Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Wine 1.1.44 Brings All Sorts Of Changes

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,383

    Default Wine 1.1.44 Brings All Sorts Of Changes

    Phoronix: Wine 1.1.44 Brings All Sorts Of Changes

    Two weeks ago Wine 1.1.43 was released and it brought many Direct3D fixes, among other improvements, but this Friday Wine 1.1.44 has superseded that release. Wine 1.1.44 does carry more Direct3D 9/10 work, but it also packs a fair amount of other changes...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODIyNQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Great work Wine developers! Today I've been really surprised how well MS Office 2007 worked on Wine. It's speed is just like on Windows XP and all the _mostly used_ functions just work without problems and now it's integration to Linux desktop (KDE) is really trivial.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    I had seen a benchmark a while back which was testing office2007 and photoshop and both were faster under Wine rather than vista

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    57

    Default

    I really looking forward to Wine vs Windows tests.
    And I honestly like the Linux vs Windows vs OS X benchmarks, these are really superb idea, the only thing is not to mess up and make the results comparable.
    Very good, Phoronix, very good!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    very good michael very good :-)

    gogoggo! :-)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    France
    Posts
    12

    Default

    "support for 32-bit prefixes with 64-bit Wine"

    Does that mean we now can install a 64-bits wine (without having to install the 32-bits version of each library) and that 32-bits programs will automatically install in Program Files (x86) ?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sgRevan View Post
    "support for 32-bit prefixes with 64-bit Wine"

    Does that mean we now can install a 64-bits wine (without having to install the 32-bits version of each library) and that 32-bits programs will automatically install in Program Files (x86) ?
    No. It's just support for running something that uses a 32-bit wrapper (installation programs, for example.)

    http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18135

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    77

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by sgRevan View Post
    "support for 32-bit prefixes with 64-bit Wine"

    Does that mean we now can install a 64-bits wine (without having to install the 32-bits version of each library) and that 32-bits programs will automatically install in Program Files (x86) ?
    No, it means that if you created a WINEPREFIX with a 32bit Wine and tries to use it with a WoW64 Wine, it will emulate a 32bit version of Windows, and will look for 32bit objects in in "Program Files" and "windows/system32" rather than in "Program Files (x86)" and "windows/SysWOW64".

    So basically it makes the the WoW64 version of Wine backwards compatible with the pure 32bit version of Wine, in addition to the pure 64bit version of Wine.

    Note that the WoW64 version of wine realy is two separate applications, a pure 32bit wine binary and a pure 64bit wine binary, but with some extra glue code to hand over windows executables in the wrong format to the other one.

    This is actually quite similar to how the 32bit wine binary doesn't know how to handle 16bit windows applications, but hands them over to the winevdm binary that does. The main difference is that winevdm on the linux side is a 32bit binary that uses 32bit system libraries, so you don't need any special 16bit linux libraries, while WoW64 wine uses the regular 32bit wine for 32bit applications. I guess it would be possible to do something similar for 32bit windows applications on a 64bit linux, but that would require some massive reengineering effort, so is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    France
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Thanks for the explanations.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Poland, Warsaw
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I temporarily removed Phoronix from my Adblock white-list. Would You remove those annoying Flash commercials that don't have a close button on them and that cover a significant part of text? Those ones that begin in the left panel but spread to the right?

    Otherwise I guarantee You a lot of people will follow my choice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •