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

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Zaghadka
<zaghadka.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:52 GMT
<ias1b3di16f203mu2rc3o8pgcu140b4ges.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:32 +0000 (UTC), in
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>
>>On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter.TakeThisOut@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.
>
> In fact, in the tradition of GNU, that's what it stands for:
>
> (W)ine (I)s (N)ot an (E)mulator.
>

I'm not entirely sure how to characterize WinE, apart
from its capability to load Intel PE executable files and
to emulate/translate/implement certain Win32 and other
Windows-specific thunks/calls/whatnot into Linux/X calls.
The rest of the code -- in particular, x86 machine code
-- is allowed to run natively, at least on an x86 box.
I don't know if WinE can emulate x86 code and run, say,
SOL.EXE on a non-x86 box. However, WinE *can* load
Windows DLLs.

It does get complicated -- mostly because the Windows API
is a moving target, and not 100% documented. (x86 is also
a moving target, though not nearly as fast. 8088s ruled
the roost two decades or so ago.)

The main troubles I've had with WinE are not with WinE
proper, but with assumptions made by the app code WinE is
trying to run. In particular, some programs (older ones,
usually) create a file or directory named 'fubar' then
access it using 'FUBAR', or vice versa. Windows doesn't
mind this at all, but most Linux file systems are not
happy.

As for STEAM -- not familiar with it beyond its
applicability towards certain games.

--
#191, ewill3.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net
Does anyone else remember the 1802?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

Davorin Vlahovic wrote:

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

Not any more - it /was/ about 5 years ago, but it got screwed over last
September, and hasn't been the same since!

C.

graeme · External Since: Jan 09, 2007 Posts: 44

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:19:41 +0200, 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.
>
> Benjamin

Crap. Where have you been the past 6 months? Almost across the board
games on Vista are slower,

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.htmlart=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Benjamin Gawert · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 16

* graeme:

>>> 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.
>>
>> Benjamin
>
> Crap. Where have you been the past 6 months? Almost across the board
> games on Vista are slower,

Right. And that says exactly *what* about DX10? Yes, nothing.

Of course it's not that the Vista gfx drivers still lack the amount of
optimization that the XP drivers do have. And it's not that the
completely new architecture of DX10 hardware (AMD Radeon 2xxx and
Geforce Cool

lacks the driver optimization that the drivers for the older
(conventional) gfx cards got over the last 8 years or so. And of course
it's not possible that Vista still needs enhancements that will help
overall performance, something which Windowsxp already got in the now
almost 6 years it's out.

Of course all this is just unimportant. The only reason why games are
slower in Vista than in XP must be DirectX 10. Yeah, right. Get a clue.

> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.htmlart=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

"URL not found"

Benjamin

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

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> Of course it's not that the Vista gfx drivers still lack the amount of
> optimization that the XP drivers do have.

Nope. You've missed the point. DX10 was purely written to allow the Vista
DRM to work (sort of - like any MS product). The Vista drivers are
crippled by the DRM layer that they have to contend with. That, and the
abysmal sched design.

C.

graeme · External Since: Jan 09, 2007 Posts: 44

Follow up:

Vista _is_ DX10.

Benjamin Gawert · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 16

* graeme:
> Follow up:
>
> Vista _is_ DX10.

BS. Vista is an OS, DX10 is a collection of standardized APIs. Apples
and oranges.

Benjamin

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

graeme wrote:

> Follow up:
>
> Vista _is_ DX10.

So Vista *is* DRM. *Game* *Over*, *Microsoft.* Users don't want their
computing experience crippled by spurious "copyright protection" nonsense!

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

On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>
>> Actually, NT kernel is (compared to other parts of the OS) pretty solid.
>
> Not any more - it /was/ about 5 years ago, but it got screwed over last
> September, and hasn't been the same since!

I think we're off-topic Smile

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

How about a nice game of chess?

graeme · External Since: Jan 09, 2007 Posts: 44

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:45:05 +0200, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * graeme:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Benjamin
>>
>> Crap. Where have you been the past 6 months? Almost across the board
>> games on Vista are slower,
>
> Right. And that says exactly *what* about DX10? Yes, nothing.
>
> Of course it's not that the Vista gfx drivers still lack the amount of
> optimization that the XP drivers do have. And it's not that the
> completely new architecture of DX10 hardware (AMD Radeon 2xxx and
> Geforce Cool

lacks the driver optimization that the drivers for the older
> (conventional) gfx cards got over the last 8 years or so. And of course
> it's not possible that Vista still needs enhancements that will help
> overall performance, something which Windowsxp already got in the now
> almost 6 years it's out.

"Optimization" isn't needed, what is needed is a significant performance
boost to reclaim XP speeds. Not just a tweak.

> Of course all this is just unimportant. The only reason why games are
> slower in Vista than in XP must be DirectX 10. Yeah, right. Get a clue.

Give me a clue then - why are games in Vista slower if not for graphics?

> "URL not found"

opps

http://tinyurl.com/2qwnva

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

In article <f36si.36693$2U6.27998@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
chrisehunter.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> > Look at the newsgroups list - he obviously comes
> > from the morons' one.
>
> That's rich, coming from a thick mick.

I'm from Ireland, that's true. I can sing 'Danny Boy' if you like.

But you're from comp.sys.linux.advocacy, the *advocacy* tag meaning you
are a member of an utterly pathethic group of idiots.

You observed: "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!"

Can you defend that (I called you on it and you did not reply), or are
you just typical of the pointless morons in comp.os.linux advocacy?

[Followups restored, including followups to the morons' newsgroup, also
known as comp.sys.linux.advocacy. Wonder why you deleted them...]

- Gerry Quinn

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

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> But you're from comp.sys.linux.advocacy, the *advocacy* tag meaning you
> are a member of an utterly pathethic group of idiots.

Nope - it just happened to be in the cross-posting list of groups from the
original posting. I replied to alt.os.linux just as you did.

C.

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

graeme wrote:

> "Optimization" isn't needed, what is needed is a significant performance
> boost to reclaim XP speeds. Not just a tweak.

Even XP was pretty laggardly, but Vista is like molasses.

> Give me a clue then - why are games in Vista slower if not for graphics?

It's because there are a couple of extra layers of DRM rubbish to stumble
through.

C.

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

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

> On 2007-08-01, Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnfb0qse.3oc.nrubA.DeleteThis@afrodita.home.lan>,
>> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA.DeleteThis@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

No. You have an issue. You know one meaning whereas others of us know it
means many types of "emulator". Read the links provided, read my
explanation and be a man and acknowledge that through lack of knowledge,
no fault on your part, you were wrong.

>
> 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.

Again, wrong. It emulates the Windows system. So not at "best".

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:
>>>>> 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

What are you talking about? Loads of things are emulated : the entire
win32 API for a start. Then what the calls do in terms of drawing
objects - they emulate the Windows libararies. It really is that
simple. And if you follow the links I gave and read the history you will
find out why they dropped "Emulator" from the name. Interestingly for
the same reason you are wrong now.

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

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

> 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.

You both instantly lose all credibility you might have had. Which isn't
much to start with. One of the reasons so much good SW exists for
Windows is that the APIs *are* well documented and supported. Certainly
much better than most OSS stuff used to be. So, into the tank you go.

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

Ivan Marsh <annoyed RemoveThis @you.now> writes:

> 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.

You are 100% wrong. Period.

>
>> 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

That is a OPCODE emulator it can do without. It still emulates the
win32 amongst other things. It doesn't need an opcode emulator since its
the same CPU type. Duh. its also why they changed the name - becuase
people like you with a LITTLE knowledge didn't realise that emulation
means different things.

> 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."

Out of context and they also, you will note, state that Wine Is Not An
Emulator is also incorrect.

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

Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> 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>

Thanks Tim. I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish
to change history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang
seem to get some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a
little knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here.

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:58:16 +0100, Gerry Quinn wrote:

> [Followups restored, including followups to the morons' newsgroup, also
> known as comp.sys.linux.advocacy.

No it isn't, it's known ONLY as comp.os.linux.advocacy. If you're going to
insult COLA, at least be accurate.

--
Kier

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

Gerry Quinn <gerryq.RemoveThis@indigo.ie> writes:

> In article <f36si.36693$2U6.27998@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> chrisehunter.RemoveThis@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk says...
>> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>> > Look at the newsgroups list - he obviously comes
>> > from the morons' one.
>>
>> That's rich, coming from a thick mick.
>
> I'm from Ireland, that's true. I can sing 'Danny Boy' if you like.
>
> But you're from comp.sys.linux.advocacy, the *advocacy* tag meaning you
> are a member of an utterly pathethic group of idiots.

And that's the truth. Twits like this guy turn more people away from
Linux than they can even begin to realise. If there are any sane Linux
users on this crosspost, please come to COLA and help slap idiots like
CHunt around. Their lies do nothing for Linux advocacy.

> You observed: "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!"
>
> Can you defend that (I called you on it and you did not reply), or are
> you just typical of the pointless morons in comp.os.linux advocacy?

No. He's typical. He's a liar and exaggerates almost to the level of a
Kelsey who maintains "been there done that" levels of competence even
though its apparent to all that he's nothing more than a glorified tape
monkey. These guys seriously do think that Linux has 20% or more of the
home market. Astonishing I know.

>
> [Followups restored, including followups to the morons' newsgroup, also
> known as comp.sys.linux.advocacy. Wonder why you deleted them...]

Ooo, Ooo, let me ... Because he's a Linux loony that tells fibs?