Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by netcom9.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id XAA06011; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:36:16 -0700
From: Jeric@cup.portal.com
Received: from hobo.online.portal.com (hobo.online.portal.com [156.151.5.5]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA19179 for <lightwave-l@netcom.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:36:12 -0700
Received: (pccop@localhost) by hobo.online.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id XAA13798 for lightwave-l@netcom.com; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:36:12 -0700
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Windows 95 preformance vs.
Lines: 20
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 23:36:11 PDT
Message-ID: <9504252336.2.13737@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
> Windows 95 preformance vs. NT
>Has anybody been able to benchmark LightWave's preformance using Windows 95
>vs. NT yet? I was just wondering if there was much of a difference in
>rendering speeds between the two.
>
Ahhhh, since Windoze 95 isn't due to be released until August,
how exactly was this supposed to be accomplished?
(The intersection of the sets of: those with beta versions of
Windoze 95, those w/PC versions LW 4.0, and those who care enough
to actually do it, is probably zero. We haven't even found out