Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

waterskidoo <water.skidoo.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 2007-07-31, FoolsGold <fg.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux install
>> compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by the
>> operating system = more of the games, or something like that.
>
> Exactly.
> It's 'she' btw Smile

>

It doesn't really work like that. Most games playing XP machines are
dedicated and don't run web servers, databases etc.

XP really does give the machine over to the game.

As for the comments about preemptive multitasking etc, it really doesn't
make much difference whatsoever since people who play fast FPS (which
are generally still single threaded anyway) simply don't run other
things in the bg.

No doubt Linux is better designed - but as far as games players go its a
big "shrug - runs faster and more reliably on XP". Wine and CEDEGA can
work but more often than not its a real pain in the butt to get them
working.

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>> that most wont run on Linux?
>
> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.

No. Some do. And no they dont run better at all. There is some claims
that disk bound games run smoother - I can believe that. But please dont
claim that the DirectX emulator runs faster than the native calls
because it simply is not true - especially at the latest DX versions.

>
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!

Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Or are you just another
ignorant fan boy making things up as you go along?

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.DeleteThis@gmx.de> writes:

> * Hadron:
>
>> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
>> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
>
> BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI
> interface. In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but
> in an increase in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects,
> though.

DX10 is slower. I also pointed a lot of it is down to immature
drivers. Some is down to the architectural changes which were necessary
to keep stuff away from the inner rings of the OS.

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA RemoveThis @ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:

> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter RemoveThis @NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>
>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>
> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?

Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
calls. m'kay? This has been done to death with.

> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
> facilities.

Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't. The in
between DLL emulates what it thinks the win32 api would do with the
passed parameters. Its why it needs to be changed so soften as yet
another "state" of the win32 is discovered not to be covered in the
emulation layer.

And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.

Davorin Vlahovic · External Since: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 305

On 2007-08-01, Hadron <hadronquark.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA.RemoveThis@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>
>> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter.RemoveThis@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>>
>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>>
>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>
> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
> calls. m'kay?

No.

>> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
>> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
>> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
>> facilities.
>
> Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
> win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't.

Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
execution - only the system calls are intercepted.

> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
> myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.

Softies Smile

Anyway, even if someone is a wine developer it doesn't have to mean that
he/she (ok, who am I kidding - he) knows what an emulator is.

The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
"transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
calls).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_2000_architecture.svg

Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.

Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management) so for a
win32 app it doesn't really matter what kind of kernel is behind the
win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux Smile

But in that case it
doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
it as an environment subsystem on Linux.

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Gerry Quinn · External Since: Aug 01, 2007 Posts: 5

In article <46afbe15$0$12193$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
emailaddress DeleteThis @nomailthanks.com says...
> Christopher Hunter wrote:
> > It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> > you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
> > simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> > specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!
>
> If you're talking 3D games I'd love to see that myself, u got a link?

Of course he doesn't. Look at the newsgroups list - he obviously comes
from the morons' one.

- Gerry Quinn

Ivan Marsh · External Since: Jan 26, 2005 Posts: 438

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:45:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
> myth.

Uh... no, it's not. Wine does in fact stand for "Wine Is Not An Emulator"
because Wine is not an emulator.

> And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.

Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:

"Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running Windows
applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating systems.
Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs would, running
without the performance or memory usage penalties of an emulator, with a
similar look and feel to other applications on your desktop."

From the Wine FAQ:

"Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?

They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original name
for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there really is no
point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so please use the simpler,
current name of the project: Wine. It's what we use."

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA DeleteThis @ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:

> On 2007-08-01, Hadron <hadronquark DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA DeleteThis @ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>>
>>> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter DeleteThis @NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>>>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>>>
>>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>>
>> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
>> calls. m'kay?
>
> No.

is that all you have?

>
>>> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
>>> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
>>> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
>>> facilities.
>>
>> Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
>> win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't.
>
> Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
> sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
> mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
> execution - only the system calls are intercepted.

No most of them do not have it. The entire state and flag set are
different. Screen handling? Are you joking? They have totally different
APIs. Ditto for sound.

Sure the opcodes are not emulated. But "Emulation" means a lot mode than
that.

>> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
>> myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
>> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>
> Softies Smile

>
> Anyway, even if someone is a wine developer it doesn't have to mean that
> he/she (ok, who am I kidding - he) knows what an emulator is.

Oh please. You have one meaning. There are others.

>
> The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
> it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
> "transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
> calls).

No. Thats not how I am thinking of it.

The system calls are intercepted and WINE emulates what the equivalent
win32 code would do. What is so hard for you to understand here?

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_2000_architecture.svg
>
> Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.

So?

>
> Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management) so for a
> win32 app it doesn't really matter what kind of kernel is behind the

??????????????????

> win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux Smile

But in that case it
> doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
> it as an environment subsystem on Linux.

What *are* you talking about?

I think you should go back and start from scratch and you seem to be
scratching around in the dark.

Just FYI:

The programs are windows code.

They call system calls/win32 : these are intercepted.

At this stage WINE pretends to be the win32/system APIs in Windows. It
*emulates* what the windows code would do - it doesn't know what the
windows code really does other than the usual reverse engineering.

And before you embarrass yourself as much as Spike1 and some others did:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

waterskidoo · External Since: Jul 10, 2007 Posts: 308

On 2007-08-01, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.RemoveThis@gmx.de> wrote:
> * Tim Smith:
>>> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
>>> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.
>>
>> It's a particularly bad niche for a games developer, because not only
>> are they starting with a small market (Linux desktop uses), a rather
>> vocal component of that market is strongly opposed to any closed source
>> software, so the game developer (if their game is not open source) will
>> have to put up with a lot of being badmouthed by people who consider
>> their presence an affront to the purity of Linux.
>
> Right, that's another problem. I find it ridiculous how the community
> attacks gfx vendors like ATI/AMD and Nvidia because they don't want to
> open source their drivers. Heck, they (the community) should be happy
> that both companies develop for their operating system. Instead, they
> are attacking them.

There are different philosophies WRT to Linux and Linux systems.
Some people are purists and want complete Open Source software and
will not acknowledge closed source at all.
I respect the opinions of these people and although I wish that
it were like that I realize it is not and might never be.
However, without people like that, it will never stand a chance
of happening so like I said I do appreciate and respect their
efforts. As for me, if it's Linux that's all I care about.
I use Windows as well (XP) and respect OSX too.
I use what works for me in a particular application.
Most times it's Linux, but sometimes Windows is the only
solution.

Davorin Vlahovic · External Since: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 305

On 2007-08-01, Hadron <hadronquark.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>>>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>>>
>>> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
>>> calls. m'kay?
>>
>> No.
>
> is that all you have?

No, thought you'd have scanned through the whole post before answering
it. Guess I was wrong.

>> Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
>> sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
>> mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
>> execution - only the system calls are intercepted.
>
> No most of them do not have it. The entire state and flag set are
> different. Screen handling? Are you joking? They have totally different
> APIs. Ditto for sound.

Because of different APIs there is a need to rework the way of calling
the targeting system's APIs through win APIs but the principles stay the
same - catch an event, draw border, move window, fill background,
repaint...

> Sure the opcodes are not emulated. But "Emulation" means a lot mode than
> that.

The thing is not a lot is being "emulated". There's just a relativly
thin layer that glues together many things. GDI? Part of Xlib.
Direct3D? OpenGL. DirectSound? ALSA.

>> The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
>> it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
>> "transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
>> calls).
>
> No. Thats not how I am thinking of it.

Well, I'm not clairvoyant. But, never the less, my point stands even if
it's not the way you're thinking of it.

> The system calls are intercepted and WINE emulates what the equivalent
> win32 code would do. What is so hard for you to understand here?

Suppose you're right. What is Xlib then? Is it an emulation? Because,
you know, it catches some API calls and transcribes them to X Window
System protocol.

Let's go a step further - what is GTK/Qt? It too catches some API calls
and transcribes them to Xlib/X Window System protocol.

Is GTK or Qt also emulation?

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_2000_architecture.svg
>>
>> Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.
>
> So?

So tell me the diff between Win32 subsystem on windows and WINE on
Linux. As far as I can see, these two things do the same work. Using
your definition Win32 apps aren't native on windows either.

>> win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux Smile

But in that case it
>> doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
>> it as an environment subsystem on Linux.
>
> What *are* you talking about?
>
> I think you should go back and start from scratch and you seem to be
> scratching around in the dark.

I'm ok where I am, thank you very much.

> Just FYI:
>
> The programs are windows code.

No, those programs are x86 32bit protected mode code, executed the same
way it would be executed on any x86 CPU in protected mode.

> They call system calls/win32 : these are intercepted.

System calls? No, win32 _subsystem_ calls Smile

Windows has around 200
system calls, but only about 20 are documented.

What you're thinking of are library calls, just like printf is a libc
library call. They do exactly the same things WINE does.

> At this stage WINE pretends to be the win32/system APIs in Windows. It
> *emulates* what the windows code would do - it doesn't know what the
> windows code really does other than the usual reverse engineering.

So, at what stage Xlib starts pretending to be a X Window System protocol
API?

> And before you embarrass yourself as much as Spike1 and some others did:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

Couldn't care less.
--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Davorin Vlahovic · External Since: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 305

On 2007-08-01, Tim Smith <reply_in_group.TakeThisOut@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnfb0qse.3oc.nrubA.TakeThisOut@afrodita.home.lan>,
> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA.TakeThisOut@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote:
>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>
> (Pedantic mode on)
>
> Actually, it is an emulator.

Actually, I guess we have a "row" over what is exactly an emulator Smile

IMHO, ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html) would be a
Windows emulator/implementation, but Wine would not. Wine could be a
part of an emulator, but it's not emulator as it is.

At best it's a compatibility layer.
--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2698

In article <pan.2007.08.01.20.23.13.919771 DeleteThis @you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed DeleteThis @you.now> wrote:
> > And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
> > it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>
> Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:
>
> "Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running Windows
> applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating systems.
> Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs would, running
> without the performance or memory usage penalties of an emulator, with a
> similar look and feel to other applications on your desktop."
>
>
> From the Wine FAQ:
>
> "Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?
>
> They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original name
> for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there really is no
> point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so please use the simpler,
> current name of the project: Wine. It's what we use."

It's surprising the current FAQ would say that was the original name of
the project. The recursive acronym was first suggested in 1993, on
comp.os.linux.misc:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/eb77fac360ad4a52?d
mode=source&hl=en>

And here's what the Wine FAQ used to say:

1.2: Why call it 'Wine'?

The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or
Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like
best.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/msg/bd872c
886eaf33fe?dmode=source&hl=en>

Apparently, the current FAQ authors are a little hazy on the history of
Wine. Sad

The developers referred to it as an emulator up to and including the
981108 release:

This is release 981108 of Wine, the MS Windows emulator. This is
still a developers only release. There are many bugs and many
unimplemented API features. Most applications still do not work
correctly.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/msg/17d9c0
ffb51dee7e?dmode=source&hl=en>

The 981211 release was the first to drop that language from the release
notes:

This is release 981211 of Wine, a free implementation of Windows on
Unix. This is still a developers only release. There are many bugs
and unimplemented features. Most applications still do not work
correctly.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/msg/61b60e
ee1071b0b5?dmode=source&hl=en>

--
--Tim Smith

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

Davorin Vlahovic wrote:

> Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management)

No. It's predominantly ancient spaghetti code which nobody at Redmond
actually understands any more. Any modularity is purely accidental!

Windows is an unmaintainable mess, and the sooner it's junked and replaced
with a proper OS kernel, with a proper scheduler, proper memory management,
truly coherent code and developer base that actually cares about the
product, the sooner Microsoft can release a working product.

C.

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

Davorin Vlahovic wrote:

> Windows has around 200 system calls, but only about 20 are documented.

19 of those 20 are incorrectly or inaccurately documented, and 199 out of
the 200 don't work properly.

Actually, my /cheat/ /sheet/ shows 211 system calls.

C.

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3556

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>
>> Windows has around 200 system calls, but only about 20 are
>> documented.
>
> 19 of those 20 are incorrectly or inaccurately documented, and 199
> out of the 200 don't work properly.
>
> Actually, my /cheat/ /sheet/ shows 211 system calls.
>
> C.

Aren't you the same lying Linux idiot who said Windows Server 2003 crashes
every 17 hours?

Yes you are.

Davorin Vlahovic · External Since: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 305

On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter DeleteThis @NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>
>> Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management)
>
> No. It's predominantly ancient spaghetti code which nobody at Redmond
> actually understands any more. Any modularity is purely accidental!

Modularity is a side-effect of having an almost-microkernel kernel Smile

> Windows is an unmaintainable mess, and the sooner it's junked and replaced
> with a proper OS kernel, with a proper scheduler, proper memory management,
> truly coherent code and developer base that actually cares about the
> product, the sooner Microsoft can release a working product.

Actually, NT kernel is (compared to other parts of the OS) pretty solid.

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Thufir · External Since: Aug 24, 2006 Posts: 195

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:41:10 +0200, Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> A fully useable Linux installation doesn't consume less resources than
> Windows.

Perhaps. I know that with Linux if I overload the memory with too many
apps doing too many thing and manage to freeze gnome, which I do from
time to time, I can generally ctrl-alt-backspace and just re-login. In
windows, it would be ctrl-alt-delete to restart.

In my experience, windows desktops are not nearly as reliable as Linux.

In Linux, it's easier to run different apps on different desktops. I
haven't seen Vista, but imagine that Microsoft is trying to go that route
but doesn't want to appear like the idea of multiple desktops didn't
originate with them.

So, Linux consumes less of my resources, or at least allows me to better
manage my resources (primarily time).

-Thufir

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> Look at the newsgroups list - he obviously comes
> from the morons' one.

That's rich, coming from a thick mick.

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> * Hadron:
>
>> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
>> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
>
> BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI interface.
> In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but in an increase
> in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects, though.

DX10 is just there to allow the Vista DRM to work. It has terrible speed
issues.

C.

Zaghadka · External Since: Jul 31, 2007 Posts: 7

This message is not archived