Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DOSBox 0.74-2 Released With Better Wine Compatibility, Linux OpenGL Fixes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Nice try but that was not the baseless claim I quoted. Just stop.But nobody cares about Microsoft Store.
    The Microsoft store limitation for windows 8 that was published before windows 8 was released came the windows 8 out box. Funny part was the beta versions of Windows 8 dx8 worked. Really the fact you say nobody cares about Microsoft store is say I Weasel don't care about Microsoft Store so have no clue that is foreshadowing of where Microsoft its taking the ABI. The reason why you called my claim baseless dx9 is your normal clueless.

    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Stop repeating the same thing, that's not going to make your argument any more true. Nobody gives a shit what the problem is "amplified by". The cause of it is Spectre. This is just basics. Fix spectre and you fix "the problem" no matter how much it "amplifies" it, because even math says, multiply something by zero, you get zero.
    Did I say expfix only amplified spectre. No it did not. I gave it as example. In fact all 3 recent speculative execution faults have had attacks made using the espfix fault to amplify them. Yes these might only effect hypervisors this time around. But how long until another bug turns up that expfix or another bug that has been swept under the rug of software fix comes back again.

    If you properly fix the problems you know. Future problems have habit of being less effective.

    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    I think that's for the integrated graphics. You don't need drivers to execute CPU instructions because drivers are CPU instructions in the first place.
    Yes you do need drivers to execute CPU instructions particular on most of those newer cpus.
    1) Power management drivers including cpu frequency setting. Without this some laptops can be overheating.
    2) Ability to apply on fly cpu microcode updates.
    3) ME update if require or the system will automatically shutdown inside 30 mins. Some vendor laptops and desktop are that bad.

    This is only the tip if the iceberg of drivers that you need so CPU will be sure to function correctly so it way more than just the integrate graphics. If you are running without the drivers intel cpus you will be shutdown really quickly or having intermittent problems. Same applies to AMD x86 cpus.

    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    I don't think you understand a single thing from the thread you linked but then you bring your beliefs into it.
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...el/Zrs3t6LBjoo
    That says you did not read the above thread. Yes it working out Linux issues but it also details windows xp failures with dos mode due to espfix and you test that in 32 bit windows its never been fixed.

    Comment


    • #42
      I think it would help if oiaohm could write a bit better English. Sometimes it's a bit hard to understand what he is trying to say.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        The Microsoft store limitation for windows 8 that was published before windows 8 was released came the windows 8 out box. Funny part was the beta versions of Windows 8 dx8 worked. Really the fact you say nobody cares about Microsoft store is say I Weasel don't care about Microsoft Store so have no clue that is foreshadowing of where Microsoft its taking the ABI. The reason why you called my claim baseless dx9 is your normal clueless.
        I don't know if you realize, but Windows 8 was a massive flop. 10 as well, even free it took an enormous amount of time for people to transition and 7 is still very popular. When I said nobody cares, I meant the users and 3rd party developers. Not Microsoft. So WTF are you repeating same shit. Microsoft make a lot of dumb decisions, .NET for example is another, COM as well.

        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        But how long until another bug turns up that expfix or another bug that has been swept under the rug of software fix comes back again.
        I don't know. It's a baseless question. You have no facts to back up it either, you just assume there will be, because you assume that history predicts the future, but that's not the fact. Some stuff can be fixed for good. In theory.

        So it's just your baseless paranoia that's why I'm saying it's pointless to argue with you.

        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        Yes you do need drivers to execute CPU instructions particular on most of those newer cpus.
        1) Power management drivers including cpu frequency setting. Without this some laptops can be overheating.
        2) Ability to apply on fly cpu microcode updates.
        3) ME update if require or the system will automatically shutdown inside 30 mins. Some vendor laptops and desktop are that bad.
        BIOS should do most of it to sensible defaults. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to stay in the BIOS without your laptop overheating, which is pure bullshit.

        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        If you are running without the drivers intel cpus you will be shutdown really quickly
        So I guess you can't setup the BIOS at all cause it will shutdown? You seriously don't know shit of what you're talking about.

        How about you prove it.

        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        That says you did not read the above thread. Yes it working out Linux issues but it also details windows xp failures with dos mode due to espfix and you test that in 32 bit windows its never been fixed.
        Windows XP has a lot of stuff that will never get fixed, I don't see what your point is.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Weasel View Post
          I don't know if you realize, but Windows 8 was a massive flop. 10 as well, even free it took an enormous amount of time for people to transition and 7 is still very popular. When I said nobody cares, I meant the users and 3rd party developers. Not Microsoft. So WTF are you repeating same shit. Microsoft make a lot of dumb decisions, .NET for example is another, COM as well.
          Really over reaching much. 3rd party developers did look at Microsoft Store and Windows 8. So they did care early on because it was not exactly sure if Windows 8 was going to be a massive flop.

          About time you take off your rose coloured glasses look back on history. Anyone who is a third party developer who looks ahead to reduce future workload sees the writing on the wall about what ABI/API are going away so gets to start planing code migrations/work around before they do disappear.

          Apparently Weasel if you are a third party developer you would be the one where the customer calls you up saying I have installed X new version of windows your application does not work and have no fix wait to keep customer happy.

          Just because Windows 8 is a flop does not mean you don't have to support people using that OS. You know the luck right the CEO of a company would be using windows 8 all his staff would be using windows 10/7 enterprise and since the software did not work on his laptop they went and bought from a different supplier.

          Basically Weasel you are the clueless one. Like it or not third party developers most of the time have to support versions of Windows that are sales flops this include items like Vista, Windows Me.... Just to make sure you can sell your product.

          Originally posted by Weasel View Post
          You have no facts to back up it either, you just assume there will be, because you assume that history predicts the future, but that's not the fact. Some stuff can be fixed for good. In theory.
          This is not baseless paranoia when you have stack miss management in a cpu like espfix it will always turn up again. Stack miss handling is something you do not want in a cpu instruction set anywhere. espfix to be fixed for good is modify the cpu processing of ISA. Same with the speculative execution problems. Funny part about espfix is intel claims applications depend on espfix issue when they added to the ISA one problem no one has in fact found a case with iret giving incorrectly change stack pointer is used in any application other than malware all you have is operating systems fix it over and over again and it being used over and over again to enhance exploits. Is this for the NSA?

          Originally posted by Weasel View Post
          BIOS should do most of it to sensible defaults. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to stay in the BIOS without your laptop overheating, which is pure bullshit.
          Not pure bullshit. This is you being clueless. EFI firmware/BIOS does not really work system. Those replacing EFI firmwares with Linuxboot have noticed massive boot time savings on many systems like going from 40 second boot down to 2 seconds. EFI firmware running at the lowest clock speeds the cpu supports until changing over to the OS in lot of systems because this is simpler than fixing the default power management. Yes have the power management fixed by the OS driver instead but this is not the only path those making laptops have taken.

          Basically you just called this pure bullshit because you are clueless what is going down at this lower level.

          Originally posted by Weasel View Post
          So I guess you can't setup the BIOS at all cause it will shutdown? You seriously don't know shit of what you're talking about.
          Some of the recent laptops will shutdown 30 min if you stay in BIOS due to ME you need OS driver to turn that off. This is overheat protection. power wastage prevention. Yes this means you cannot take your time setting up the bios.

          So bios does not cause laptop to overheat because before cpu can overhead system powers off. Some of these modern laptops are just nasty. Reality is you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It about time you get some more up to date field experience.

          Weasel intel generic drivers are designed to fix over a stack of generic firmware issues. Like power management being wrong. About a decade ago you could leave a computer sitting in bios/firmware all day and expect to be still running at the end of the day. These days you do that it can be still running and be fine or shut itself down or worse fried cpu or something else due to overheating. Firmware quality is not what it use to be it always been levels of garbage but recent years it got a whole lot worse.

          Originally posted by Weasel View Post
          Windows XP has a lot of stuff that will never get fixed, I don't see what your point is.
          The test for espfix in 32 bit windows shows the failure in Windows 10 32bit. I guess you don't have a copy of Windows 10 32 bit to test it with yet you were suggesting people use 32 bit version of windows to run 16 bit applications. You want espfix fault repaired in Windows you run 64 bit version and drop win16 and dos support from OS.

          So the reality you want to securely run win16 applications you run wine under Linux/OS X. Yes the espfix issue is why some legacy windows 3.x time frame win16 programs work under wine but complete fail under windows 10 32 bit.

          How Microsoft deprecates stuff is they cease repairing it and when that breaks your application bad luck to you.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            Really over reaching much. 3rd party developers did look at Microsoft Store and Windows 8. So they did care early on because it was not exactly sure if Windows 8 was going to be a massive flop.
            Only the bad developers did, was obvious to anyone with half a brain.

            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            About time you take off your rose coloured glasses look back on history. Anyone who is a third party developer who looks ahead to reduce future workload sees the writing on the wall about what ABI/API are going away so gets to start planing code migrations/work around before they do disappear.
            Baseless claim. I can say the exact same thing about you.

            And my opinion > yours.

            See what I did there?

            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            Apparently Weasel if you are a third party developer you would be the one where the customer calls you up saying I have installed X new version of windows your application does not work and have no fix wait to keep customer happy.
            Shows how little you know. They don't call you, they call Microsoft for their Windows breaking that app they depended on.

            Why else would they add so many shims when it's the app's fault for relying on hacks and undocumented behavior?

            Because the customer doesn't think the app is broken. If a Windows version or update broke it, then it MUST be Windows for the casual user.

            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            This is not baseless paranoia when you have stack miss management in a cpu like espfix it will always turn up again. Stack miss handling is something you do not want in a cpu instruction set anywhere.
            Like I said before you don't even understand the article you linked to. It's not a fucking "miss management" or "miss handling" or whatever other bullshit you keep spewing.

            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            Not pure bullshit. This is you being clueless. EFI firmware/BIOS does not really work system. Those replacing EFI firmwares with Linuxboot have noticed massive boot time savings on many systems like going from 40 second boot down to 2 seconds.
            In what world do you need 40 seconds just to get from BIOS? Something is really wrong with you because you keep making such senseless claims as if you have a point.

            It's so pointless to have a constructive argument with you.

            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            Some of the recent laptops will shutdown 30 min if you stay in BIOS due to ME you need OS driver to turn that off. This is overheat protection. power wastage prevention. Yes this means you cannot take your time setting up the bios.

            So bios does not cause laptop to overheat because before cpu can overhead system powers off. Some of these modern laptops are just nasty. Reality is you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It about time you get some more up to date field experience.
            Maybe you should show some proof, that would be better don't you think?

            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            The test for espfix in 32 bit windows shows the failure in Windows 10 32bit. I guess you don't have a copy of Windows 10 32 bit to test it with yet you were suggesting people use 32 bit version of windows to run 16 bit applications. You want espfix fault repaired in Windows you run 64 bit version and drop win16 and dos support from OS.
            You have an obsession with something that is just an info leak, for real.

            As if it makes your PC completely unusable, just Lol dude. No words can be described by your paranoia.

            But you also think Spectre is so nasty despite the fact we've had it for over 20 years. I guess we haven't really been "using" computers for the past 20 years. Spectre made them completely unusable.

            Get a fucking grip.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              Only the bad developers did, was obvious to anyone with half a brain..
              Really this statement really is followed by a stack of clueless.

              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              In what world do you need 40 seconds just to get from BIOS?
              Enterprise hardware with remote access enabled in BIOS. Boot times are horrible.

              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              Maybe you should show some proof, that would be better don't you think?
              Really the problem is I have already show you different bits of proof and then you have attempt to ignore it.

              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              You have an obsession with something that is just an info leak, for real.
              No clueless.
              https://www.rapid7.com/db/vulnerabil...ntu-USN-2516-2

              Info leaks provide the information to perform other exploits successfully every single time.

              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              But you also think Spectre is so nasty despite the fact we've had it for over 20 years.
              True we have had it for 20 years. And for 20+ years there have been odd failures in massively multi threaded systems based around x86.

              Sometimes it takes while to find things. The fault of Spectre explains some of the workloads that would fail on hyperthreading.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                Really this statement really is followed by a stack of clueless.
                https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-bu...-react-native/
                https://news.softpedia.com/news/micr...0-522927.shtml
                https://deanchalk.com/microsoft-and-...n-f22fcbbe2757

                Yes your predictions are spot on. /s

                Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                True we have had it for 20 years. And for 20+ years there have been odd failures in massively multi threaded systems based around x86.

                Sometimes it takes while to find things. The fault of Spectre explains some of the workloads that would fail on hyperthreading.
                What the fuck? Spectre doesn't "fail" anything, all it does is provide info by examining timing of reads (cache). It is by design, not a "random failure". Of course it can leak data, that's all it does, so it is a design flaw not a random "bug".

                Dude you're so out of your mind for real.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                  What the fuck? Spectre doesn't "fail" anything, all it does is provide info by examining timing of reads (cache). It is by design, not a "random failure". Of course it can leak data, that's all it does, so it is a design flaw not a random "bug"..
                  Back here I knew you were clueless. Spectre speculative execution some of the ways it leaks information is by requesting items into the cpu if this memory happens to be DMA this can send disruption. This had lead very hard times getting locking right.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X