Re: 2.1 vs 2.0 for Max Impacts

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Scott McMillan (scott++at++ht.com)
Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:31:02 -0500 (EST)

Excuse the delay (I have been out of the office), but I am really interested
in some clarification on which Impacts Performer 2.1 can/should be
installed. The following comment has me curious:

> From guest++at++holodeck.csd.sgi.com Wed Jan 15 04:42:20 1997
> Message-Id: <9701150430.AA25478++at++gdi4.gdi.net>
> From: pratts++at++gdi4.gdi.net (Shirley Pratt)
> X-Mailer: SCO System V Mail (version 3.2)
> To: info-performer++at++sgi.com
> Subject: Re: 2.1 vs 2.0 for Max Impacts
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 23:30:21 EST
>
> >From: "Howard Larson" <larson++at++howard.es.hac.com>
> >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:28:41 -0800
> >To: pratts++at++gdi4.gdi.net (Shirley Pratt)
> >Subject: Re: 2.1 vs 2.0 for Max Impacts
> >
...
> >
> >Performer 2.0 came out Dec 95,
> >
> >you should use Performer 2.1
> > if you do NOT have a R4400 in your Indigo 2 Max Impacts

What is particularly wrong with installing 2.1 on a machine with R4400's?

-- 
  Scott McMillan  |       HT Medical, Inc.      | Developing virtual environ-
   scott++at++ht.com   |      http://www.ht.com      | ment medical and surgical
 Ph: 301-984-3706 | 6001 Montrose Rd., Ste. 902 | simulations and surgery
Fax: 301-984-2104 |     Rockville, MD 20852     | simulation creation tools.


=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions:  info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests:  info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:54:23 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.