Having just been seriously tempted by Curious Labs' recent P6 offer, I took a look at their store and found that Poser 6 requires Windows XP or 2000. Um. Uh-oh. I still have Windows ME. I can afford $100 for Poser 6 and Shade, but not in addition to the upgrade price for Windows. :( So I have come here to ask: is this system requirement something serious? If they say Poser 6 requires Windows XP, would I simply never get it to run on ME? I have a bad feeling the answer is "yes", but if anyone has any knowledge about such things, please respond! Because I can't decide whether to continue to be sorely tempted by the P6 offers, or not. :)

Bookmark because I want to know, too.

The RAM requirements for Poser 5 and up are pretty high. Versions of Windows prior to Win 2K all limit the RAM usuage of any one program (to 128 Meg in the case of Win ME). You really need about 1 gig of RAM for good performance with P5, so I'd say P6 will likely run slow and ugly, if at all, on ME. My advice would be that upgrading your hardware and your OS should be higher priority for you than upgrading Poser. You'll get much better performance out of your existing Poser that way.

I couldn't even get Poser 5 to run very well on Windows 98. Luckily the college bookstore had an education priced version of XP Pro for $99. (oddly enough the homne version was $104 so I went with the pro version)

Honestly, P5 works fine for me on my ME system. I have 512 MB of RAM and I use a RAM management utility. I use Firefly sparingly and don't go in for Vicky 3 and the high-end, poly-dense figures. But would P6 do the same? Would it even run? What is different about it that would make it incompatible with ME? Does it somehow require the NTFS OS structure, whatever one might call it? Or is Curious simply changing the way they publicize the product and the functionality would be about the same? In short, I am wondering whether it would run at all on my system, RAM considerations aside. I am wondering about OS compatibility. This is probably not the right place to ask.... :)

bookmarking

I never had a problem with Poser 5 and Windows98. I had to upgrade to WindowsXPHome because another 3D program kept crashing in Windows98 (even though it was written for it).

On Curious Labs site it definately says system REQUIREMENTS are windows 200 and XP not recommendation. It gives requirement and recommendation for RAM so I believe it won't run on Win 95, 98 or ME. Another disappointed user I too have ME not XP and had no intention of upgrading my OS =:(

Poser 5 system requirements: Windows 98se, 2000, ME or XP 500MHz Pentium class or compatible (700Mhz or greater recommended) 128MB system RAM (256MB recommended) 24-bit color display, 1024 x 768 resolution 500MB free hard disk space Internet connection required for Content Paradise Poser 6 system requirements: Windows 2000 or XP 500 MHz Pentium class or compatible (700 Mhz or faster recommended) 256 MB system RAM (512 MB or more recommended) OpenGL enabled graphics card or chipset recommended (recent NVIDIA GeForce and ATI Radeon preferred) 24-bit color display, 1024 x 768 resolution 500 MB free hard disk space Internet connection required for Content Paradise About the only difference is the operating system and the amount of RAM. For those that are running 98 or ME with 512MB of RAM and having no problems with Poser 5, why couldn't they run Poser 6? Is has something to do with XP, not just memory. When Microsoft launches Longhorn (next year I believe) XP will follow the same route as 98, 98SE, ME, and now 2000....yes 2000. Where I work, we just recently had a recall from Microsoft of all copies of Win 2000.

Hi, Another possibility is Win 2000 & Xp are multithreads and dual CPU (multi) OS support,... Not the Win 98, Me. This is most powerfull, but at this time the Poser3, 4, 5 are not using this feature, losting a lot time... and 1500 Mo DDR memory is welcome! I hope this is right, MORE POWER, thinking the future, going to the 64 bit application! Isn't it Katherine?

Poser 5 is slightly sluggish for me but does work ok. I have only 128 megabytes of ram and windows 98 (the best windows).

If they make it 64 bit they will lose 90 percent of their customers. I am guessing, like everyone else, curiouslabs will wait and see if 64 bit computers will become popular before abandoning 32 bit (which is a good thing IMO).

If you have more than 64 meg in your computer you are seriously losing performance by using 98 or ME FACT . CL will have to make a 64 bit version of Poser and will not have a choice except in the timing of the release ,64 bit isn't a fad that will burn out and fade away it is the next generation of computing and this is shown by the fact that all CPU manufacturars are currently ramping up 64 bit design and manufacture.

Until it is realeased and someone with both systems, or money to burn, tries it on 9x whether it requires an NT based system or merely isn't supported on earlier versions will remain unknown - some things say 2000/XP and run under 9x, some say 200/XP and mean it.

They're'll have no support in the future for the 98, Me ,and other NT based, Nt, Win 2000, theses are going to be out of microsoft. I understand this isn't the time to give us a 64bits. It's so far for a lot of users... This is what I hope first: using all the power of the multicpu under Win 2000 & XP. Did CL give us the Poser6 requiments in this way?

This is tending to become very common. Win Xp has better memory management. When I looked at Vue I was told Vue 5 was Win XP only. If you have the cash buy the upgrade now and stick it in a cupboard somewhere. You save a lot on the upgrade pricing. I have not seen any mention of upgrade pricing for the future.

I will never use Windows XP. After working for a large company and really getting to see the differences in the Windows software, I'll stop buying new programs and keep my old ones versus buying something that is XP compatible only. I alreay have a 64 bit system and couldn't be more pleased. This computer I have now, is more stable and faster and runs better than any system I've ever had. Kristta

I used a dvd playing program from windows xp in windows 98 with no problem (powerdvd). Windows xp is very slow on my computer so I am reluctant to reinstall it just to use poser 6. The gigabyte pagefiles it made on my harddisk were not so welcome either.

If you use a computer, and commercial software, you soon reach the point where you need to upgrade your operating system and hardware periodically, in order to run the software you want. You can choose not to keep up, but you'll soon find that there is no software that will work on your older system with the older versions of Windows. You can't expect the rest of the computer world to support an operating system that is after all 7 years old.

If they made a new version of windows that was fast and efficient and got rid of most of the bugs I would be happy to upgrade but using a slow inneficient and buggy program like xp is not my idea of upgrading thanks.

in how far is XP inefficient and buggy? By any means, it's far less buggier and much more stable than 95/98/ME.

Switching from 98Se to XP cut the render time for Jim Burton's P4 test scene from 49-50 seconds to 40-41 seconds, probably thanks to better memory handling. Switch off most (or all) of the eyecandy and XP is a pretty decent performer as long as you have more than 256MB of RAM - if you don't then it may be a downgrade.

If you're short on RAM, Win2k could be a nice alternative, it seems like it's not as memory-greedy as XP. Getting 2k or XP is worth it IMHO not just for Poser 6 but also for the increased overall stability and reliability.

Windows 2000 is 5 years old, and abandoned by Microsoft in favor of Windows XP.

Yet a lot better than Windows ME, 98 or 95.

(sarcasm on) You mean CL isn't going to still support Win 3.1.....the horror....that was may favorite version. Damn...now I have to upgrade(sarcasm off). Guess I finally have to give up pong. LOL

Microsoft is still supporting Windows98 and higher with critical and security updates. They have extended their support for Windows98 beyond the normal seven years because they are still working on the 64-bit version of Windows and its release time has been pushed for later.

Some apps stopped working in Windows95 only because the version of DirectX or openGL they needed wasn't made for Windows95. DirectX 8.0a was the last version that worked in Windows95. Some games now need DirectX 9.0 or higher to play. So right away, you have to upgrade Windows to install the DirectX to install the game.

Another example is that Windows98 can't perform the huge memory management and virtual RAM (Windows swapfile) needed for a lot of the 3D apps now available. So companies don't bother testing their software in Windows98 and don't bother listing Windows98 as a requirement. Their program might still work in Windows98, depending on how well behaved it is. But some apps flat out will not let you install them in Windows98 to save you any stress and headaches.

Message edited on: 02/20/2005 16:15

LOL! Okay, here's the deal with Microsoft: XP is merely bells, whistles, and codefixes slathered atop Win2k code, which in turn is glopped atop the original Windows NT microkernel architecture. Sorry guys, you ain't getting much new under-the-hood, just additional features, drivers, and etc. Windows 98 is much the same way, being gooped atop Win95, both of which still reliant upon a DOS core for their functionality. Windows ME was the last-ditch effort to extend Win98 beyond what it was capable of doing. "...in how far is XP inefficient and buggy...?' Compared to *nix or OSX (which may as well be called a *nix), Windows[insert version here] is, in its very concept and execution, a bug-ridden and decidedly inelegant pile of horsecrap. It does have two saving graces, however: 1) Everybody writes stuff for it due to market penetration. It gained that market penetration because... 2) ...any monkey can use it. The only version of Windows worth using IMHO is Server 2003, but it makes a very lousy workstation without a lot of tweaking involved. Will Longhorn do any better? Dunno... hope they can. /P

So Pengy, can you run Poser in Linux? How about all the other major 3D Apps?

Actually, I have, numerous times. BTW, "Maya" isn't exactly small potatoes, and don't tell Pixar or ILM that their Linux renderfarms aren't useful either ;) But, forget Linux for a moment, Ron. Notice IRIX that runs on SGI workstations. Notice OSX that runs on Macs... they're all *nix. ...and, none of this negates the failures and problems inherent in Windows, does it? Didn't think so. :) /P

I was tempted to reply but...no, I don't think we want a NT vs Unix flamefest in here, do we?

Attached Link: http://www.zaon.com/company/articles/3d_rendering.php

Also, I'd take anything about support timeframes with a grain of salt. Microsoft extended some support of 98/ME scheduled to end in 2004 to 2006. It all depends on how fast people migrate.

I'd agree with the idea to go ahead and get P5 while it's cheap and probably plan on needing an OS upgrade, perhaps to have it run at all, but certainly to get the best performance out of it. It may run under 98 and CL is simply trying to reduce the hassle of having to support three (Mac/98/2000/XP) distinctly different OS environments.

I still run 98SE (in addition to 2000) for one hardware/software application--and as a backup in case the 2000 disk hardware goes belly up. In my experience, stability under 98 is hit or miss at best, but like everything else, it depends on your individual setup. I couldn't blame CL for wanting to make it go away.

Message edited on: 02/20/2005 17:22

Actually, Pengy, I went through the Trials and Tribulations of using a "better operating system," when I hung onto OS/2 for a few years. First I got tired of all the dirty looks when I tried to talk about OS/2 to computer people. Then I got tired of all the applications that wouldn't work under OS/2. What really killed it for me was when Corel dropped the OS/2 version of Corel Draw, before they actually fixed the first release. From then on I chose to use an operating system that is totally compatible with all my software: Windows.

Ha! BeOS owns you. ;)

LMAO! I think I still got BeOS stashed around the house somewhere :) " I went through the Trials and Tribulations of using a "better operating system," when I hung onto OS/2 for a few years" (...err, Ron, you do know that Microsoft and IBM initially worked together to build OS/2, right? I had to admin a lot of them boxes... ran like Hell until you wanted to install something on it. )

Attached Link: http://www.yellowtab.com/

My Timex-Sinclair 2068 was very stable. No hard drive, no floppy, no network, just 72KB of Z80 goodness and built in BASIC. What more do you need?

Pengy, of course I know MS and IBM worked together. Yes, and MS fought with them all the way till they finally bailed out. Then it was not long till Windows 95 arrived. Oh, and OS/2 ran just fine on my home-built computers. Of course, Windows XP and Poser 5 do as well.

Some people simply hate Microsoft, hate Windows, and hate that their precious UNIX clones aren't being used by the popular crowd.

I doubt Peng is such a raving fundamentalist though I suspect he does have a Linus Torvalds rug that he uses to pray thrice daily while facing Bell Labs or Lucent or whatever the hell it is these days :-) I always thought DEC was the pinnacle of computing so I'm pleased that the David N. Cutler, NT's chief architect was one of the primary developers of VAX VMS. Considering the expectation of supporting every off the wall piece of garage sale hardware and screwball Mongolian freeware available, I think he did OK.

I just feel Linux is not a viable replacement for Windows unless there is a Linux version of all the software I'd normally use. Linux may be practical for security, or advanced web sites, but is useless in my everyday life.

Err, guys? I'm not pushing Linux specifically.

Thought I'd clue folks in on that (wink)

SHONNER: OSX is a UNIX Clone too (specifically BSD.) ;)

I honestly couldn't care less what others use, though it is diconcerting to see the 'net clogged up with whatever virus gets passed around like wildfire... :/

/P

(Edit: fscking emoticons... bleah.)

Message edited on: 02/21/2005 12:07

Back to the original post: I think it's the 256 MB RAM requirement of P6. Win98/Me can't handle more than 128 MB/app, a memory compression/defragmentation utility like Ramboost can push it somewhat beyond that limit, but 256 MB? I don't think so. A Win98/Me rig with more than 128 MB physical just has a large disk cache, that's all the system uses those extra MBs for. WinXP has a lot of bells and whistles, but if you turn them off it's a nice fast OS. Is it better than Win2000? Not really, the only real difference is driver and hardware support - I can't run 2000 on my portable, but I can (and do) run XP. Mac OSX has its own problems (CFM/Carbon/Cocoa). I don't know if Mac OSX lets the user turn off the eye candy and leave some CPU power to really get things done... those G5s ARE awesome processors and should run circles around a Pentium 4 - with a lean and mean OS.

I think you are wrong on that - I believe the Windows 9x limit was 512MB per application, and multiple applications took advantage of multiple 512s. There was a limit at about 1.5GB, and over 512MB you needed to set the VCache environment variable to avoid its running rampant over the system, but I certainly saw a substantial speed and stability improvement when I took my system from 256MB to 768MB under 98SE.

"I doubt Peng is such a raving fundamentalist though I suspect he does have a Linus Torvalds rug that he uses to pray thrice daily while facing Bell Labs or Lucent or whatever the hell it is these days :-)" ROFLMAO!!

Oh fer hell's sake... it faces Portland Oregon, home of the Open Source Development Labs. But then... Anyone who has visited my wee gallery would've already known this... Duh. /P

Morlocks no like light.

JUst to let anyone interested - i have poser 6 running on Windows ME - I couldn't get WinXP to install on my desktop PC thought I was going to have to run P6 on my laptop but miricles do happen!

Good to hear ir. I bet CL just wants to decrease the number of variables they have to deal with. You probably didn't even have to recompile your kernel :-)