* graeme:

>>> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up
>>> the security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of
>>> performance.
>> BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI
>> interface. In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance
>> but in an increase in performance. It doesn't offer any new
>> effects, though.
>>
>> Benjamin
>
> Crap. Where have you been the past 6 months? Almost across the board
> games on Vista are slower,

Right. And that says exactly *what* about DX10? Yes, nothing.

Of course it's not that the Vista gfx drivers still lack the amount of
optimization that the XP drivers do have. And it's not that the
completely new architecture of DX10 hardware (AMD Radeon 2xxx and
Geforce 8) lacks the driver optimization that the drivers for the older
(conventional) gfx cards got over the last 8 years or so. And of course
it's not possible that Vista still needs enhancements that will help
overall performance, something which Windowsxp already got in the now
almost 6 years it's out.

Of course all this is just unimportant. The only reason why games are
slower in Vista than in XP must be DirectX 10. Yeah, right. Get a clue.

> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

"URL not found"

Benjamin

* graeme:
> Follow up:
>
> Vista _is_ DX10.

BS. Vista is an OS, DX10 is a collection of standardized APIs. Apples
and oranges.

Benjamin

waterskidoo <water.skidoo******.com> writes:

> On 2007-07-31, FoolsGold <fg******.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux install
>> compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by the
>> operating system = more of the games, or something like that.
>
> Exactly.
> It's 'she' btw :)
>

It doesn't really work like that. Most games playing XP machines are
dedicated and don't run web servers, databases etc.

XP really does give the machine over to the game.

As for the comments about preemptive multitasking etc, it really doesn't
make much difference whatsoever since people who play fast FPS (which
are generally still single threaded anyway) simply don't run other
things in the bg.

No doubt Linux is better designed - but as far as games players go its a
big "shrug - runs faster and more reliably on XP". Wine and CEDEGA can
work but more often than not its a real pain in the butt to get them
working.

Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> writes:

> * Hadron:
>
>> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
>> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
>
> BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI
> interface. In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but
> in an increase in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects,
> though.

DX10 is slower. I also pointed a lot of it is down to immature
drivers. Some is down to the architectural changes which were necessary
to keep stuff away from the inner rings of the OS.

Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>> that most wont run on Linux?
>
> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.

No. Some do. And no they dont run better at all. There is some claims
that disk bound games run smoother - I can believe that. But please dont
claim that the DirectX emulator runs faster than the native calls
because it simply is not true - especially at the latest DX versions.

>
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!

Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Or are you just another
ignorant fan boy making things up as you go along?

magnate <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Jul 31, 3:30 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> magnate <chr...@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> > On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> FoolsGold <f...******.com> writes:
>> >> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>> >> >> * magnate:
>>
>> >> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>> >> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>>
>> >> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>>
>> > By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
>> > don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
>> > do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.
>>
>> No. The majority are plain crap. Don't play the eye candy line.
>
> It's a valid line, since it's the most significant difference between
> gaming on Windows and gaming on Linux - as you yourself acknowledge
> below.

I acknowledge no such thing. I said eye candy isnt everything. But
modern games tend to come with eye candy and substance, Its called
survival of the fittest. There is simply no need to port to Linux
because the denizens of places like COLA would never buy games for a
start. Hell, they probably don't buy their own burritos.

>
>> There are some good ones of course - well, ok ones, but dated. The best
>> action games being from ID and Epic.
>
> Ok, at least we've met at some point.
>
>> >> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
>> >> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>>
>> >> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
>> >> > mods, standalone games)
>>
>> > This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
>> > eye candy is less important to me.
>>
>> What strategy games do you play? Loki ported Alpha Centauri and went bust.
>
> I never really got into SMAC, though it has tremendous potential. The
> mind control exploit spoiled it slightly for me (and I have an
> annoying tendency to reload when I lose a battle, which is very bad).
>
> My favourite strategy games are Dominions 2/3, MoO 1/2, MoM,
> VGAPlanets 3. I'm also a big fan of roguelikes, which are more
> tactical.
>
>> >> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
>> >> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>>
>> > The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
>> > about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
>> > version is neither here nor there.
>>
>> Not many. Sorry.
>
> Here we agree - not many modern, commercial games run well under
> Linux.

Good.

>
>> >> >>> thousands more
>> >> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>>
>> >> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>>
>> >> > Gotta LOL at that. :)
>>
>> > Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
>>
>> Pretty much. People stopped developing DOS games eons ago. Games
>> developed for DOS are pretty rubbish by todays standards. There are a
>> few exceptions but not many.
>
> No, there are lots of exceptions. Just because a game runs in DOS and
> therefore has limited graphics does not necessarily mean it's not fun
> to play.

There's a good chance if you have any familiarity with gaming
trends. DOS games were fun in DOS days. Now most are simply a laughable
retro trip. Similar to 70s haircuts.

>
>> > totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
>> > DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...
>>
>> Yes, all very old and "been there done that". All very good in their
>> day.
>
> The fact that you've played all these games is a much more valid
> reason for not liking them anymore than simply saying "they run in
> DOS, they must be crap".

I never said they "must be crap". I said most are when judged by todays
standards.


>
> Personally I haven't had much time to play all the games out there
> (and I spent a lot of time playing the ones I did get into), so I'm
> very happy firing up a classic DOS game like Jagged Alliance or
> Fallout2 or Machiavelli the Prince, because I never played it before.
>
> My guess is that there are more people like me, who haven't played a
> lot of these great games, than like you, who have played them all and
> are no longer able to be entertained by them. Of course, it's not in
> the interests of games companies to point this out.

Or to target Linux of the majority are like you and are happy to play
last decades standard.

>
>> > This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
>> > be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.
>>
>> Steam is nothing to do with eye candy.
>
> Except insofar as it is a vehicle to deliver "modern" games, which
> major on eye candy.

So you agree. Nothing to do with eye candy at all.

>
>> >> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
>> >> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
>> >> are.
>>
>> > Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
>> > measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.
>>
>> It's a measure. And pretty sad that you even think to deny that the
>> advances in graphics have added a total new dimension to gaming. or are
>> you one of these nerd types who can "picture the dungeon in your head"
>> and plays D&D with the computer rolling the dice?
>
> So you acknowledge that (in your view) advances in graphics are a key
> element of modern gaming. You don't have to be a nerd to be easygoing
> about eye candy. Sure, it looks nice, but it's way down the list of
> what makes a great game for me.

You seem to be intent in twisting what I said. I said eye candy advances
are a key element in modern gaming. There are other key elements. Like
surround sound, depth of gameplay, rendering speed, etc etc etc etc.

Most old games that will play on Linux are pretty poor in comparison to
the more modern crop.

>
>> "Here" being COLA.
>
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the acronym COLA. What is it?

Comp.Os.Linux.Advocacy

>
>> > The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
>>
>> No : it does. As people of all ages like to play games -whether flight
>> sims or fps or strategy or rpg or ....
>
> No, it doesn't. It only "needs" to attract games companies if you
> think that Linux "needs" to attract people who play modern eye-candy
> games. Where is the need? Where is the published corporate strategy
> for Linux which says it needs to grow in that particular market? Er,
> it doesn't exist. Linux doesn't *need* to do anything. It grows in the
> way its community wants it to grow. If that's in crap remakes of
> classic board games, that's what people want.

But it hasn't been growing very well I am afraid. The home market is
massive. Of course it would benefit Linux to crack that.

>
>> > free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
>> > and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
>>
>> Why? So you admit Linux users do not pay for SW? A lot of people will be
>> pissed off to hear that as they consider releasing commercial ports of
>> the SW. Whoops. Another bit of crap advocacy.
>
> Well, I can't speak for a majority of Linux users, but a lot of users
> I know use it precisely because it is free in both senses. Those type
> of users would not be interested in putting copy-protected software
> onto their system. I'm sure there is a whole other user base who would
> be happy to install and pay for commercial software, as RedHat have
> proved.

Not very well.

>
>> > Hadron wrote:
>> >>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
>> >>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.
>>
>> > Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
>> > delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
>> > most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
>> > need "SW protection" because the software is free.
>>
>> You clearly have no idea of the real meaning of OSS. OSS is not
>> necessarily "free" as in "free beer". Go read up on it.
>
> Odd that you should say that, when my previous post used both "gratis"
> and "libre". Perhaps you don't understand non-English words.

Perhaps. Good chance.

>
>> >>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
>> >>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
>> >>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
>>
>> > Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.
>>
>> It is if you like gaming. Which clearly you don't as you appear to know
>> sweet **** all about gaming, graphics, standards, cross platform games,
>> delivery systems, OSS games, and quality levels of modern releases.
>
> Ooh diddums, teddy left the pram here, didn't he?
>

As I said : you are happy to play old stuff. Fine. Most people aren't as
they have been there and done that. Your ability to be easily amused
with yesterdays left overs means you really shouldn't be commenting on
modern games or modern trends for Linux since you clearly are happy to
stay in "yesterday".

On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>> that most wont run on Linux?
>
> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.

Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?

That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
facilities.

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:

> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>
>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>
> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?

Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
calls. m'kay? This has been done to death with.

> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
> facilities.

Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't. The in
between DLL emulates what it thinks the win32 api would do with the
passed parameters. Its why it needs to be changed so soften as yet
another "state" of the win32 is discovered not to be covered in the
emulation layer.

And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.

"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e7d4y8cg62.fsf@googlemail.com...
| "CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin********.com> writes:
|
| > "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message
| > news:qhps28e7rp.fsf@googlemail.com...
| > | waterskidoo <water.skidoo******.com> writes:
| > |
| >
| > <snip>
| >
| > |
| > | What are these potential performance increases of which you speak?
| > |
| > | The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL
under
| > | Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
| > | companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
| > | than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.
| > |
| >
| > And the last benchmarks I saw showed OpenGL under Linux with some of the
new
| > unified shader video cards brutalizing DX10 under Vista... But hell,
| > that's
|
| DX10? you mean with the almost no games using it and the late drivers?
| Yup. Possibly.
|
| > not hard, most games run faster under XP than Vista (unless of course
you
| > are using proprietary Vista hardware/software combinations not available
in
| > XP, yah I know, extinguish the flames before they start). The point is
that
| > MS is releasing bloatware OS packages that keep getting more and more
| > bloated, while Linux keeps the overhead minimized...
|
| You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
| security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
|

Oh, believe me, I am wellllllll versed in DX10... I wasn't getting into the
nitpicking details there, but in essence you are correct - they redesigned
the pipelines to remove alot of the weird specialization that had been
kludged together over the years in the DX APIs, to take a cleaner and more
pure approach with the unified shader architecture... In theory, this would
allow graphics card manufacturers to concentrate on just creating cards with
killer graphics pipelines, and not have to worry about all of the little odd
kernels and modes that had to be supported for all the previous DX models.
This was why MS made a break and essentially "started over from scratch"
with DX10, which was both applauded (finally MS is doing the OPPOSITE of
bloatware and refining a process) and despised (backwards compatibility was
compromised for the sake of advancement).

The point I was making before was that the brand new DX10-based video cards
are built to run fastest in a true DX10 environment which takes advantage of
their new architecture... Even with the crappy state of driver support in
Vista, it still can have an advantage over a platform like Linux which has
nothing but generic baseline drivers to work with those cards until
something better is put together - but if you did your best to compare
apples to apples between the 2 operating systems on identical hardware,
Linux would have an advantage because there is much less housekeeping to
distract the system from what it's supposed to be doing at the moment. The
problem is you can't really compare apples to apples in this case,
particularly if you start looking at Vista (and DX10) optimized hardware &
software combinations, which will work the video side of the mix alot harder
and end up minimizing the relative differences that the actual background OS
makes in performance.

CoinSpin

____/ pc games on Wednesday 01 August 2007 09:41 : \____

> On Jul 31, 3:56 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A main concern in this revolt had something to do with the fact that Linux
>> users helped make Steam attractive. As often is the case, contributions come
>> from the open source community. It's natural to expect some minimal gesture
>> in return (and no, not a middle finger, but a thumbs up).
>
> Are you telling me the Linux community helped in the creation of
> STEAM? Helped in the creation of the "Monster"?
> That is so disapointing! I though you guys knew better than that...
> I see the Linux community as the equivalent of the "French resistence"
> in WWII and did you ever saw the "French resistence" helping the Third
> Reich?
> And from Valve you will only get the middle finger to those that are
> not SHEEP OBEYING SUBMISSIVE FOLLOWERS, but I will not take the insult
> and shut-up, you bet I'll retribute the "compliment" as I'm doing
> since November 2004, so this is specially for you Valve, **** YOU!
> YEAH **** YOU TOO!

That's a spirit... but I think it'll just annoy them if you adopt this
attitude, rather than be polite.

--
~~ Best of wishes

In an Open world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates? -- ??
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 27.1%us, 4.5%sy, 1.0%ni, 62.8%id, 4.2%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

In article <13b0u8vbttl0i03@corp.supernews.com>,
coin^spam^spin********.com says...

> The point I was making before was that the brand new DX10-based video cards
> are built to run fastest in a true DX10 environment which takes advantage of
> their new architecture... Even with the crappy state of driver support in
> Vista, it still can have an advantage over a platform like Linux which has
> nothing but generic baseline drivers to work with those cards until
> something better is put together - but if you did your best to compare
> apples to apples between the 2 operating systems on identical hardware,
> Linux would have an advantage because there is much less housekeeping to
> distract the system from what it's supposed to be doing at the moment. The
> problem is you can't really compare apples to apples in this case,
> particularly if you start looking at Vista (and DX10) optimized hardware &
> software combinations, which will work the video side of the mix alot harder
> and end up minimizing the relative differences that the actual background OS
> makes in performance.

And "much less housework" doesn't necessarily mean anything, if in both
cases it is still only an insignificant amount of RAM and CPU time,
neither of which are necessarily bottlenecks anyway in any particular
game.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <46afbe15$0$12193$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
emailaddress@nomailthanks.com says...
> Christopher Hunter wrote:
> > It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> > you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
> > simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> > specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!
>
> If you're talking 3D games I'd love to see that myself, u got a link?

Of course he doesn't. Look at the newsgroups list - he obviously comes
from the morons' one.

- Gerry Quinn

On 2007-08-01, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>
>> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>>
>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>>
>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>
> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
> calls. m'kay?

No.

>> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
>> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
>> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
>> facilities.
>
> Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
> win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't.

Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
execution - only the system calls are intercepted.

> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
> myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.

Softies :)

Anyway, even if someone is a wine developer it doesn't have to mean that
he/she (ok, who am I kidding - he) knows what an emulator is.

The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
"transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
calls).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...chitecture.svg

Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.

Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management) so for a
win32 app it doesn't really matter what kind of kernel is behind the
win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux :) But in that case it
doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
it as an environment subsystem on Linux.


--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:

> On 2007-08-01, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>>
>>> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>>>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>>>
>>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>>
>> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
>> calls. m'kay?
>
> No.

is that all you have?

>
>>> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
>>> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
>>> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
>>> facilities.
>>
>> Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
>> win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't.
>
> Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
> sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
> mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
> execution - only the system calls are intercepted.

No most of them do not have it. The entire state and flag set are
different. Screen handling? Are you joking? They have totally different
APIs. Ditto for sound.

Sure the opcodes are not emulated. But "Emulation" means a lot mode than
that.


>> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
>> myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
>> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>
> Softies :)
>
> Anyway, even if someone is a wine developer it doesn't have to mean that
> he/she (ok, who am I kidding - he) knows what an emulator is.

Oh please. You have one meaning. There are others.

>
> The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
> it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
> "transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
> calls).

No. Thats not how I am thinking of it.

The system calls are intercepted and WINE emulates what the equivalent
win32 code would do. What is so hard for you to understand here?

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...chitecture.svg
>
> Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.

So?

>
> Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management) so for a
> win32 app it doesn't really matter what kind of kernel is behind the

??????????????????

> win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux :) But in that case it
> doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
> it as an environment subsystem on Linux.

What *are* you talking about?

I think you should go back and start from scratch and you seem to be
scratching around in the dark.

Just FYI:

The programs are windows code.

They call system calls/win32 : these are intercepted.

At this stage WINE pretends to be the win32/system APIs in Windows. It
*emulates* what the windows code would do - it doesn't know what the
windows code really does other than the usual reverse engineering.

And before you embarrass yourself as much as Spike1 and some others did:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

In article <7105286.L3gu0H6RGb@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> A main concern in this revolt had something to do with the fact that Linux
> users helped make Steam attractive. As often is the case, contributions come
> from the open source community. It's natural to expect some minimal gesture in
> return (and no, not a middle finger, but a thumbs up).

Linux users made a Windows-only distribution system with DRM
attractive??? The open source community contributed to building it???


--
--Tim Smith