The New Site, and Previous Content
November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2146
What about speed if I went with a single processor 1.7 to a 2.2
that is what I was looking at first with a P4 instead of the P3
will that give me any advantage
JC ProductionsNovember 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2147
Don’t know if you’ve been around long enough to know this, but Play had written a version a long time ago for dual processors. They ran into some incompatibility in the kernel of NT and had to abandon it. Is anyone looking into being able to make this work with W2K? (…or XP, once it get’s solid enough) It would really make render time fly!
I’m running a 1.7 Ghz proc now and everything renders very fast on it! (It was quite a step up from the 350!) And the move from NT to W2K was definitely worth it! NT was pretty solid for me, but W2K is almost perfect.
On XP, I have security concerns and won’t go there yet… but I wonder how it does with 2.4/2.7 software. Can anyone using it give us a report?November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2149
There’s still some help at
It seems the Forum was the only thing that was wiped out.November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2150
It seems the Forum was the only thing that was wiped out.
It was the ARENA, Mike Beck named it the ARENA, as per his description… the place where Gladiator style….
Ya know Spartacus and all 😯November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2151
If there was a dual-proc version of the code, it has disappeared. I think several people have given it some thought but it would require a lot of the code to be re-written, which is an undertaking that no one ever looks forward to.
Dan was running XP Pro with 2.6 for many months with no issues and we’re using it to alpha test 2.8 and it seems to be doing fine. I wouldn’t jump on the XP bandwagon either though. What I’ve heard is that its basically Windows 2000, except slower. Many benchmarks have shown this. Unfortunately I don’t have any links. XP is to 2000 as ME was to 98. I’d stick with Win2k unless you really need XP for some unique feature.
In overall speed issues, certainly a faster processor helps, but many things factor in. Go with about 512MB RAM. This helps prevent memory being paged in and out and also allows for more disk caching. Its also cheap. Also, don’t skimp on the hard drive speed. You can get big cheap drives but they are often the 5400RPM versions. Try to stay with ATA/100 or better with 7200RPM drives. This is a major bottleneck that comes into play while loading effects and backing up/restoring TM clips. I’d suggest an IDE RAID 0 system to get the most performance out of the system you can get. Finally, get a decent video card. Something like NVidia GeForce 2 or better. It definately speeds up drawing of PIcons and previewing personalFX projects.
Just my 2 cents.November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2154
OK, dcooper and mdibbs, this is what eats at the heart of the Trinity end-user community. I really can’t get into your site or this forum from my espn account. The site is blocked due to partial/full nudity and pornographic images/text. I would not kid about a thing like that. Yet, you have chosen to ignore me. No response whatsoever. Not even an ‘F’ you. Hey, believe me, it wouldn’t be the first time I got one of those from you guys.
One would think you’d want to straighten this problem out; or do you hope I/we(dhd) just go away?
And the comment at the end of my last post? It’s called “ball-busting”. Learn how to take it on the chin, will ya?November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2155
I live behind a firewall too, and it never tells me I can’t go here because of full nudity or pornographic language. Since it’s pretty obvious that there’s no nudity or porn here, it’s probablythat your firewall is set to “anal” firewall protection and is preventing you from looking at anything with even the word caca in it. This is something you should take up with your admin instead of GS.November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2157
Dupree, I honestly thought you were joking. As Eric says, there’s obviously no content like that here. To be sure, we searched our entire site to see if anyonewas hosting something that we didn’t know about and could find nothing.
Tell me more about your ESPN account. Do you know how they are filtering it? By matching terms? I’ll tell you now, we’re not doing this to try to deter people from using the BB. Why would I go through all of the trouble of moving the old forum, retaining people’s accounts so usernames aren’t “stolen” by others and to sift through tens of thousands of old posts just to run people off?
Bottom line, I want people to post here, but I don’t work for ESPN, and I know there’s no content like that here. I want to help you get through to our site, as its obvious you can from somewhere due to your posts, but I need a little more info than just “it doesn’t work” and then jabs are thrown. Give me an email address of someone at ESPN internet account access and I’ll ask them why they’re blocking our site. I may have to referenece you as the user who is complaining since I don’t have an account with them.November 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm #2158
Ah, Pratt. Always the voice of reason. Yes, anal firewall is bloody well likely. You know how those tv sports guys are. A thousand pardons my dear GS boys.
It would’ve been nice to be acknowledged. And please, get rid of the word “caca”, so those of us with anal firewalls can access.
Anal. Heh, heh. Heh, heh, heh.November 22, 2017 at 6:12 pm #2160
Sorry, didn’t see your post. In fact, I’m on location with one of the main admin guys so I’ll be speaking to him when I get to the track. I’ll email you.
Thanks.November 22, 2017 at 6:12 pm #2161
Ok, talked to the admin guy and got the door unlocked. FYI, they go by keywords and unlock legitimate sites on a case by case basis.
Sorry to cause such a stir.November 22, 2017 at 6:12 pm #2163
I’d still be real curious as to why they blocked us in the first place. 😯November 22, 2017 at 6:12 pm #2164
😯 too much exposure 😯November 22, 2017 at 6:12 pm #2165
I don’t think they blocked you for any particular reason. I may have heard this wrong, but I think they block any site with keywords and unlock them as they find them legit. Don’t quote me, but that’s what I think.November 22, 2017 at 6:12 pm #2166
Now wouldn’t that be rich. If the meta stuff for search engines has “see Pam Anderson s** Tommy lee or the like.
ROlling on the flooorrr laughing my arssssse offfff.
Now that might generate some hits.
But Mikey says GS isn’t interested in hits so it must not be true 😉
Hmmm might have to be some “splaining” over this one. and thats no KAKA. 😆 😉 😛
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.