclocking. The newer Celeron was neck-and-neck with the Pentium II. The Pentium III is much faster, mostly due to the faster transfer between memory and processor on the 133 MHz Front-side bus. The Celeron and the Pentium II/III use the same core. That is, they are the same chip, with different cache levels.

When I have seen this problem, the machine doesn't lock up. It grows the db.ovf file to fill the entire hard drive, then the machine crashes. Most people don't wait for their hard drive to fill up though. It takes quite a while when there are a couple of gigs free. One computer needed a reinstall of 7.2, the other computer worked fine with a new hard drive but the original install!!

Windows 95, 95 osr2, 98, 98 SE, and Millenium are all the same product: Windows 4.x. If Mastercam worked in 95 and 98, it will work in Millenium. The same drivers are used. Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.x. It is not the same product as Windows ME.

If you don't plan on using USB, dvd, power saving, or if the graphics card you want still has beta Win2k drivers, stick with NT for now.

No one that I have talked to have had problems with the Athlon. It is a x86 chip, with an instruction set that Intel also supports with their Pentium/pro/II/III line. Athlons do not have SSE instructions (Intel-specific instruction set for 3d), but I don't think Mastercam uses SSE. It doesn't use 3DNow either, which is an AMD-specific instruction set. FYI, AMD innovated and created the 3DNow instructions, and Intel countered later with SSE. Perhaps Intel didn't have enough success with MMX to try the marketing trick again.