OrbWeaver on 10/11/2007 at 20:20
Quote Posted by Kerrle
The seamless desktop is cool, too - already in Linux, using only free software, I can virtualize a Vista install and have Vista and Linux windows on the same desktop: (
http://conan.shackspace.com/Ubuntu-Vista.png)
It looks groovy and all, but why would you want to spoil a perfectly good Ubuntu install by running
Vista on top of it? That's like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
*Zaccheus* on 10/11/2007 at 21:39
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Well I won't comment on whether he is pleasant, but there is nothing technically wrong with that statement. If you can't (or don't want to) use multi-threading in an application, you can easily simulate parallelism by switching between tasks rapidly.
It is worth noting that early versions of windows (up to 3.1) implemented multi-tasking in exactly that way.
Kerrle on 10/11/2007 at 23:00
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
It looks groovy and all, but why would you want to spoil a perfectly good Ubuntu install by running
Vista on top of it? That's like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
I do web development. My clients generally like it when the stuff they pay me for runs in IE. They're funny like that.
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Cool, what programs are you using to run vista under linux? I wouldn't mind setting that up so I can stay in linux all the time, but hop into windows quickly when I need to.
VirtualBox is what I'm using. No D3D support, but fullscreen and seamless desktop modes, and ~90% full speed virtualization makes it just fine for photoshop, checking website compatibility, or watching video like Winamp TV.
ZylonBane on 12/11/2007 at 19:32
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
It is worth noting that early versions of windows (up to 3.1) implemented multi-tasking in exactly that way.
Not exactly. Pre-95 Windows used cooperative multitasking, where each application runs for a while and then explicitly yields control back to the OS. Modern OSs use preemptive multitasking, where the OS gives CPU time to each application as it sees fit.
Both of these concepts of multitasking aren't generally applicable to non-threaded games beyond the level of analogy.
*Zaccheus* on 12/11/2007 at 20:02
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Not exactly. Pre-95 Windows used cooperative multitasking, where each application runs for a while and then explicitly yields control back to the OS.
How is that different from a routine running for a while and then handing back control to the function which called it?
Volca on 12/11/2007 at 20:30
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
How is that different from a routine running for a while and then handing back control to the function which called it?
Blocking - that is the difference. The preemptive kernel will just pick the control back after a certain time, no matter if the application wants it to do that or not. The non-preemptive kernel just waits for the application to return back from the routine, and if the application does not want to do that, the whole system is blocked.
At least this is how I understand the difference.
Anyway, this has little in common to the previously discussed matter.
Volca on 12/11/2007 at 20:32
Quote Posted by Kerrle
Actually, while I totally support your work and look forward to this as a Linux user, Thief I & II can already be run under a few VMs. Parallels and VMWare Fusion can already run them, and Parallels at least will be updating their code base so that all their platforms (Mac, Linux, and Windows) will all be able to shortly. Really, for any DX8.1 or lower game, virtualization is quite possible. It's when you get into games with shader support that it becomes problematic.
That's good to hear!
I have to force wine to a single core to run thief, and still have some problems. The bad thing with virtualization is that you have to own the license for the hosted system though.
*Zaccheus* on 12/11/2007 at 21:35
Quote Posted by Volca
Blocking - that is the difference. The preemptive kernel will just pick the control back after a certain time, no matter if the application wants it to do that or not. The non-preemptive kernel just waits for the application to return back from the routine, and if the application does not want to do that, the whole system is blocked.
I was talking about the non-preemptive kernel of Windows 3.1 !
Quote Posted by Volca
Anyway, this has little in common to the previously discussed matter.
True.
Istvan Varga on 12/11/2007 at 22:12
Quote Posted by Volca
That's good to hear!
I have to force wine to a single core to run thief, and still have some problems.
For me, it runs reasonably well, other than the lack of cutscenes and briefing movies, but I probably have too old and Dark Engine friendly hardware.
By the way, how can I load a level in OPDE ? I know it is not very functional yet, but it would be interesting to have a look at. I have managed to compile the code after some fiddling with dependencies, but do not know how to actually run it.
Haplo on 12/11/2007 at 22:51
Quote Posted by Istvan Varga
For me, it runs reasonably well, other than the lack of cutscenes and briefing movies, but I probably have too old and Dark Engine friendly hardware.
By the way, how can I load a level in OPDE ? I know it is not very functional yet, but it would be interesting to have a look at. I have managed to compile the code after some fiddling with dependencies, but do not know how to actually run it.
Assuming you have set up your resources.cfg correctly (if you don't know how to, send me a PM), create a file called opde.cfg and put the following line in it:
mission=miss1.mis
When the engine is running, you can press F12 and type 'load missx.mis', and ofcourse replace 'x' with the mission number.
