Re: Building computer
Le 28.09.2013 22:46, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
On 9/28/2013 8:14 AM, berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 28.09.2013 13:33, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Hi Catherine,
I haven't caught up with the rest of the thread but just wanted to
address a couple points here.
On 9/26/2013 11:12 AM, Catherine Gramze wrote:
On Sep 26, 2013, at 1:05 AM, Stan Hoeppner
<stan@hardwarefreak.com>
wrote:
What desktop applications are you using that require 8GB, let
alone
16GB, of RAM? I'd think 4 would be plenty. If you wish to over
buy
DRAM, that's a personal choice. It will likely not improve
performance
in any meaningful way, for WOW in Wine, or anything else.
I will be running more than one app at a time. For example WoW, a
browser, a Ventrilo client, and a chat client at minimum.
4GB is more than plenty, unless WOW has turned into a complete and
total
memory hog. Obviously it eats more running through Wine emulation.
But
Win and WOW combined shouldn't eat more than 2GB, so you have 2GB
left
to the rest, which is plenty.
I am only quickly reading the thread, and it's the 2nd time I see
"wine"
associated with "emulation".
As the name says, WINE Is Not An Emulator, it does not emulate a
computer, it does not emulate the windows' kernel, it emulates
nothing.
<snip>
Whether you call it an emulator, translator, simulator, or Santa
Claus,
it 'provides' the Windows APIs to the application, the DLLs, etc.
Providing this does require additional memory. It's not a large
amount
by today's standards, but it is non negligible. I made that case
above
and previously in the thread.
So, you do think that an emulator is the same as a dynamic library? If
yes, well... why not. But then, since all DL are emulators, do not use
that word to prove that they'll consume more resources, being CPU or
memory.
So I'm unclear as to why you picked my reply for your rebuttal, given
we're on the same page.
The reason for which I replied, is that an emulator emulates a complete
system and this have a huge overhead. WINE, as a dynamic library, could,
theoretically ( I say theoretically because I did not ran any tests,
I'll be honest on that point. Plus, it's impossible to have strictly the
same costs ) have the same overhead than window's API. In practice, it
will have a small CPU overhead, but to say it's not a small one, one
should give some valgrind analysis.
About the reason to reply to your post and not another one, it was
because it was the second one saying that, that I had read on the same
thread at the moment I replied :)
It was not personal.
The problem with 3D game performance under Wine
I will not say it does not cost more than running on windows. I have no
proofs. But it is not related to the fact it is an emulator, it can only
be related to the fact it is a badder implementation, or one with more
more layers.
is not memory
consumption, but the CPU overhead,
CPU for 3D stuff? You might be right and I am probably wrong, but could
not it be because linux's 3D drivers are less good than windows' ones?
This is a real question, not a troll, and the reason of that opinion of
mine is quite easy to understand, and so, probably very simplistic:
video games are mostly targeting windows' users, and so, there were more
money and time spent on enhancements... on windows' side.
Well, again, I admit, I have no benchmark to prove my words.
Of course, on a more technical point, I can agree that one more layer
for OpenGL related stuff might have a cost. But, that cost might also be
removed at compile time.
I can learn that my opinion here is wrong, I have no problem with that.
I'm wrong on a lot of things after all, and am always happy when I learn
that I was wrong on something else. But give me any reason. Or a proof.
Use a linux kernel, and a WINE base environment, then show be
benchmarks. That would be sufficient. Or reasons for why wine should
cost much ( so that I could do some searches on your words and my errors
).
which I also made clear previously.
This is exactly why I admitted having only read quickly the thread.
Sorry, but I did not noticed that part. From my memories, what I have
read and that might not be your own words ( I have also read that you
say that a lot of RAM is useless for most users, and I agree with that )
was that wine + wow would take at least 2GB. It may be true, but from
what I remember to have read, there was an implicit affirmation that it
was due to wine, when it was because of the whole system.
My reply was not against anyone, my apologies if it seems so. It was
because an emulator is something, and an API is another different thing
(but, with enough abstraction, we could say it's the same, since their
uses is always to make a software running...) which have less costs.
Reply to: