Wine 1.1.30 + winetricks +color setter +goodies ...pet & sfs

Message

Keanen · #271 Post by **Keanen** » Sun 13 Dec 2009, 00:07

mikeb wrote:like you say it does, I'll list you as ... k on Wine.

not my package...never used it...I use a puppy from a while back and hand fiddled ........so what will you say if it doesn't?

mike

Well, it kind of half works. At least it's not saying I don't have DirectX. And I can run dxtex. But fullscreen just changes the screen resolution and silently kills the app. Then I have to restart. I've tried going into the config and making Wine force a virtual desktop, but no. Still the same. What's really strange is that windowed apps that used to function just fine in a virtual desktop pop up in their own windows anyways too. Plus, That was over 50 MB to install! I'm not going to go hating on you and get you banned from appdb or make an angry vlog about it or anything, because I know it's not your fault. You did what you could. Microshit is to blame, and all their nvidia buttbuddies and TGC minions. Is there an operating system in the world what actually works the way it's supposed to? Probably not.

mikeb · #272 Post by **mikeb** » Sun 13 Dec 2009, 00:30

nvidia buttbuddies

well theres plenty on here about them....maybe a better driver needed...I've only had ati and they are no easier to sort...video is a pain in thee ass....ideally fullscreen should be working as intended.

It can be sensitive to 24/16 bpp...24 seems more compatible.

I take it 3d is sort of working and now its a case of making wine happy.

Is there an operating system in the world what actually works the way it's supposed to?

erm not that I know of

mike

Keanen · #273 Post by **Keanen** » Sun 13 Dec 2009, 01:03

I'm on 24 bpp, which I suppose is 32, and fullscreen apps change that anyways, and I have an Intel x3100 GMA. I think it is a matter of making Wine happy. Maybe I should install DirectX or something.

mikeb · #274 Post by **mikeb** » Sun 13 Dec 2009, 15:21

Maybe I should install DirectX or something

Hmm never tried that and not sure how it relates to wine as wine has to translate to opengl anyway...I not an expert on this one.

I did get some free opengl games via google which showed at least that 3d could work.

I thiught wine was supposed to make us happy...ah well

mike

#275 Post by MU » Sun 13 Dec 2009, 15:30

direct X is included in wine, and allows to play even problematic games like Bioshock.
There however can occur driver issues.
DirectX in wine works best with modern Nvidia cards.
Ati cards meanwhile also work with Bioshock using the latest Catalyst drivers.
In summer 2009, it was unplayable using Ati cards.

Intel 3D support is somewhat problematic according to reports in the Forum, so I'd suspect, there might be driver problems using wine.

Mark

Keanen · #276 Post by **Keanen** » Sun 13 Dec 2009, 23:04

MU wrote:direct X is included in wine, and allows to play even problematic games like Bioshock.
There however can occur driver issues.
DirectX in wine works best with modern Nvidia cards.
Ati cards meanwhile also work with Bioshock using the latest Catalyst drivers.
In summer 2009, it was unplayable using Ati cards.

Intel 3D support is somewhat problematic according to reports in the Forum, so I'd suspect, there might be driver problems using wine.

Mark

GTFO TROLL! NVIDIA IS BULLSHIT! You suck Micrococks!

#277 Post by MU » Mon 14 Dec 2009, 07:06

Keanen wrote:
MU wrote:direct X is included in wine, and allows to play even problematic games like Bioshock.
There however can occur driver issues.
DirectX in wine works best with modern Nvidia cards.
Ati cards meanwhile also work with Bioshock using the latest Catalyst drivers.
In summer 2009, it was unplayable using Ati cards.

Intel 3D support is somewhat problematic according to reports in the Forum, so I'd suspect, there might be driver problems using wine.

Mark
GTFO TROLL! NVIDIA IS BULLSHIT! You suck Micrococks!

it does not matter what you think of Nvidia, if you like the closed source drivers or not.
Fact is, that most wine developers use Nvidia cards. So the wine code uses implementations of nvidia specific code.
With Ati, this has become better in the last year, as Ati has changed the politics. They now actively support the free drivers with specifications, and this allows the wine developers, to implement patches, so that also Ati cards work better.

Intel actively supports free drivers since quite a while, but their source focusses on a new architechture (dri2), that was experimental part of the kernel until this year.

My info was just a summary of information that I had read in the appdb, when I tried to play Bioshock and Riddick in Wine using a Ati card, and compiled a patched version of wine.

Mark

Keanen · #278 Post by **Keanen** » Mon 14 Dec 2009, 18:40

Is software rendering not efficient enough? Before I punched it, my laptop used to run games like Crysis just fine, so I'm pretty sure my Intel GMA can handle it. Now, with Puppy, things may not be as efficient down the rendering pipeline, but I bet I could still run the same games if Wine would be more cooperative.

jason.b.c · #279 Post by **jason.b.c** » Mon 14 Dec 2009, 19:45

Keanen wrote:
MU wrote:direct X is included in wine, and allows to play even problematic games like Bioshock.
There however can occur driver issues.
DirectX in wine works best with modern Nvidia cards.
Ati cards meanwhile also work with Bioshock using the latest Catalyst drivers.
In summer 2009, it was unplayable using Ati cards.

Intel 3D support is somewhat problematic according to reports in the Forum, so I'd suspect, there might be driver problems using wine.

Mark
GTFO TROLL! NVIDIA IS BULLSHIT! You suck Micrococks!

@Keanen

Hey man , you need to quit doing that right away ...

I really fail to see what Mark said as offensive to you , why do you have to comment like that...

Sit Heel Speak · #280 Post by **Sit Heel Speak** » Mon 14 Dec 2009, 22:27

Keanen wrote:GTFO TROLL!...

I must here second what jason.b.c writes. "Troll"??? MU is perhaps second only to Barry himself as an advocate and developer of Puppy. Check out MU's New Years Pup and his earlier Muppy series. Astounding achievements both. You will have earned the right to criticize Mark only, just maybe, when you can craft-up something even remotely close. As for the blunt language, save it for me, after I release my forthcoming Pup...

I am somehow reminded of Scotty in the original Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" when Scotty, wincing, says to Captain Kirk, "After all, we'rrre big enough to take a few insults..."

Keanen · #281 Post by **Keanen** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 01:16

I could make my own puplet or whatever you guys call them if I wanted to, but I'm not sure if I want to go through all of the work of cleaning up my distro from all of the crap I put on it, and all of my personal information. In my opinion, Puppy is something that needs to be heavily "tweaked" before it can compete with Windows.

jason.b.c · #282 Post by **jason.b.c** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 06:55

Keanen wrote:needs to be heavily "tweaked" before it can compete with Windows.

"before" it can compete...?

hate to shock you too badly but - it already does...

Windows gets viruses... Does Puppy...? No.... very slim chance..

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 721AAKeJ0t

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/v ... .php?lang=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_viruses

Sure, there are Linux viruses. But let's compare the numbers. According to Dr. Nic Peeling and Dr Julian Satchell's Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software (note: the link is to a 135 kb PDF file):

"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

mikeb · #283 Post by **mikeb** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 15:06

Linux is different...puppy very different.....not everything is or should be a competition...bad for the blood pressure.

Fix windows and virus worries dissappear.....I tried linux out of interest not need....I just find windows boring...it works but you 'get what you are given'

I haven't tried a puppy version that did not need 'tweakin' but then I question everything. When I install windows I spend some time 'tweaking' that too...not nearly as much as linux nowadays ...just how it is.

Anyway this is sliding way off topic..there space on the forum for this sort of discussion.

As for wine it took me several attempts to get 3d working which is needed to get the full benefit...my netbook still does not have it on linux. With XP I just installed the driver from HP and voila.
And I had to add the wine file association myself and then tweak it to call directory as many programs needed. I just fixed the crap fonts in firefox/seamonkey in puppy 4..took me days.

.
Fixes do not necessarily get included but at least in this house things work pretty well...just how it is.

The purpose of this forum is to help users to get things running and to 'tweak' when they feel the urge....what they use and why is irrelevent as the point of the exercise is choice....I choose to do the 'constant and never ending improvement'...just in my nature...others have different agendas....part of life's rich and necessary culture....

Now I'm waffling so
have fun

mike

Keanen · #284 Post by **Keanen** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 20:02

The only reason Windows gets viruses so easily is because it's so easy to just "auto-run" software. Make one wrong click and you've got yourself a trojan. The thing is though, I like that. Sometimes its better when programs are made to run by the operating system. I shouldn't have to type anything or install anything just to get a window to pop up on the screen.

Computer security is NEVER a problem. Think about it this way- if I were trying to give you a virus, I would hope that it would just execute with full permissions. I wouldn't want you to consciously run the program a certain way.

I am what you call a stupid person. clickclickclick ooh look I've got a virus. But then I can be really good about removing it. I have only gotten a really bad virus once, and it only took me a couple days to remove. No security software needed.

With Linux, I don't understand what the hell's going on! How do I run my Linux programs! I should be able to just double-click and Linux Explorer (or whatever it's called) runs the program instantly, no confirmation, full permissions, right through the kernel.

mikeb · #285 Post by **mikeb** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 21:04

Well when installed the it can be just click and run ...assuming you iz clicking on the right file...most binaries have no extension....go clicking around in /usr/bin...well maybe not cos some are only meant to be used via another program or from a console .
It's with wine that some file association is needed...

For viruses see active x controls which permit virus download and autorun facilities via yer browser or email or media player, or chat program etc
Then there autorunning..a great favorite.
And those wide open ports for netbios and rpc.
Nothing that can't be dealt with but thats another story.

Anyway I'm supposed to be working

regards

mike

Patriot · #286 Post by **Patriot** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 21:12

Hmmm .....

mikeb wrote: ........
Anyway I'm supposed to be working

Well, we should let the chi flows ..... and let the yin and yang fills this thread with harmony once again ..... Come on, I'll buy you a cuppa coffee (since you're supposed to be working ...)

Leave wine for later ....

Rgds

Keanen · #287 Post by **Keanen** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 21:49

Will someone please just tell me what the extension for a binary executable is in Linux? In Windows it's exe. Is there a Linux exe? I'm not talking about Wine. What is the extension?

Patriot · #288 Post by **Patriot** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 22:45

Hmmm .....

Keanen wrote:Will someone please just tell me what the extension for a binary executable is in Linux? In Windows it's exe. Is there a Linux exe? I'm not talking about Wine. What is the extension?

FYI, there is no such thing as a linux .exe extension ... (exe = executables) ... on linux, executables are indicated by the file execute permission.

I suggest that you kindly post your future queries in a new specific thread and help keep this thread clean for wine ...

Rgds

Keanen · #289 Post by **Keanen** » Tue 15 Dec 2009, 22:52

No! All files should have file execute permissions! How do I configure Puppy Linux to execute everything unless otherwise specified?

jason.b.c · #290 Post by **jason.b.c** » Wed 16 Dec 2009, 02:42

hey everyone, let's just not answer him anymore...

Maybe he'll get the hint..

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Wine 1.1.30 + winetricks +color setter +goodies ...pet & sfs