To the AMD people: Money wasted.

[popper]

No.

Wine is emulator. Judging on technical implementation it is not, it is a layer. But this layer allows winapi calls to posix which is emulation in broad term, as in "non-native". It does do performance penalty.

Although, if linux version of function works 20 times faster than windows equivalent, and wine does it 2x slower - it runs 10 times faster via WINE than on windows.

So wine does indeed slow software as any additional layer; its just local implementation not related to wine which sometimes accelerates the whole thing. And in case you wonder if wine can stay be faster than native(windows) api - it can't. MS will just steal the code.

Err WINE have always stated "Wine is not an emulator", and in that sense they are Right, it's Not Hard to understand,
they Wrap a given routine as found on one API and map it to another routine of anther API Nothing more, were it gets tricky OC is when one API Does Not have the same functionality and so Emulation is the order of the day For That missing Routine Nothing More, get it ?

also. it's clear if you bother to look, that under the Hood the NT and related API are very much a clone of many of the generic Unix Posix, hence why Wine Dev's continue to progress, there's no rule to say they cant add New Posix like code and extend the Wine API to better fit the current NT and related API so wrapping it instead of emulating these missing parts etc....

[Svartalf]

Wine is emulator. Judging on technical implementation it is not, it is a layer. But this layer allows winapi calls to posix which is emulation in broad term, as in "non-native".

The fact that it's not just an abstraction layer but also a non-native binary loader should be a hint that it's not "technically" anything but an emulator in the mode that most people USE it in.

[Svartalf]

Err WINE have always stated "Wine is not an emulator"

It is and it isn't. The moment you involve a non-native binary loader to allow yourself to load the Windows binaries, you're emulating. Winelib isn't an emulator. WINE, as many use it, IS, in spite of the naming to the otherwise.

[Svartalf]

also. it's clear if you bother to look, that under the Hood the NT and related API are very much a clone of many of the generic Unix Posix, hence why Wine Dev's continue to progress, there's no rule to say they cant add New Posix like code and extend the Wine API to better fit the current NT and related API so wrapping it instead of emulating these missing parts etc....

That POSIX layer is marginally adequate and requires something like Cygwin to properly do things. Most code that's written for Windows doesn't go to those edges because they're almost useless to all.

[crazycheese]

Err WINE have always stated "Wine is not an emulator", and in that sense they are Right, it's Not Hard to understand,
they Wrap a given routine as found on one API and map it to another routine of anther API Nothing more, were it gets tricky OC is when one API Does Not have the same functionality and so Emulation is the order of the day For That missing Routine Nothing More, get it ?

also. it's clear if you bother to look, that under the Hood the NT and related API are very much a clone of many of the generic Unix Posix, hence why Wine Dev's continue to progress, there's no rule to say they cant add New Posix like code and extend the Wine API to better fit the current NT and related API so wrapping it instead of emulating these missing parts etc....

Do read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

The technology of emulation is very different.
It can start from mapping one function on another as in directx 5 app calling actuall directx 9 layer.
It can extend to mapping one function with rework on corresponding function of another system.
It can go further to mapping low level interrupt calls to operating system functions.
It can extend to completely parsing binary-level assembler and remap it into function alls of specific operating system running on same or different hardware.

However, wherever we call WINE an emulator or Not Emulator, it does not matter - we both know the functionality it gives and it is fine so.

I wish Wine developers best of luck, just that they dont get in the way of getting TRUE native code. Money is sometimes bad thing.

[popper]

That POSIX layer is marginally adequate and requires something like Cygwin to properly do things. Most code that's written for Windows doesn't go to those edges because they're almost useless to all.

Note i never said its a 'good' clone of Posix

[Panix]

I love the hipocricy. On one hand he pans open-source support for 6xxx cards, on the other hand he praises driver support for nvidia which doesn't even have OSS drivers for 4x0 and 5x0 - and not even a single open-source developer.

Yeah, right.

Hypocricy? Where? I was comparing the functionality of the two alternatives, hence the 'it works' or 'just works' concept. Perhaps, you might try reading more closely before you decide to insult since you're not very good at it.

Last info I received is the HD 6xxx cards don't have a functional FOSS driver whereas if you have a new Nvidia card, you will get a working card albeit closed source drivers. Btw, closed source drivers don't seem to be an option with those ATI cards either, at least not officially. But, nice try at grasping for straws.

[BlackStar]

What does that have to do with anything?

If you buy Windows games to run them on Linux then you are part of the problem. Think about it for a moment.

Nope. I'm saying nVidia is running games on linux better than ATI does. The problem is not Linux but rather the damn AMD driver - the point of this thread.

If Ati runs native Linux applications fine but fails with Wine, then the issue probably lies with Wine rather than Ati. Simple test: how does Wine run on Intel/Radeon/Nouveau?

I am saying that as of today's date, real gaming in Linux is achieved through wine. Plain and simple. Is it the correct thing? No. Do I like this fact? No. Should it change? Yes. But this is reality my friend.

I have never *ever* gamed on Wine, so I'd say that you are quite mistaken. I buy commercial games with native Linux releases; I play free Linux games; I play browser games; I play games in emulators; and I have a dual-boot installation for those games that are not available on Linux.

Of course, if by "real" you mean Windows-only titles, then man up, be a "real" gamer and install Windows. Do you see console gamers bitch that their games do not run on Windows? No, you don't, because that would be dumb. Yet you are bitching that Windows-only games don't run on Linux using a buggy emulator.

I don't think the problem lies with Ati here.

[BlackStar]

Hypocricy? Where? I was comparing the functionality of the two alternatives, hence the 'it works' or 'just works' concept. Perhaps, you might try reading more closely before you decide to insult since you're not very good at it.

Last info I received is the HD 6xxx cards don't have a functional FOSS driver whereas if you have a new Nvidia card, you will get a working card albeit closed source drivers.

And that's your hipocricy right there. Nvidia cards don't have a FOSS driver either, yet you somehow hold that against Ati - and not Nvidia.

Btw, closed source drivers don't seem to be an option with those ATI cards either, at least not officially.

Seems like someone is grasping at straws here - and that ain't me.

[Panix]

What does that have to do with anything?

Nope. I'm saying nVidia is running games on linux better than ATI does. The problem is not Linux but rather the damn AMD driver - the point of this thread.

I am saying that as of today's date, real gaming in Linux is achieved through wine. Plain and simple. Is it the correct thing? No. Do I like this fact? No. Should it change? Yes. But this is reality my friend.

The problem with some of these thought processes by fellows such as Blackstar and pingufunybeat is this constant straight-line thinking.

One can't make a point and support a system yet still be critical of it.

I support the OSS driver concept but I still can call a spade a spade. If I feel the support/resources/money seems low for what you get, then why can't one criticize that? Is AMD not a big company?

If Windows is the majority market consumer OS and Nvidia choose to have compatibility, why can't ATI? The Wine devs use Nvidia hardware but not ATI so much? Why is that? Are these OSS fanatics going to deny that ATI/AMD chooses to have full support for Windows? No, they will overlook that and cover their eyes... *no, I choose to not look!*

Talk about hypocrisy!

Would Linux be better off without ntfs-3g? Maybe they should scrap that and outlaw use of it? It's bad and contrary to the strict rules and concepts of the open source community! C'mon, give me a break!