×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

286 comments

The tests are meaningless! (5, Funny)

creepynut (933825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604819)

We need real benchmarks! Get some Windows worms/viruses/trojans running on WINE and then we'll have some real-world benchmarks!

I say good day to you sir!

Re:The tests are meaningless! (4, Interesting)

wayneo13 (950853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605017)

This has been tried at least: http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/14 30222 [newsforge.com]

Re:The tests are meaningless! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605349)

From that link:
Out of the five Windows viruses I ran under Wine, not a single one was able to send email and propagate itself. When I went out of my way to be part of the Windows community by doing my part to propagate Windows viruses (lots of Windows users seem to think this is important, seeing as how they run random executables and use Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer) I discovered that it couldn't easily be done with GNU/Linux tools.

I tip my hat to the creators of the SomeFool virus, for actually (albeit temporarily and minimally) affecting my Linux experience. However, if that's the most damage I can get by running viruses with Wine under a dummy account, then it's clear that the Wine developers have a long way to go before Wine is truly Windows compatible.

Doing well with the apps yet resisting virii. Nice work, Wine!

In the words of Julia Child (-1, Offtopic)

stox (131684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604822)

A little more wine?

Only... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604971)

...if the Slashdot editors aren't adding salt to it. (Salted wine? Yuk!)

Julia Child yes, but, more so, Justin Wilson! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605287)

Mm. This sort of thing keeps up, and I garontee I'll finally be able to ditch the Windows.

Now if only it performs as spankily under OS X on 2nd gen Intel Desktop Pro Macs....

That would be one tasty dish indeed! Vraiment!

Vive le bon Acadien!

on a dev list (5, Insightful)

mrcdeckard (810717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604826)

while i realise that postings to a dev list shouldn't be taken as gospel, why would a dev list posting of benchmarks be assumed to be doctored? of course i would expect this from a marketing dept, but a dev list?

chris

Re:on a dev list (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604908)

pride. i'm a developer of software, and I don't allow myself to test my own code beyond a certain point because i'll be too proud of my accomplishments to accept mistakes or failures.

Re:on a dev list (2, Insightful)

njh (24312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604994)

pride. i'm a developer of software, and I don't allow myself to test my own code beyond a certain point because i'll be too proud of my accomplishments to accept mistakes or failures.

This is only half the story. Our research group tries to get our bleeding edge algorithms into existing software (e.g. text algorithms in scribus, connector routing and graph layout in inkscape). One thing we've found is that when you are developing some code it's easy to get trained into only trying certain pathways through the code. In each case we've found that once you let fools play with your foolproof algorithm, they find things you hadn't tried. If these stats are standard tests used by wine devels they will only contain well tested pathways, and if you leave those pathways things misbehave or run slowly.

Re:on a dev list (5, Interesting)

hardburn (141468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605105)

Read the article. These aren't dev-created benchmarks, but standard benchmark suites like 3DMark and Quake 3.

Some of the tests look really weird. For instance, in the 3DMark2000 Fill Rate test, Single Texture on Wine gets 2,402.8 MTexels/s and 11% behind Windows, but on the Multi-Texture test it soars to 6,695.1 MTexels/s and 74.5% in front of Windows. There's got to be some freaky driver code or something implemented oddly or some background process that wasn't noticed.

I don't think these benchmarks were run rigoriously enough to say anything, except that Wine is capable of running 3DMark.

amount of work done (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604970)

While I assume that the results are correct, they are also substantially meaningless. First, Windows does a lot of work to handle backwards compatibility and boundary cases. WINE often breaks when it encounters really old code or boundary cases. It's easy to be faster when you are doing less work. Second, the functionality may not be exactly equivalent, just close enough. For example, when you have memory copies, one implementation may choose to optimize for very small allocations and be hitting the OS for new zero filled pages for 4k and 8k copies, while the other trades off higher memory use for faster fulfillment of these larger memory requests. Different design choices also mean that different amounts of work are done. Choosing the superior implementation involves looking at more than a small handful of benchmarks.

Re:amount of work done (3, Insightful)

mmjb (866586) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605386)

They are not altogether meaningless. For those who have never tried Wine, the article should give hope of success to those who want to give it a go - albeit more anecdotal than proof.
It's easy to be faster when you are doing less work.

To say that Wine developers have it easy is shamefully disrespectful to their efforts. (Unless you take the viewpoint that not having to work with MS code simplifies the work!) For Wine to work at all is commendable - to be (sometimes) faster is truly amazing, IMHO.

no salt, but lies and damned stats (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605100)

while i realise that postings to a dev list shouldn't be taken as gospel, why would a dev list posting of benchmarks be assumed to be doctored?

Nobody said they were doctored; the slashdot editor said "take it with a grain of salt". I see a lot of reasons to do so:

  • there is no sample size (ie, was each benchmark on each platform run 10 times, or just once?) or variance (if it WAS run 10 times- how much did the results vary?)
  • The benchmarks all have wildly different results. Either the benchmarks are that way normally, or WINE (or Linux) is inconsistent. The data is presented such that, again, we have no clue as to the consistency of the results.
  • In a number of the benchmark categories for PC Mark 2004, Linux is less than 1% faster. Usually that kind of difference is thrown in the "statistical anomaly" bucket, but the developer happily gave it the "green" mark, when it should have received a "grey" (ie, "not clear"). If the sub-1% wins had been thrown out, Windows would have won by at least an equal margin.
  • Equal weight was given to the insignificant "wins", as was the massive failures.
  • The developer breaks down the number of Wine failures into 4 categories, but groups Wine successes into one. As a result, it appears Wine is the overall winner, when in fact Wine was slower in 63 cases, and faster in 67.

Honestly? The results probably aren't manipulated, but the presentation is very clearly set up with a number of tricks (perhaps without him/her realizing it) to give the impression that Wine "kicked some serious ass", when for the most part, it did horribly.

oops...overwhelming, not overall. (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605184)

As a result, it appears Wine is the overall winner, when in fact Wine was slower in 63 cases, and faster in 67

Whoops. That should read "overwhelming", not "overall".

Re:no salt, but lies and damned stats (4, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605276)

Not only are the marks of less than 1% thrown into the green category, so are the 0 difference marks. That's right, Wine is marked as a winner if they perform exactly the same.

Re:no salt, but lies and damned stats (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605296)

I think the main reason the 1% less is given a green is because this is targeted at developers of WINE, and seeing that wine is 1% as close as real windows means that that area is "done" being optimized. The areas where wine needs to focus are on the cases where WINE is significantly slower. WINE really only needs to be as fast as windows, not faster.

Re:no salt, but lies and damned stats (2, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605355)

The benchmarks all have wildly different results. Either the benchmarks are that way normally, or WINE (or Linux) is inconsistent. The data is presented such that, again, we have no clue as to the consistency of the results.
My first guess would be that WINE is inconsistent. Especially in the areas where it falls behind. After all, it is still a beta and has not achieved 100% compatibility yet, so the developers might not care too much about optimization at this point.
But Linux or even Windows are also possible culprits. Maybe the guys at Redmond also have a few sub-optimal routines buried in their codebase?

Don't be silly (5, Insightful)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605401)

These results aren't presented to try to make Wine look better, nor is the author, consciously or unconsciously, trying to make it appear faster. These results simply were not meant to be used to say that Wine is better than Windows, and only Slashdot would try to make it appear that way. The real point of these comparisons, as is apparent if you read the Wine weekly summaries, is to give the Wine developers an idea of what areas need to be improved, and what areas are adequate. Green obviously means "at least as fast as Windows", which means that it's good. There is no point in grouping them any other way, since they don't care if they are 50% better or 1% better. Also, your criticisms of why this benchmark doesn't give a good idea of the relative speeds of Wine and Windows are quite wide of the mark (though they are valid complaints). The real reason why this benchmark cannot be used to gauge relative speeds is that it doesn't cover real world work loads. They measure a very small number of very specific things, mostly related to gaming and 3D performance. The benchmarks they ran that weren't related to that were designed to test the *hardware* speed, not the speed of the API. The Wine developers know this, and that's what the comment about taking it with a grain of salt means. It's probably adequate to give a rough idea of what parts of Wine need to be improved, but it is nowhere close to a comprehensive comparison of the speed of Windows and Wine, and was never meant as such.

Very Impressive! (5, Informative)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604833)

I've quite impressed with the performance of WINE, however these stats can be a little deceiving. These stats are based on a game that works. Getting the game to work in the first place can be quite a challenge. But for the part-time gamer that doesn't wanna be chained to Windows, this is a great alternative indeed!

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re: Very Impressive! (0, Troll)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604879)

> I've quite impressed with the performance of WINE

As I understand it the essence of Wine is reverse engineering the Windows DLLs. In principle getting comparative performance shouldn't be any particular challenge. Especially if Microsoft's reputation for producing bloated slopware is accurate.

Re: Very Impressive! (3, Insightful)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605153)

As I understand it the essence of Wine is reverse engineering the Windows DLLs.

You might understand it that way, but you'd be wrong. All Wine does is implement the published API of Windows using Linux commands. Absolutely no reverse engineering is done.

Re:Very Impressive! (0)

ejito (700826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604923)

There were two small sections of two games on the bottom. Both games are very easy to install (Quake and UT).

Most of the benchmarking is done by industrial software programs (raw operations), not videogames.

Re:Very Impressive! (1)

Psykus (827143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605247)

Kind of pointless though, since don't both of those games have native Linux versions?

Re:Very Impressive! (0, Offtopic)

aarku (151823) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604924)

Put your sig in the signature field where it is supposed to go.

mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605202)

sigs outside the sig field should lead to an automatic downmod

Re:Very Impressive! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605056)

The stats are also based on a version of WINE that works. As you note, getting a game to work in the first place can be difficult. The version of WINE they are testing is the last decent version they put out. That was 9 months ago. Games work *less* well with more recent versions.

Re:Very Impressive! (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605264)

These stats are based on a game that works

My sister in law runs ubuntu and I have had a go at getting some windows games running under wine for her son. What I would like to see is a windows environment which she can use to install these things herself.

As it is I have to mount the CD, find the installer executable and run it under wine. This is a bit difficult to explain to a non technical person.

Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predict (5, Insightful)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604843)

The results aren't exactly surprising - Wine is excelling in what Linux is generally better than Windows in doing - memory management, hard drive speed, and related matters (stressing generally there, because of course different apps give different results). This is Gentoo after all, it's built for speed. Then the heavier the load on the video drivers the more the superiority of the Windows drivers takes hold, so for the graphical stuff things don't work as fast.

Congrats to the Wine devs!

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (-1, Flamebait)

outZider (165286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604860)

do those fractions of a second that gentoo gives you really add up to anything at all?

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1, Funny)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604886)

No, because you spent a week in the first place trying to get the damn thing built, then you wasted the rest of your life arguing with your "friends" about the beneficial effects of -fomit-frame-pointer during your shifts at the Dairy Queen.

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (0, Offtopic)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604891)

Yes.

BIG yes.

How to put this: while there may not be a default gentoo install that includes X, let's say this. Gentoo with all of the frills still boots faster and performs faster than any Fedore Core install period.

I'm not pulling that out of my butt, either, that's from experience. Having both FC and Gentoo installed on identical hardware... gentoo will boot to X far faster than FC can get to a terminal. I have yet to find a distro that matches gentoo in speed, and I'm not saying "pmfg -O3!!three!!11!".

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604928)

For my linux install, I'm using Ubuntu. I find it pretty slow for most thing (on a P4 2.6) but worse it's constantly swapping in and out of memory (512MB) even though all I do is surf and browse files in the GUI, would Gentoo provide a boost or is the benefit not worth the time invested?

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604961)

From what I know about Gentoo, as a whole, yes. I run KDE on a 2.4 with 512MB of RAM and have effectively 0 swapping happening (until I fire up a massive Java app, or do like 80 things at once). Gentoo's speed isn't the "-fmad-compile-optimize-h4x", it's just how the OS itself is built and configured by default. I'd say give it a shot. (Though, in all honesty, -O3 actually does help to an extent, but that's another topic.)

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (2, Informative)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605021)

The transition from Debian-based systems to Gentoo will be fairly painless. Just understand that it may be several days before you get a working system. My main computer is a dual-boot for WinXP and Gentoo. During the install, the family had to live without being able to access WinXP for almost 5 days. Of course, this was on a mid-range AthlonXP with 256MB RAM. I have (in boxes at the moment) a new dual-core Athlon. I expect it to take about 48 hours from fdisk to KDE.

There are precompiled packages avalible to speed things up, but where's the fun in that.

Yeah, Debian to Gentoo is quite easy. Just use "emerge" vice "apt-get".

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (2, Interesting)

thunrida (950858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605154)

Several days was when there was still stage1. Now that you must start at stage 3 (and later recompile if you like) you are done in 1 day. After you finish kernel, you just emerge x and kde and next morning you are ready to go (just after you configure x). About speed, it is faster that kubuntu (which I used), but it's the other things that made me go back to gentoo.

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605204)

I know what you mean about "other things". I love never having to deal with RMP hell agian.

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605302)

There are a number of reasons that might be the case, such as the way bootscripts are done and what types of services are started. My desktop machine is an Athlon XP 2100+ with a gig of RAM running Gentoo and it boots to a command prompt significantly slower than my laptop, which is a P3 700, 192MB RAM, running FreeBSD.

Obviously the laptop has a much simpler hardware config, less services that it needs to run, and because I reboot it fairly often I actually bothered to clean out the rc files. In Gentoo at least I know that I want all those things started. With FC you might be probing parts of the hardware config that you have hard-configured into Gentoo, or starting sendmail, more hefty logging facilities, automounters or whatever. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if FreeBSD's bootscripts are lighter-weight than Gentoo's in general.

I'm not discounting the booting speed advantage of Gentoo over, say, FC or Ubuntu. But take that Gentoo machine and make it run everything that FC runs on startup, and I bet a lot of the advantage goes away. Boot speed won't really tell you much about how the system will perform other tasks (as you can imagine, other than booting my laptop is much, much slower than my desktop).

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604913)

Look at the PC Mark tests (minus the silly graphics tests and the xp startup, app loading tests). Most of the tests are won by wine probably by only a few fractions of a second - half by less than a percentage point. Besides, they're mostly testing either memory management, which Linux generally does better, or CPU, which Wine has a huge advantage in because it's Gentoo and compiled specifically for the system.

Gentoo really does feel faster. Compare say a Debian system (which is compiled purely for stability) to a Gentoo system (which is compiled purely for speed) and the Gentoo system will win. However I still use Debian because I kind of like my stability!

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (3, Interesting)

gnarlin (696263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604920)

Enough with the gentoo bashing! These compiler optimization options would not be a part of gcc if they did nothing.
I don't make fun of your hair do I?! So stop making fun of my favorite distro!

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605009)

I don't make fun of your hair do I?!
Look, I know I need a haircut, but you didn't have to get personal about it.

Sorry if I'm a bit sensitive about this, but Slashdot is the last place I expected to get a hard time about my hair.

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (2, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605137)

They often do things under very specific conditions and are useless elsewhere. If you're not a compiler expert (which I definately am not), it's unlikely you'll have any apreciable performance gain. It's quite possible that you'll see a performance loss if things aren't done correctly. Even an expert may or may not get a gain.

I love Gentoo myself, but I'm not delusional about performance gains. I do it for the customizability it offers. For instance, last I checked, you could get a Debian package that contained the Perl bindings for Vim, or the Python bindings for Vim, but not both. With Gentoo, I can easily instruct Portage to build in both.

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1)

ZenShadow (101870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605266)

In my experience, it's not the -funroll-my-toilet-paper type of options. It's more the general lack of bloat in Gentoo that makes it faster.

I used Fedora, Debian, and others for many years, having resisted Gentoo due to time constraints (I had better things to do than compile an entire distro), but then one day I had some free time and tried it.

The lack of RedHack's Gnome customizations was enough for me to be converted. It's *amazing* how much faster Gnome runs without all the useless RedHat garbage cluttering up memory and chewing CPU cycles here and there.

On the other hand, you really have to know what you're doing to set up Gnome properly with everything working "as advertised."

Now I use it on servers at work because it's actually configurable enough to handle our rather unique environment without rewriting half the init scripts.

--S

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (1)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604995)

Can someone explain to me why my package manager giving me the option of setting compiler optimizations for packages it builds pisses so many people off? I went Gentoo for the init scripts, anyways...

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (0, Flamebait)

RustyTaco (301580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605090)

Here you go: http://funroll-loops.org/ [funroll-loops.org]. In short, it's not that emerge lets you specify options, it's all the cluebats screaming about how awesomely fast -O9 is.

    - rustytaco

Re:Maybe a grain of salt, but it's what I'd predic (4, Informative)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605191)

*shrug* same site it was two years ago. Yes, Gentoo is swarming with clueless n00bies; I was a clueless n00bie once and so was everybody else. If it gives them something to play with, keeps their interests, and gets them learning about Linux, it's worth having to deal with "why doesn't -Os -f-unroll-loops work?" when I talk to one (and I try to help them, because plenty of people helped me back in the day -- that's the whole spirit of GNU, right?).

Seriously, what should n00bies do, then? Gentoo is a largely user-configured operating system with unbelievably simple and hand-holding documentations. Yes, #gentoo is always full of n00bs asking why they can't boot now that they disabled all block devices in their kernel. But then again, that means it's full of n00bs who have configured and compiled a kernel; other distros I've seen say "WARNING WARNING ELITE USERS ONLY" about that. Why? People point out (rightly) that you can install Gentoo and still be an ignoramus. However, if you're actually interested in learning, you can also learn from the installation procedure the commands for fdisk, the options to hdparm, how chroot works, what /etc/resolv.conf is, blah, blah, blah.

funroll-loops is half-right. Gentoo is not simply a ricer distribution; it's a hobbyist distribution. It's the kit-car of distros. There are plenty of people who are doing the software equivalent of bolting a huge spoiler on their Civic. But there are plenty of us who are just having fun. And, anyways, the point of free software is that we're free to do what we want with it, even if that means being a moronic jackass.

cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604844)

ive been looking for an excuse to switch to linux.. i wonder if office 2003 will run under wine?

Look it up in the Application DB (was Re:cool!) (5, Informative)

Rexifer (81021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605027)

I know this is repeat info for most people, but for the newbies...

There's actually an online application database where people have submitted their experiences/successes in getting Windows apps to run under Wine. If you want to see how well Office 2k3 works under Wine, this'd be the first place to look. Conversely, if you have success running a given Windows app, be sure to submit your experiences. Feedback to the App DB not only helps other Wine users, but is helpful feedback for Wine developers on outstanding compatibility issues.

The URL is: http://appdb.winehq.org/ [winehq.org]

wine or driver test? (5, Insightful)

shoelace_822695 (789021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604869)

To me this seems to be more a test of the linux implementation of teh video card drivers.. and NOT the wine system itself.

i think a wider suite of tests would be required.. and not just the preformance/gaming orinted stuff.

Re:wine or driver test? (1)

ejito (700826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604915)

The best gains Wine had were on PC Mark 2k4 testing. If you actually looked at the benchmark, you can see Wine did poorly on the graphical part, however every other part, except HDD usage, Wine exceeded windows.

Re:wine or driver test? (1)

njh (24312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604976)

The fact that the drivers are better is certainly interesting by itself.

Re:wine or driver test? (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605108)

To me this seems to be more a test of the linux implementation of teh video card drivers.. and NOT the wine system itself.

Well that is implying that the Nvidia drivers for Windows are much better than for Linux, which is essentially the opposite of my experience with video.

Obviously graphics is the bottleneck, so perhaps it's a case of WINE not translating the video instructions as well as it does for other instructions.

Compatibility more important than speed! (5, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604874)

Speaking as someone who used to be a Wine-hater, Wine has definitely come a long way. My impression of Wine for years was that it a) was impossible to install and configure, b) didn't run anything other than solitaire, and c) caused major instability to desktops.

Then I tried Codeweavers' "Crossover Office," essentially a pre-configured Wine with graphical configuration and installation tools, and everything changed. I currently use all of the following under Fedora Core 4:

- Microsoft Office XP
- Wordperfect 12 (word processor only)
- Photoshop 6
- Framemaker 7

They all installed using the standard CD install, without my having to jump through any crazy hoops or type a single command, and they all run flawlessly and are great for serious work. They sit right in my KDE menu like all other applications and it's a real head-turner to be able to show up to work with my laptop running Linux and then pop into Word XP and Framemaker.

Wine works incredibly well after all, it's just more "raw material" than "finished product." Get someone to write a user-friendly front end for it (ala Codeweavers' Crossover Office) and it offers a very high level of Windows compatibility to Linux users.

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (1)

Kasracer (865931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604941)

What about higher end MS applications like VisualStudio or the .Net framework? How well do they perform with Wine/Cross-Over? What about Macromedia software?

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (3, Interesting)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604985)

What about higher end MS applications like VisualStudio

Why would you run a Windows-only compiler on Linux? But, more importantly, #2:

or the .Net framework?

Why would you run an allegedly platform-dependent runtime on an emula^H^H^H^H compatibility layer?

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (2)

Kasracer (865931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605079)

No real reason. Just want to know if it can be done. I do a lot of development work in both C++ and C# so if I could would with .Net and VS on Linux, I could finally move to Linux only.

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (1)

ZenShadow (101870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605273)

A reasonable point here is that with some work Wine and the Mono folks could team up for an interesting result.

As to VS.NET not building for other OS's, I run VS.NET-compiled binaries all the time under Mono. Works just fine. And VS is (IMO) FAR better than any currently-available Linux dev environment C# or C++.

Hint to folks with more time on their hands than I've got: build a VS.NET clone, bring lots more people to the Linux world.

--S

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (3, Insightful)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605174)

What about higher end MS applications like VisualStudio or the .Net framework?

At some point you have to ask yourself why you are running Linux at all.

-matthew

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (1)

clintcan (854313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605227)

As for Visual Basic 6.0 (I have the Standard Edition), you can install and run it as you would in windows. I've had more experience however installing Macromedia Studio MX, and practically all work as expected, except for some display refresh quirks in Fireworks and Dreamweaver (however Fireworks has more refresh quirks). I have since rarely used windows more or less at home because of this, since I run these tools already in linux. As for the wine version I used... those tools have been tested in 0.9.2, 0.9.3, 0.9.5 and 0.9.6 Interestingly, emulation programs which use opengl run as fast or faster(!) than when using windows (epsxe - a psx emulator is an example).

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (1)

Dh2000 (71834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605337)

there's a native linux version of epsxe, so why are you running it under wine?

WINE not a Windows replacement (5, Insightful)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605073)

Okay, I *like* WINE. It's a great piece of software, and very useful. But it doesn't make Linux a drop-in Windows replacement. If you decide "Gee, I think I should use Linux as a desktop" (I do), then it's icing on the cake if WINE runs something. It's not reasonable to simply expect a given piece of software to run flawlessly under WINE, though.

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (1)

BiDi (853932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605300)

WineGUI for the linux platform would be an excellent idea.

If it would be distributed with a simple to install linux distro and it would enable users to simply run WineGUI, select a windows installer file/zip with it and run it to install the win32 application on the linux box... you know where I'm going with this.

If a distribution like this would exist the single reason people stil use winblowz would be eliminated: simplicity of installing win32 applications. On windows most applications "just work". With WineGUI they could be made to "just work" also on a linux machine.

And the best of this would be: The only unsupported applications that wouldn't work would be spyware ridden bloatware and badly written freeware crap that all users would have to replace. Replace with what? Free and better alternatives from the WineGUI database of good quality applications.

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (1)

gavinchappell (784065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605336)

To add to this, it would be trivial to be able to parse autorun.inf files, just like on Windows, so that as soon as you throw the CD in the drive your Wine frontend could read it and automatically start the installer (or bring up a launcher menu, which seems more popular these days).

Re:Compatibility more important than speed! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605341)

I recently had a major problem with a legacy mission critical appliation no longer working under windows. This application was designed for windows 95. This wasn't a data error, we rolled back to older versions of the application and the database and the software just wouldnt work under windows. We tried different computers, different versions of windows, they all refused to run the application and gave varies error messages. We needed this application running and it was a major problem that it didn't work.

As a last ditch effort we tried running it under wine. No problems. It just worked. Wine was able to run an windows application that windows couldnt.

Note that XP Wins the Tests that Count (2, Insightful)

Shimdaddy (898354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604877)

Notice, however, that the 60 some tests that Wine leads on are synthetic through and through... and when you get to actual games it's XP all the way. While Wine's performance is impressive, the requisite dose of salt may be several kg for this article.

Re:Note that XP Wins the Tests that Count (1)

ajwitte (849122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604951)

For games, sure, but what about other apps? Linux has (speaking very generally) worse 3d graphics performace than Windows, so it's to be expected that WINE would perform worse than Windows when running games. I don't have experience running WINE on modern hardware, but I imagine the speed differential is much less (or even nonexistent) when running, say, Office or IE.

Re:Note that XP Wins the Tests that Count (2, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605161)

Windows XP (and 2k) are better for gaming becuase of all the third part addon's and apps that only work on windows. Technically yes you can can run a game in linux but you cant run many of other programs such as Ventrilo. Ventrilo is a MUST becuase I am in a WoW raiding guild. Right now there is no Ventrilo client for linux.

Before you go and say "well run Ventrilo under wine!" let me tell you that i have tried and it did not work. I dont know why it did not work and i dont care. Even if it was a relativly easy tweak I am not willing to do it. Its not that I can't get it to work, but why not use windows which "just works".

Again before you guys go off about how Windows doesn't "just work" let me tell you it DOES for me on my gaming machine. My spare time these days is spent raiding instead of tweaking my computer and i prefer it that way.

suckahs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605371)

All the gamers I know play 1 game all year, which is cool and all but over the time they spend 1500 bucks on motherboard, cpu, ram, video card, power supply, and all the other stuff... get like 30 more fps over acceptable ... super pro delux internet feeds and /still/ bitch about lag. I doubt they would be very interested in Wine. OTOH, I just play to keep in touch and so I can still be involved in their conversations and get their old (bad assed) video cards and stuff.

Of course wine's better... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604965)

...it makes you feel relaxed, slightly fogged and, in sufficient quantities, happily drunk. Windows, on the other hand, just makes you feel angry and frustrated. Give me wine!

oh, wait, you were discussing software?

Strange choice of benchmarks... (3, Insightful)

Sathias (884801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604969)

Seems a bit strange to me to do a current comparison by using a version of 3d Mark that is 5 years old. If you were going to test out a 6800 on Windows alone you would use 2003 or 2005, the fact they didn't use that one in their Wine comparison suggests to me it couldn't run the later versions at all. The fact that 2000 ran better than under XP, but 2001 ran considerably worse suggests this as well.

If this is the case, the results in regard to game performance are out-dated at best.

Re:Strange choice of benchmarks... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605132)

What you're saying is no secret, newer DirectX versions don't work that well with Wine yet.

Re:Strange choice of benchmarks... (1)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605190)

Good point, I noticed that too. And the reason is that 3DMark05 will probably not work on Wine at all.

But still, for an open source project to even accomplish what Wine did in the last couple of years is pretty good. I got Cedega Transgaming and it works pretty well too.

Funny statistics (5, Interesting)

cd_smith (106365) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604979)

Anyone else notice the funny stuff going on with the statistics? All the statistics are reported as percentages of the XP value, with higher = better. That means that if wine is "+ 90%", it's performing less than twice as fast as XP. But if it's "- 90%", XP is performing ten times faster!

So whatever this is measuring (and I concur that it seems to be mostly Linux graphics drivers), it's not reporting the results particularly well.

Re:Funny statistics (2, Insightful)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605061)

That's not unusual -- choosing the incumbent as a baseline is hardly an unreasonable choice if you are trying to do performance comparisons against a challenger.

These tests don't really put Wine in a good light (2, Interesting)

DigitlDud (443365) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604998)

Wine is significantly slower in nearly half of the tests. And getting faster results during memory and CPU tests don't make any sense. The OS shouldn't have anything to do with the results of these tests. Maybe the results are skewed by the Wine's timer implementations?

Re:These tests don't really put Wine in a good lig (2, Informative)

Rexifer (81021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605144)

Presumably, the memory tests deal with the various OS-level Alloc's (HeapAlloc, GlobalAlloc, LocalAlloc, VirtualAlloc, etc...), which include fault protection checking, SACL checking, and other safety features. The reason that Wine performs better is that either they have implemented a faster version of the WinXX memory management APIs, or that the underlying Linux memory management is faster and the cost of the Wine wrapping calls is negligible. Same for the CPU-related tests... Just as memory is a managed resource in the WinAPI world, so is the CPU (also having SACLs/DACLs to check, and threading/fiber management, etc...)

Re:These tests don't really put Wine in a good lig (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605272)

Or it could be that WINE have implemented HeapAlloc etc as just plain old malloc without any ACL checking at all.

A grain of salt?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605000)

I am not sure that a grain of salt is needed; These numbers are much better that wine has known in the past, but they still are not particularly impressive.

Filesystem, graphics driver (5, Interesting)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605003)

Well, my experience with Wine/Cedega has been that for the games and applications that work, the disk-access tends to be faster. Not necessarily because the actual disk is being accessed faster, but because the filesystem (in my case reiserfs) is speedier to read.

The other wonderful thing I've found about Wine is the graphics abstraction layer. My laptop has a GeForce FX5600 (mobile) card in it. It's actually rather spiffy for most games still, but sucked ass at Battlefield 2 in windows, popping up the warning that my graphics drivers were out of date. Well, it seems that the drivers are tied to the laptop in windows to co-habitate with the power-saving etc etc... so I couldn't update from the official NVidia ones. And of course, my laptop vendor doesn't offer updates for anything over a year old it seems.

In linux, however, the normal NVidia accelerated driver works. The game runs on that faster than in windows, and with better detail levels. I don't know if it's just that the Cedega HAL does a better emulation for the software bits, or if it's due to the more-up-to-date driver, but it's a much less painful experience in Linux.

Lastly, my soundcard. SB Live 5.1. Abit dated, but with livedrive still a very nice functional card, except that the windows drivers will eventually/randomly freeze in most directX intensive games. Running in linux... no problemo. That's actually why I switched to Cedega/Debian almost completely (too many losses in Warcraft from lockups).

Missing the most crucial test (2, Interesting)

Chrax (782154) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605018)

The real question on everybody's mind is: how well does it run Counter-Strike 1.5? I didn't see that test on there.

DirectLinux (2, Insightful)

MrNybbles (618800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605022)

The Linux Kernel has some graphics support but neither the Kernel nor the X Window System are geared for fast 3D graphics. DirectX is good at getting around using the slower Windows GDI. DirectX is one of the few things Microsoft does somewhat well. (Insert joke here about Directx 9 and taking nine trys to get DirectX right.)

I have a feeling that unless some major changes are made to the X Window System (and maybe Linux drivers) that WINE will not catch up with WindowsXP and DirectX, but that just means I would need a faster computer.

WINE doesn't need to be the fastest. As long as it will run my older games (which Windows 2000 does not always do well) it may be more useful to me than an actual install of Windows.
---
This is just my opinion, please don't flame me just because you like Windows.

Re:DirectLinux (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605170)

You know, you should probably have held off on your comment until some future date when you knew what the hell you were talking about.

Re:DirectLinux (1)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605359)

Why is this modded 'insightful'? This might have been the case 10 years ago, but there's direct rendering in the drivers for most chipsets generally used for gaming nowadays you know... Except for the Nvidia chipsets but their closed-source drivers implement their own direct-rendering subsystem and are actually benchmarked faster than the Windows drivers... If vender support would be a little better (especially from ATI) then Linux would actually be a better 3D/gaming platform than Windows.

Also, there's projects like DirectFB, Mesa Solo and whatnot for direct graphics without X... And wrappers around that like SDL that work seamlessly between X/non-X...

3dMark 2005 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605046)

Where are the comparissons for 3dmark2005?
Surely 2000 isnt supported. Wouldnt it be more fair to use a dos emulator? Fits in the same gnere

Impressive results (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605131)

What's more impressive is that he managed to get 3DMark 2001 working at all under Wine!

Impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605210)

I've gotta say, I was exteremly impressed when I tried my first taste of real wine. Blender3D ran better in Wine then it did on Windows.

transgaming (2, Interesting)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605239)

As a longtime transgaming subscriber, I can tell you that wine really does work as well as pictured. However, it uses an absolutely offensive amount of ram while it does so. I don't knwo how closely related the branches are though.

Example of distorted statistics (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605251)

It does not take a second look to figure out the stats made up.

1. Most of Wine's wins are in the 0-2% mark. Means nothing except _inconclusive_; otherwise where is the variance, num tests to justify this?
2. Wine's perf is bad in the tests it lost
3. Old test suites were used
4. As some one said, If Wine is 90% faster it means it is 90% faster. If it is 90% slower it means it is 10 times slower!!!

BUT, what is really impressive is that Wine actually managed to run all the tests. The compatibility is indeed impressive. This benchmark would have been very credible had it not played with the numbers and colors.

Maybe a troll, but here is my argument against Wine:
Windows is moving to WinFX. Then it makes more sense to emulate WinFX's API than Win32 API. (WinFX does use Win32 extensively underneath, but why emulate 2 API's??). In the longer term, the answer to Windows compatibility is not Wine, it is MONO [mono-project.com].

Re:Example of distorted statistics (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605292)

BUT, what is really impressive is that Wine actually managed to run all the tests. The compatibility is indeed impressive. This benchmark would have been very credible had it not played with the numbers and colors.

It didn't manage to run all the tests. FTA:

Wine or XP aborted on 18 tests

The breakdown for that is 3 for Windows and 15 for Wine.

Configuration? (1)

darkain (749283) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605314)

what drivers where used? and what driver and OS configurations where used? and what about features? since a product has less features, it should have less to process, hence it running faster. how fast can windows 95 paint a window to the screen compared to windows xp? ya, i know, its a lame example, but its true.

Not that bad, not that good - It's a start (1)

Cef (28324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14605389)

The tests are ok. Sure we need more (like later versions of software, assuming that it runs of course), but at least it's a start. I look at all the green's as a "these bits work ok" and anything worse than yellow as "this needs a lot of work". Beyond that, I wouldn't read anything else into it.

We also need to know what version of the NVidia driver was used, on XP and on Linux, as this will make a huge difference. It'd also be good to know some other stuff about each setup (eg: DirectX version and patch level under XP, kernel version under Linux), etc.

As for these older tests not being significant: Bullcrap! So many games use bits of DirectX and the like that have been in there since well before 2000. While the tests are not the be-all and end-all, they are the building blocks that need to be completed before we jump headlong into the next level. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

I mailed the guy with a few criticisms and ideas, so maybe we'll see some more info shortly. Note that I did this politely - people tend to listen to polite suggestions, as compared to knee-jerk style frustrated yelling and bitching.

On related news... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14605399)

The latest LugRadio show ( http://lugradio.org/episodes/43 [lugradio.org] ) features a very interesting interview of Jeremy White about Wine.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...