Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

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

  • Kano
    replied
    I dont think that audio latency is a huge problem on Linux. Ok, PA may not be the optimal case for everybody, but you dont need to use it on simple setups. Often sound is done via openal which is even available for Xbox (360). That abstraction layer doesn't hurt on win as well and lots of games use it. So whats problem with audio?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL#Games

    Leave a comment:


  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    But still you need this alternative kernel, you can't do it out-of-the-box.
    What does OOTB matter? it doesn't. So i need an alternative kernel - big deal. You can't replicate my setup at all OOTB in Windows. Note: my setup doesn't just mean low latency, either. it means headless ON/off operation - no interaction required ~ everything (software, routing, etc) somes up ready to go, all controlled via midi... I can also switch my sessions (both midi/software/etc) on the fly using midi and when i am done, i simply power down my machine.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Well, I've had < 1 ms latency with Cubase on Windows more than 10 years ago... so if you need to tweak a Windows machine for better low-latency with today's hardware, you're doing something quite wrong.
    except for the fact that it can improve the situation, not all H/W works the same and i know for FACT that AVID, ADK and others ALL tweak their Windows Workstations. See this is the problem - you know very little about what Professionals are actually using and doing..You are claiming ALL of these companies do not know what they are doing. You are claiming many other companies such as Muse Research, Harrison Consoles, focusrite, Novation, etc, etc also don't have a fucking clue - and yet you are just some nobody fucking loser - not an Industry leader in these fields, any sense of the word.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Simple fact. You can find tons of semi-professional audio cards that advertised < 1 ms latency with ASIO on Windows, and I've tried a few over the years, and I can verify that they work as advertised. Even USB devices can get ~3 ms latency, which is probably about as good as the USB bus gets.
    Yeah, and many don't behave as advertised depending on a number of factors. I've seen many USB devices, where in the Manual - they will tell you to do stupid crap like disable wireless if using the device in Windows (in very small print), while NOT mentioning that at all about using it with Mac. I gave away an older usb2.0 interface to a friend, who was interested in demoing out some of his songs. He had a decent Win laptop - the interface NEVER worked well for him. Six month's later he bought a Mac - worked PERFECTLY, no problems at all... I've seen firewire soundcards BSOD on friend's computers (including this year) while working on songs - never had that happen on my Mac - in fact, the one and only time i have seen a similar problem was unplugging the audio interface (by accident) while Protools was in the middle of something.. So i personally don't care what is advertised ~ Companies promise the world with their products, but reality doesn't always gel with what they may promise. (reality 101).

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    It is if you know what DirectSound is.
    Aside from that, reading comprehension fail.
    I quote: "but it is not specifically made for low-latency professional audio as ASIO is."
    Which does *NOT* mean that it is *NOT* made for low-latency professional audio.
    Sure, it can be used for low-latency professional audio. Same goes for DirectSound. But it's a more high-level approach, and also supports things like effect processing etc, where ASIO is just a direct interface, nothing more. No layers, no hardware abstraction, no processiong, no nothing.
    Oh, so now you are splitting hairs (?) and really how do you KNOW that one of Apple's goals for CoreAudio wasn't low-latency professional audio? (you don't unless you are going to provide information directly from it's developers citing that wasn't one of it's design goals). CoreAudio provides much more than ASIO does in itself (as you have also stated). the AU plugin standard is just as good if not better than VST, which is apart of CoreAudio. DirectSound is garbage for Proaudio no one uses it over ASIO... Nor is DirectSound even close to being of the quality of CoreAudio. CoreAudio is a high level approach, yet It seems to work as good or better than ASIO.... and Mac's are better still generally better for Proaudio than Windows is - and this is common knowledge... Also, MS encourages driver writers to use bad practices by not clearly defining a proper way to do it, but instead offer a few methods, While Apple has clearly defines the path that should be taken, encouraging good practices...

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    If you weren't so blinded by zealotry, perhaps you could just read what I write, instead of your distorted interpretations because your common sense has been shut down by your raging zealotry.
    You can claim i don't have common sense, but you've already shown you have no concept of what common sense actually is... Distorted interpretations, ya right. Why don't you tell me again how Wine is just for *nux users to run their 'hated' windows software - than we can discuss what 'distorted intepretations' and points of view are, you hypocritical asswipe.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    I am a user of Cubase, and various other software. Not necessarily a fan.

    Erm, on the contrary. But if your sick mind interprets it like that, I'm not surprised. I guess you only see the world in black and white.
    Fair enough (on Cubase point) but then why bother with it?? As far as my Windows comment - that was mostly a joke/sarcasm, dickhead. Calling you a dickhead, however was not!

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Again, reading comprehension.

    I got < 1 ms YEARS ago... I'm just saying that once you've reached the 1 ms barrier, it no longer matters if you can get the latency down any further. So any further improvements in latency are merely theoretical. They no longer add value to the actual user experience. In fact, even my USB devices with 3 ms work just fine. I've used one as a guitar processor with a VST. Didn't notice any annoying latency while playing.
    Reading comprehension problems? 'just reached the 1 ms barrier' - erm, nope. You can't accuse someone of having reading comprehension problems when you literally pulling content out of what i said that is essentially imaginary ~ or you are just making up shit and saying that is what i said... Either way, you're a hypocrital asshat.

    My Mac has no problem doing less than 1 ms (and pretty much every mac before that, going back years and years) and the same is true of Linux... So your 'common sense' tells you to make up shit, does it?!!? As a guitar player why would you notice?! ...As a keyboard player, i like to keep it as low as possible... In fact, since you claim to be well above 30 - at least it would appear that way based on certain things you have said, the fact is you are probably used to guitar FX that historically have had much higher latency, i know i am from playing older 80s-90s guitar FX boards (i also play guitar, although prefer keyboards)... But i tend to notice it more with my keyboard playing (using digital synth modules) than guitar with effects. I can compensate (as you do with any old analog moog-style synth or piano), but when you are playing really fast leads (32nd notes), rolls, arpeggios, etc. Lower latency is better. And AFAIK USB (even 2.0) is of no use to me, Firewire or PCI cards only. I personally think USB soundcards are not a good way to go (in any OS). Especially, if you are using multi-in/out consistently (which i am).

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Again, reading comprehension: I have never claimed it is NOT called the NT kernel. What I have said is that there is no *OFFICIAL* name for the kernel.
    So yes obviously it is referred to as the NT kernel. This was especially true back in the days of Windows NT 3/4. With Windows 2000, most people still were very much aware that this was actually 'NT5', so the name was still quite common. However, since XP, Vista and 7, the NT name is no longer that familiar, so you see "Windows kernel" more and more, and "NT kernel" is mostly a relic of the past now.
    except for the fact that it isn't a relic and MS still versions NT to every Windows release, and they do call the kernel, NT kernel at www.miscrosoft.com in their own documentation and so does every other tech site discussing the 'windows kernel', which is nothing more than a layman term. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension...

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Not at all, you merely 'proved' that 'NT kernel' is one of the common unofficial names used. Something which I have never contradicted in the first place. I merely pointed out that this is not *THE* name of the kernel, since it does not have one.
    More reading comprehension I suppose.
    LOL. No dude, you might as well give it up. Windows has been using the NT kernel since 3.1 NT and just have continued to extend it.. it's the NT kernel and will have a version number in win7, the version number will be something like this; 6.1.7600.16385

    here is a page that tracks all NT kernels by version, right back to the first;

    http://www.geoffchappell.com/studies...tory/index.htm

    oddly enough, while you claimed those .exe files don't really have anything to do with the kernel, and then went on some rant about 'backwards compatibility' ~ it actually turns out that what you were saying was wrong.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Again, reading comprehension. I *specifically* said that Executive would not be a correct name.
    Reading comprehension problem? fuck you, you ignorant fuckwad. Lets have a look, why don't we what you ACTUALLY said, rather than your 'distorted' version, that you just made up;

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    If anything, 'Executive' would be the closest to the name of the Windows kernel. But since that only describes the microkernel itself, and not the Windows subsystem, it is not what people commonly see as 'the kernel' of Windows.
    You made the claim it would be the 'closest' to the name *cough* NT kernel, that isn't *specifically* saying it's NOT the correct name...but that isn't what my beef was with (if you had bothered to actually read what i wrote)... You said it only describes the 'microkernel' ~ which it does NOT - the executive is NOT the microkernel part of NT. I then said: "executive is part of the kernel, but is NOT the entire kernel, nor is it the 'microkernel' within the NT architecture - that is plain WRONG".. I provided an image and a link that shows that it is wrong. For someone claiming to be such an expert on NT - you certainly aren't basing it on factual knowledge.

    I think you're the one with the reading comprehension problem, and also some mild retardation to boot.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    What is your point? The NT project started out as OS/2 2.0, everyone knows that.
    However, due to the sudden popularity of Windows 3.0, Microsoft and IBM parted ways, since IBM wanted to use a special OS/2 interface, whereas Microsoft wanted to use the now-popular Windows 3.0 UI, and just sell it as Windows NT.
    But it was still the same project.
    Supporting multiple subsystems has been a core design decision for NT since day 1. Even when they were focusing on 'NT OS/2', it was always going to have a DOS and Win16 subsystem, and could run various other subsystems as well, even a POSIX one.
    Win32 is just one of the many subsystems in the NT project, which eventually led to Windows NT (where Microsoft dropped the OS/2 subsystem).
    That's the point though, NT OS/2 was a different Operating System than Windows NT. They didn't just rename it, but changed it - it has some very big differences... Which goes back to my earlier point of Windows (insert version here) being the OS, while NT being the core of all of those OSes. For example Android and Ubuntu are two different OSes but both use linux, an even better Example Gentoo and Ubuntu may both be 'linux distributions' but are in fact different Operating Systems, that function differently than each other, even though they do share a lot in common. The person using Gentoo could in fact, be using vastly different components depending on configuration.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    So I'm not sure how you are claiming that the 'NT kernel' is not named after either NT OS/2 (early in the project) or Windows NT (later in the project).
    I don't doubt that it came early in the NT OS/2 project, but that is when it would have come and it is still not possible to know without speaking to Dave Cutler, which came fist the chicken (OS names the kernel) or egg (kernel already called NT) - you were claiming in a very certified way, ie: undisputable FACT ~ that it was named NT because of Windows NT.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Which was the same project... OS/2 was just done a few months sooner... what's your point?
    What part of you getting your panties in a bunch over a 'minute point' did you not understand, exaclty? LOL. fucktarded, eh?

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    I don't see me ignoring anything, because I never denied that it was commonly referred to as the 'NT kernel'. Heck, I used that name myself, back in the NT3/4 days.
    *You* however are denying (despite links from microsoft.com) that the kernel is *also* commonly referred to as the 'Windows kernel' (which is more appropriate today, since the NT brand name has not been used since 1999).
    When did i DENY that it was commonly referred to as 'the Windows kernel'??!?? are you really this fucking stupid? Do you not remember me citing 'The windows kernel' as being a layman term? I NEVER denied that the term is in use, not even once. Secondly, it is still referred to as the NT kernel all over their site, almost in any other tech forum, blog, etc and by the vast majority of technical/IT people...

    For someone whom is claiming others having 'reading comprehension problems' - you clearly have not only reading problems, but severe memory problems, and retardation.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    One was all I needed. Besides, it was two.
    Actually, no. You need(ed) many more citations for all of the claims you have made through out this thread. Linking to one (or two) and saying "look, see it says Windows Kernel not NT kernel" - is RETARDED. If you knew it was the NT kernel in the past and you know that the current version in Win7 of the kernel is 6.1.xxx - than it should be pretty obvious to you, if you have a brain AT ALL - that it is still the NT kernel.
    Last edited by ninez; 14 August 2012, 09:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    it takes one single command to install an rt-kernel on my machines, no different than installing any other software.
    But still you need this alternative kernel, you can't do it out-of-the-box.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Sure i have, which is exactly why i am comfortable saying this shit. I've even tweaked friend's windows machines for better low-latency.
    Well, I've had < 1 ms latency with Cubase on Windows more than 10 years ago... so if you need to tweak a Windows machine for better low-latency with today's hardware, you're doing something quite wrong.
    Simple fact. You can find tons of semi-professional audio cards that advertised < 1 ms latency with ASIO on Windows, and I've tried a few over the years, and I can verify that they work as advertised. Even USB devices can get ~3 ms latency, which is probably about as good as the USB bus gets.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    CoreAudio is not comparable to DirectSound - where the fuck did you get that information?!
    It is if you know what DirectSound is.
    Aside from that, reading comprehension fail.
    I quote: "but it is not specifically made for low-latency professional audio as ASIO is."
    Which does *NOT* mean that it is *NOT* made for low-latency professional audio.
    Sure, it can be used for low-latency professional audio. Same goes for DirectSound. But it's a more high-level approach, and also supports things like effect processing etc, where ASIO is just a direct interface, nothing more. No layers, no hardware abstraction, no processiong, no nothing.

    If you weren't so blinded by zealotry, perhaps you could just read what I write, instead of your distorted interpretations because your common sense has been shut down by your raging zealotry.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    you are after all a big fan, long time user of Cubase
    I am a user of Cubase, and various other software. Not necessarily a fan.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    and think Windows is the best OS of all time forever...
    Erm, on the contrary. But if your sick mind interprets it like that, I'm not surprised. I guess you only see the world in black and white.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    by the way, below 1ms isn't theoretical. there is hardware/software than gets below that now.
    Again, reading comprehension.
    I got < 1 ms YEARS ago... I'm just saying that once you've reached the 1 ms barrier, it no longer matters if you can get the latency down any further. So any further improvements in latency are merely theoretical. They no longer add value to the actual user experience. In fact, even my USB devices with 3 ms work just fine. I've used one as a guitar processor with a VST. Didn't notice any annoying latency while playing.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    except for in the many links i have already provided to you. I am not asking you to prove there is NO name - i am asking you to prove it's not called the NT kernel - which you cannot do - since it IS called the NT kernel.
    Again, reading comprehension: I have never claimed it is NOT called the NT kernel. What I have said is that there is no *OFFICIAL* name for the kernel.
    So yes obviously it is referred to as the NT kernel. This was especially true back in the days of Windows NT 3/4. With Windows 2000, most people still were very much aware that this was actually 'NT5', so the name was still quite common. However, since XP, Vista and 7, the NT name is no longer that familiar, so you see "Windows kernel" more and more, and "NT kernel" is mostly a relic of the past now.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    I've met my burden of proof
    Not at all, you merely 'proved' that 'NT kernel' is one of the common unofficial names used. Something which I have never contradicted in the first place. I merely pointed out that this is not *THE* name of the kernel, since it does not have one.
    More reading comprehension I suppose.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    executive is part of the kernel, but is NOT the entire kernel, nor is it the 'microkernel' within the NT architecture - that is plain WRONG;
    Again, reading comprehension. I *specifically* said that Executive would not be a correct name.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    except for the fact that it wasn't called 'Windows NT'. It was actually developed as NT OS/2 for IBM..
    What is your point? The NT project started out as OS/2 2.0, everyone knows that.
    However, due to the sudden popularity of Windows 3.0, Microsoft and IBM parted ways, since IBM wanted to use a special OS/2 interface, whereas Microsoft wanted to use the now-popular Windows 3.0 UI, and just sell it as Windows NT.
    But it was still the same project.
    Supporting multiple subsystems has been a core design decision for NT since day 1. Even when they were focusing on 'NT OS/2', it was always going to have a DOS and Win16 subsystem, and could run various other subsystems as well, even a POSIX one.
    Win32 is just one of the many subsystems in the NT project, which eventually led to Windows NT (where Microsoft dropped the OS/2 subsystem).

    So I'm not sure how you are claiming that the 'NT kernel' is not named after either NT OS/2 (early in the project) or Windows NT (later in the project).

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    maybe you should learn how to read properly. dumbass.
    ...

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Who said anything about Windows not existing before the 32bit kernel? (i sure as hell didn't). I pointed the 32bit thing, simply for the fact that oOS/2 was already a 32bit OS before windows 3.1 NT was ever released...
    Which was the same project... OS/2 was just done a few months sooner... what's your point?

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    I've already proven otherwise, using microsoft.com DUMBASS - you jsut choose to ingore that - your just a little bitch, who ignores FACTS. I provided many links/citations, you provided one :\
    I don't see me ignoring anything, because I never denied that it was commonly referred to as the 'NT kernel'. Heck, I used that name myself, back in the NT3/4 days.
    *You* however are denying (despite links from microsoft.com) that the kernel is *also* commonly referred to as the 'Windows kernel' (which is more appropriate today, since the NT brand name has not been used since 1999).

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    the best you have done is provided one page from microsoft
    One was all I needed. Besides, it was two.

    Leave a comment:


  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Yea whatever... he laid the groundwork, and it's still an unofficial patch, hence 'RT-linux', rather than just the regular linux kernel
    FYI - MANY parts of Ingo's original rt-patchset is already upstream - one fine example is 'threadedirqs'. this kind of thing will probably continue too... RT-linux tackles different goals than 'generic' linux, and besides that is a moot point. So is the patchset being 'unofficial' - it takes one single command to install an rt-kernel on my machines, no different than installing any other software.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    No it doesn't, but you sound like such a zealot that you probably never even TRIED.
    Sure i have, which is exactly why i am comfortable saying this shit. I've even tweaked friend's windows machines for better low-latency. I'm familiar with Windows, i just don't use it at home. The only logical reason (for me) to use windows was if i was a gamer - which i am not. Beyond that Mac and linux are far better for me personally in pretty much every way. and like i give a shit if you think i am a zealot.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Again, nope. OS X is good (much better than linux), but so is Windows. Besides, ASIO on Windows is perfect. CoreAudio is not bad, but it is not specifically made for low-latency professional audio as ASIO is. CoreAudio is more comparable to DirectSound (which you don't use on Windows with professional apps), sitting on top of audio drivers, where ASIO is a direct interface to the audio drivers, giving you direct access to hardware buffers. It doesn't get any better than that.
    Besides, Windows can do < 1 ms latency out of the box (without extra CPU overhead obviously). Anything below 1 ms is purely theoretical anyway. It doesn't get better than that.
    CoreAudio is not comparable to DirectSound - where the fuck did you get that information?! WOW. you are fucking ignorant and dumb as fuck. CoreAudio + AU is very much designed for proaudio on the Mac platform. Mac's are designed for this stuff, prior to becoming popular amongst the masses ~ most of Apple's customers were publishers, artists, musicians, etc... where you get off saying they aren't designed for multimedia/proaudio is laughable! but why should i be surprised, you are after all a big fan, long time user of Cubase and think Windows is the best OS of all time forever... Again, Cubase is mediocre, the fact you have stuck with it for as long as you have is fairly telling. The fact you think Windows offers better features for performers/proaudio is pretty fucking funny... The problem with Windows and Proaudio doesn't just come down to ASIO vs. CoreAusio - there are bigger issues such as, developers having to deal with 1000s of different H/W configurations, when making drivers/other software ~ developers/companies targeting Apple do not have this problem. The fact that MacOSX scheduling is much better than Windows, at least in terms of proaudio interfaces, the OS stays out of the way... Here is an article that discusses these and some other issues. You might want to read the part that a developer from Focusrite/Novation has to say about Win vs. Mac for proaudio;

    http://www.djtechtools.com/2010/06/2...-macs-and-pcs/

    There are also a lot of other articles similar floating around the web. ASIO isn't bad, it's actually pretty good, but like i said it really isn't necessarily the big issue ~ and your perception of CoreAudio is blatanly absurd.

    Not to mention the only people i have witnessed at various gigs or jams that have problems with their computer are always Windows users. My Rackmount never crashes or does anything stupid - nor do any of the musicians i know using Macs. this may be ancedotal, but i know a lot of people with very similar experiences. This tends to be why Mac is the prefered platform for proaudio - Windows is less reliable and can be a big show stopper.

    by the way, below 1ms isn't theoretical. there is hardware/software than gets below that now. So yes, maybe theoretical in Windows, but not universally true. And it is a matter of FACT that i can get lower latencies with my VSTi's in Linux than i can in Windows - your position that i can't is a crock of shit because i have compared this in Win7 this year - as at one point i was debating using Ableton Live for some slightly more electronic stuff, as well as trying out some other software. In the end it wasn't as reliable, smooth at extremely low-latencies, although not terrible - running the same VSTi's using Jack + other software was much better, i could use smaller buffers and have way much more flexibility ~ plus, my setup should be headless with on-off operation. i'm sure i could have figured out how to get that to work in Windows, but why bother when Linux is doing a better job...

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Uhhh, whatever. You just posted some quote about the development of Windows NT, as inthe OS, not the kernel.
    The thing is, you are asking me to prove that there is NO name for the kernel, which you cannot prove. If the kernel has a name, then you *can* easily prove it. Because you can easily refer to various sources that define that name. So the burden of proof is on you: you need to prove that the NT kernel is the name, which you can't, because as I demonstrated, not even Microsoft themselves refer to the kernel as such.
    except for in the many links i have already provided to you. I am not asking you to prove there is NO name - i am asking you to prove it's not called the NT kernel - which you cannot do - since it IS called the NT kernel. I've met my burden of proof - you just choose to put your fingers in your ears and scream 'la la la la la'... All through out pages at microsoft.com they refer to the kernel as the NT kernel - i guess you didn't bother to look at even one page i provided - where as i did take the time to look at yours.

    You're full of shit, quite dishonest.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    If anything, 'Executive' would be the closest to the name of the Windows kernel. But since that only describes the microkernel itself, and not the Windows subsystem, it is not what people commonly see as 'the kernel' of Windows.
    executive is part of the kernel, but is NOT the entire kernel, nor is it the 'microkernel' within the NT architecture - that is plain WRONG;

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ecture.svg.png
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    What a bunch of nonsense. Unlike linux, Windows and most other OSes don't develop the kernel separately from the rest of the OS.
    Windows NT is an OS, the kernel is a part of that development. The NT kernel has ALWAYS had EVERYTHING to do with Windows NT, because it was designed as part of the Windows NT OS.
    except for the fact that it wasn't called 'Windows NT'. It was actually developed as NT OS/2 for IBM.. And the fact that the kernel does have a name according to Microsoft - on their website in their technical documentation (which you seem happy to ignore). A name which you are now even calling it - but yesterday claimed it was called the 'windows kernel'...lol ...and AGAIN, many places on microsoft's website refer to it as the NT kernel and many many other resources on the web do too.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    I hate to point it out, but Windows is not just one OS.
    It is a variety of OSes that share some common APIs.
    Hate to point it out to you, but i already listed and made the distinction between various versions of windows citing; win95, xp, win7, etc ~ maybe you should learn how to read properly. dumbass.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Windows NT was designed for 32-bit and newer processors (386, MIPS, PowerPC, Alpha etc). Before that, an earlier version of Windows existed for 16-bit x86 machines.
    It's pretty obvious that Windows existed before the 32-bit kernel existed. But what does that have to do with anything?
    Who said anything about Windows not existing before the 32bit kernel? (i sure as hell didn't). I pointed the 32bit thing, simply for the fact that oOS/2 was already a 32bit OS before windows 3.1 NT was ever released...

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    All 32-bit and newer versions of Windows have *always* used a kernel based on the NT branch. The first ever 32-bit version of Windows was Windows NT 3.1. And since 32-bit Windows was a completely new OS (just like OS X is completely different from MacOS 9 for example), the older 16-bit versions of Windows and the kernel they used are completely irrelevant.
    So what exactly are you trying to say? It seems you are drowning in your own argument.
    Who said they didn't?? who said 3.1 NT wasn't the first 32bit version? I didn't.

    drowning...?! lol. No, you are going off the hinges on a very minute point (to do with OS/2) in a wonderfully stupid way. You 'think' i'm drowning in the argument that you are making up to smash...funny shit.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Yes, we all know that. It is however painfully irrelevant.
    The kernel never officially had a name, not 'NT kernel' or anything else. And you can't prove otherwise. Links directly from microsoft.com contradict you.
    I've already proven otherwise, using microsoft.com DUMBASS - you jsut choose to ingore that - your just a little bitch, who ignores FACTS. I provided many links/citations, you provided one :\

    epic fail :\

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Hint: the kernel is not a process.
    Hint: whatever you're referring to (could you be any more vague? I suppose you mean ntoskrnl.exe) is not a process on a modern Windows machine.
    lol. Hint: there is a reason why those processes contain nt and kernel and it's not because the kernel has no name. Nor did i say those processes were the kernel. Hint: those processes regardless of whether or not they currently exist - are very telling and the fact that @ microsoft.com most white papers and technical forums, etc refer to Microsoft's kernel as the NT kernel. - and like i said you are too, now

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Hint: just because the executable is named a certain way doesn't mean it's the official product name. Heck, most of my 64-bit DLLs are called *32.dll. Are you going to argue that they're actually 32-bit? No, they just kept the same names for better backward compatibility (there's that term again).
    That doesn't change the fact that the windows kernel is actually known as the NT kernel. You haven't provided anything substantial to support your claims. I've met my burden of proof - you have NOT disproven these facts. All you have done is put up one link from MS, while i put up may more that do call it NT kernel... Sorry about your luck.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Hint: You've lost the argument 3 or 4 posts ago, give up.
    Except i didn't - that is just what you believe in your thick head. You haven't provided ANYTHING to back up anything that you say. :\

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    For the rest, I've had just about enough of you. You just pile insult upon insult. If you actually had some proper arguments, you wouldn't need insults to get your point across.
    I can insult you all dya long, but i still have provided links/citations and you have been wrong about a great many things OVER AND OVER again.

    the best you have done is provided one page from microsoft - yet counltess other pages do call it the NT kernel - and that shit isn't hard to find from the original page you linked to - no dice, dipshit. You also made claims about Wine that were nothing more than your opinions and then labeled them as being factual ~ which is dishonest, and your are full of shit. and the list goes on.

    I don't 'need' to insult you, i choose to because you're a smug little asshole. if you don't like it - too bad. You've also insulted me quite a bit ~ so your argument holds no weight. Actually, really it just makes you look like a hypocritical dickhead.. Come up with better arguments that actually hold truth, back them up with citations and stop being a dishonest little fuckwad ~ then maybe you'll get a little respect.

    later.
    Last edited by ninez; 14 August 2012, 05:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by KameZero View Post
    I read that sentence and still don't see your point. They were too far in to the development cycle... 2 years before it was released? They were too far into the development of 10.8 A YEAR BEFORE 10.7 was even released?
    Yes, sounds like a reasonable development cycle for a project as large and complex as a consumer desktop OS.

    Leave a comment:


  • KameZero
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    That's because you didn't read this sentence in my post, I suppose:
    "Apple was probably too far in the development cycle already to integrate it in the 10.8 release."
    It's all about scope creep.
    Apparently it just wasn't in the 10.8 scope, and Apple didn't feel like letting it creep in.
    I read that sentence and still don't see your point. They were too far in to the development cycle... 2 years before it was released? They were too far into the development of 10.8 A YEAR BEFORE 10.7 was even released?

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    So this is really stupid - at least for Nvidia + Amd chips i think Linux has got a better OpenGL stack.
    The thing is, linux does *not* have an OpenGL stack (just like Windows/*BSD/Solaris/etc). They are part of the driver.
    So on linux, if you use the binary driver releases from nVidia or AMD, you get a fully up-to-date OpenGL implementation (I believe there are already beta drivers with 4.3 support from both vendors).
    If you install open source drivers from the MesaGL project, you are limited to 3.0 at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Btw. Apple sells OpenGL 4 hardware since ages. With the exeption of SNB, IVB and all dedicated chips are capable of OpenGL 4. So this is really stupid - at least for Nvidia + Amd chips i think Linux has got a better OpenGL stack.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    OpenGL 4.0 saw the light in March 2010.
    Mac OS X 10.7 was released in July 2011.
    Considering Apple is even a member of the Khronos Group,
    they should have a very good idea of OpenGL 4.0 way ahead its release.

    I really don't see your point.
    That's because you didn't read this sentence in my post, I suppose:
    "Apple was probably too far in the development cycle already to integrate it in the 10.8 release."
    It's all about scope creep.
    Apparently it just wasn't in the 10.8 scope, and Apple didn't feel like letting it creep in.

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Poor timing. [...] By the time OpenGL 4.x was final, Apple was probably too far in the development cycle already to integrate it in the 10.8 release.
    So you have to wait for al least another release.
    OpenGL 4.0 saw the light in March 2010.
    Mac OS X 10.7 was released in July 2011.
    Considering Apple is even a member of the Khronos Group,
    they should have a very good idea of OpenGL 4.0 way ahead its release.

    I really don't see your point.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X