http://glaryutilities.com
If you use WINE, a way to speed up linux...
-
jesusfreak107
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun 11 May 2008, 21:11
- Contact:
If you use WINE, a way to speed up linux...
I am willing to bet that pretty much every Linux user, except for some of the newbies, run Wine. Wine basically creates a fake windows installation, creating a Registry of it's own that programs that run under it, can recognize and interact with. Also, Wine is constantly running in the background. I recently discovered that Wine acts a little too much like windows, at least as far as the registry is concerned. I installed Glary Utilities(a very useful free multi tool windows cleaning app) under wine, to run some file tools on it, to clean up my HDD. well, out of curiosity, I ran a maintenance scan, to see what it would come up with. this maintenance scan, on windows, scans the registry for errors, tells you how much temporary files it has, scans for spyware, shortcut errors, etc. Well, it successfully scanned my Wine registry and temp folders. I had 326 registry errors, and 1.88GB of temp files!!! It was 100% accurate. I told it to fix them, and restarted the computer. it ran significantly faster, and did freed up 1.88GB of space. The speed improvement was noticeable, even though it has a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ HT proccessor, and 1GB of RAM. I suggest that all of you run normal scans of your registry, as if you were running windows, probably with Glary, because the success of various programs might vary, and they might destroy your registry. this is why I will not install Wine on my old laptop running wine, because I cannot afford any speed loss.
http://glaryutilities.com
http://glaryutilities.com
Re: A way to speed up linux...
You lost the bet.jesusfreak107 wrote:I am willing to bet that pretty much every Linux user, except for some of the newbies, run Wine.
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
-
prehistoric
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34
bet
@jf,
Does your bet cover admitted weirdos? If so, I can only quote Kipling, when replying to a correspondent who read his rate per word and put the currency for two words in an envelope with a note addressed to him, betting to get a reply worth more. The note was returned with this added:
p.s. Can anyone supply an on-line reference for this story?
Does your bet cover admitted weirdos? If so, I can only quote Kipling, when replying to a correspondent who read his rate per word and put the currency for two words in an envelope with a note addressed to him, betting to get a reply worth more. The note was returned with this added:
N.B. no signatureYou lose.
p.s. Can anyone supply an on-line reference for this story?
Re: A way to speed up linux...
Twice. The only thing that I would need Wine for is Windows video games, and those are usually too much trouble to set up. It's easier for me to dual-boot if I really need a Windows app (the PC did come with a XP license, after all). What Windows apps do you use, maybe we can hook you up with native Linux equivalents.alienjeff wrote:You lost the bet.jesusfreak107 wrote:I am willing to bet that pretty much every Linux user, except for some of the newbies, run Wine.
How on Earth did you lose almost 2GB on the registry?!? I know that the registry is one of the worst things about Windows, but that's a lot of lost space. Perhaps it is a Wine bug. A quick Google search does not appear to yield anything helpful, but I didn't look too hard.
@Prehistoric:
I think you are thinking of Calvin Coolidge and a reporter who bet he could get three words out of him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
Be brave that God may help thee, speak the truth even if it leads to death, and safeguard the helpless. - A knight's oath
-
Bruce B
Re: If you use WINE, a way to speed up linux...
Speed loss, registry problems? These are features. Wine is supposed to be bug for bug compatible with Windows.jesusfreak107 wrote: I recently discovered that Wine acts a little too much like windows, at least as far as the registry is concerned.
{cut}
programs might vary, and they might destroy your registry. this is why I will not install Wine on my old laptop running wine, because I cannot afford any speed loss.
{cut}
Check the binary feature set at:
http://www.winehq.org/site/wine_features
-
Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Most Linux users do NOT use Wine or want to have anything to do with MS . . .
Most of us are investing in the future. The future is Open Source.
Linux has won the technical and serious computing debate.
Now we are getting further into mass marketed hardware . . .
Windows was always a mass marketed toy operating system.
That critical systems sometimes run Windows, is dangerous.
Microsoft should be sued for endangering public safety.
We Know Microsoft.
We No Microsoft.
No security. No future. No thank you.
[ahem]
[/ end rant]
Most of us are investing in the future. The future is Open Source.
Linux has won the technical and serious computing debate.
Now we are getting further into mass marketed hardware . . .
Windows was always a mass marketed toy operating system.
That critical systems sometimes run Windows, is dangerous.
Microsoft should be sued for endangering public safety.
We Know Microsoft.
We No Microsoft.
No security. No future. No thank you.
[ahem]
[/ end rant]
-
Bruce B
Lobster,
I didn't know you felt that way. I learned some lessons in my life based on my life's experience. One lesson is never trust a con.
I don't even trust a FAT File System. Let me not mention the rest of the OS in this post.
I started experimenting with alternate software and encountered serious and discouraging data loss. Being a persistent kind of guy, I stuck with it trying to figure it out. In the process I started discovering a pattern, but couldn't isolate the pattern. The pattern was random, but yet a pattern existed.
Something is going on and I decided to nail it regardless of the time and effort involved. It took a lot of work to break a operating system, set it up again, break it, set it up again.
To save time, I learned to test in emulation. Faster to reconstruct. Easier to isolate.
To make a long story short, I discovered that MS-DOS - Windows, was seriously behaving like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Why? How?
I discovered, because in the boot sector on each FAT partition is an OEM ID field. It is merely text and it's eight characters in length. If we count from zero, the OEM ID field starts at field 3.
I can't post the entire 512 byte boot sector, binary characters, but here is an eight character OEM ID field regarding Microsoft Boot Sector.
...MSWIN4.0 (the dots represent the first three bytes of code. The balance represents this particular OEM ID field.
The seventh character has a decimal value of 46. Mr. Hyde kicks in below 46. If we keep the value above 46 we never see Mr. Hyde. Microsoft has a myriad of OEM ID characters they use. The last three characters although characterized in many ways, never does the seventh character drop below decimal 46.
The purpose of the OEM ID field is to serve as a signature for the company who formatted or made bootable the boot sector. It does nothing whatsoever. But can be read by software, including your disk or sector editor.
The Official FAT specification specifically says this is non executable and can be used however. As does code 32 which is a jump instruction. It's not necessary to even fill it out. The same specification explicitly denies that the Microsoft Operating System uses this field.
There is nothing random about the behavior. It works and it works every time. There are no exceptions. My testing covered every conceivable version of DOS from 3.3 to Windows ME. I did not however not test the NT series to see how its OSes treat the OEM field on FAT file systems.
Microsoft knows better than to trigger the Mr. Hyde behavior and never has. The ISV does not know better and if he is naive enough to belive in the Official Specification he sets himself up for data damage. The data damage will not however occur until MS DOS reads the OEM ID field, at which time the damage happens.
The user always having good experience with Microsoft and FAT tends to think the damage was due to incompetence on the part of the ISV.
Some serious ISVS have discovered problems and found the problems disappear when they simply duplicate an MS OEM ID Field. And naturally, it eliminates the problem without them fully understanding why.
The random nature I encountered was caused by the fact that everyone doing partitions don't happen to use a decimal value less than 46 on the seventh field. Apart from that, nothing random about the behavior.
Searching the use net, I discovered that the author of Windows Commander, now known as Total Commander was the first person (found to) discover and publish that Windows 95 was changing the OEM idea fields on read only operation of floppy disks. He thought there was a virus or something, mainly he couldn't account for it.
Sure enough the OEM ID field was being changed on read only operations. It became well known among geeks. The values were nonsense. But without exception all values were above the 46 on the seventh character.
After users made this public and questioned, Microsoft published the purported reason for this, they 'needed' to monitor disk changes. Maybe so, but they didn't need to do it earlier on 3.11 for example or in DOS.
People rightfully wondered why they were not using the serial number on the disk to do this.
For a URL reference you can see how an OEM ID field which is not at all a unique identifier or a serial number becomes obfuscated with the serial number by reading this reply from MS to the discovery.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/150582
Here is a link which will help you understand and get better use out of your floppy disks.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stu ... README.TXT
Parent directory for downloads and more files.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stu ... dos/win9x/
There is no way for me to estimate millions of disks MS has damaged.
Most of us have noted that Floppy Disks are very unreliable media.
If you want read a disk in Windows, then set the tab for read only. Be aware some floppy drives still permit writes with the tab set.
For me, when ever possible, I do all floppy work in REAL DOS mode.
----------------------------
So far I've mentioned the FAT12 floppy disks, if you take a big FA16 the damage is worse and depending on the disk geometry, the MS OS will perform and damage right and left. It might also refuse to find files and cause an impression that the disk partition is useless.
With FAT32 you bring it down and and you bring it down fast. Even if no action is performed, the FAT tables mismatch. And damage has occurred.
If you boot with another FAT supported operating system everything seems fine except the damage caused by MS DOS, you likely be able to salvage most of it, if you didn't try and work with it when MS had control. But it does take another OS to do the salvage and repair.
Things will not perform with MS unless you format the disk with MS which would of course result in full data loss. From then on, everything works fine, thus leaving it looking when MS formats a disk, it knows what it does and does it right.
I've also found Linux utilities that make wrong decisions based on the OEM ID field they create. But its not malice or misreporting, it's not understanding, probably what FATS support LFN, the prevailing notion is VFAT == FAT32 and VFAT means LFN support.
VFAT means Virtual FAT. It's really a function of the OS extenders. If one considers that VFAT means Long File Name support, I must point out that this has nothing to do with FAT32 exclusively, are you having problems writing LFNs to your FAT12 floppy? Was it not a fact that the original Windows 95 was FAT16 and had LFN support. Need I say more?
Microsoft has come to recommend using a standard OEM ID field. I think it was MS-DOS5.0. The purported reason being that sometimes device driver people use the OEM ID Field.
NO device drivers were ever specified. I've never discovered one hat uses the OEM ID Field either.
Also, MS own debug utility exposes the precise location where the kernel IO.SYS is doing the dirty work. It is fully provable and it cannot be refuted. This is why I don't hesitate to talk about it in detail.
Knowing where the stumbling block is, I'm not going to trip over it.
---------------------
As far as the NTFS I don't trust it. I don't get involved in troubleshooting people's problems with NTFS and I think they might think me a fool if I suggest maybe, just maybe the problem is with NTFS and something you may have triggered.
Moreover, I think it has gone way beyond the point why anyone needs to explain or justify why they don't trust MS or its products.
My sincere opinion is, if any does trust them as many obviously do, I'm all ears for the reasons why.
Regards,
Bruce
I didn't know you felt that way. I learned some lessons in my life based on my life's experience. One lesson is never trust a con.
I don't even trust a FAT File System. Let me not mention the rest of the OS in this post.
I started experimenting with alternate software and encountered serious and discouraging data loss. Being a persistent kind of guy, I stuck with it trying to figure it out. In the process I started discovering a pattern, but couldn't isolate the pattern. The pattern was random, but yet a pattern existed.
Something is going on and I decided to nail it regardless of the time and effort involved. It took a lot of work to break a operating system, set it up again, break it, set it up again.
To save time, I learned to test in emulation. Faster to reconstruct. Easier to isolate.
To make a long story short, I discovered that MS-DOS - Windows, was seriously behaving like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Why? How?
I discovered, because in the boot sector on each FAT partition is an OEM ID field. It is merely text and it's eight characters in length. If we count from zero, the OEM ID field starts at field 3.
I can't post the entire 512 byte boot sector, binary characters, but here is an eight character OEM ID field regarding Microsoft Boot Sector.
...MSWIN4.0 (the dots represent the first three bytes of code. The balance represents this particular OEM ID field.
The seventh character has a decimal value of 46. Mr. Hyde kicks in below 46. If we keep the value above 46 we never see Mr. Hyde. Microsoft has a myriad of OEM ID characters they use. The last three characters although characterized in many ways, never does the seventh character drop below decimal 46.
The purpose of the OEM ID field is to serve as a signature for the company who formatted or made bootable the boot sector. It does nothing whatsoever. But can be read by software, including your disk or sector editor.
The Official FAT specification specifically says this is non executable and can be used however. As does code 32 which is a jump instruction. It's not necessary to even fill it out. The same specification explicitly denies that the Microsoft Operating System uses this field.
There is nothing random about the behavior. It works and it works every time. There are no exceptions. My testing covered every conceivable version of DOS from 3.3 to Windows ME. I did not however not test the NT series to see how its OSes treat the OEM field on FAT file systems.
Microsoft knows better than to trigger the Mr. Hyde behavior and never has. The ISV does not know better and if he is naive enough to belive in the Official Specification he sets himself up for data damage. The data damage will not however occur until MS DOS reads the OEM ID field, at which time the damage happens.
The user always having good experience with Microsoft and FAT tends to think the damage was due to incompetence on the part of the ISV.
Some serious ISVS have discovered problems and found the problems disappear when they simply duplicate an MS OEM ID Field. And naturally, it eliminates the problem without them fully understanding why.
The random nature I encountered was caused by the fact that everyone doing partitions don't happen to use a decimal value less than 46 on the seventh field. Apart from that, nothing random about the behavior.
Searching the use net, I discovered that the author of Windows Commander, now known as Total Commander was the first person (found to) discover and publish that Windows 95 was changing the OEM idea fields on read only operation of floppy disks. He thought there was a virus or something, mainly he couldn't account for it.
Sure enough the OEM ID field was being changed on read only operations. It became well known among geeks. The values were nonsense. But without exception all values were above the 46 on the seventh character.
After users made this public and questioned, Microsoft published the purported reason for this, they 'needed' to monitor disk changes. Maybe so, but they didn't need to do it earlier on 3.11 for example or in DOS.
People rightfully wondered why they were not using the serial number on the disk to do this.
For a URL reference you can see how an OEM ID field which is not at all a unique identifier or a serial number becomes obfuscated with the serial number by reading this reply from MS to the discovery.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/150582
Here is a link which will help you understand and get better use out of your floppy disks.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stu ... README.TXT
Parent directory for downloads and more files.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stu ... dos/win9x/
There is no way for me to estimate millions of disks MS has damaged.
Most of us have noted that Floppy Disks are very unreliable media.
If you want read a disk in Windows, then set the tab for read only. Be aware some floppy drives still permit writes with the tab set.
For me, when ever possible, I do all floppy work in REAL DOS mode.
----------------------------
So far I've mentioned the FAT12 floppy disks, if you take a big FA16 the damage is worse and depending on the disk geometry, the MS OS will perform and damage right and left. It might also refuse to find files and cause an impression that the disk partition is useless.
With FAT32 you bring it down and and you bring it down fast. Even if no action is performed, the FAT tables mismatch. And damage has occurred.
If you boot with another FAT supported operating system everything seems fine except the damage caused by MS DOS, you likely be able to salvage most of it, if you didn't try and work with it when MS had control. But it does take another OS to do the salvage and repair.
Things will not perform with MS unless you format the disk with MS which would of course result in full data loss. From then on, everything works fine, thus leaving it looking when MS formats a disk, it knows what it does and does it right.
I've also found Linux utilities that make wrong decisions based on the OEM ID field they create. But its not malice or misreporting, it's not understanding, probably what FATS support LFN, the prevailing notion is VFAT == FAT32 and VFAT means LFN support.
VFAT means Virtual FAT. It's really a function of the OS extenders. If one considers that VFAT means Long File Name support, I must point out that this has nothing to do with FAT32 exclusively, are you having problems writing LFNs to your FAT12 floppy? Was it not a fact that the original Windows 95 was FAT16 and had LFN support. Need I say more?
Microsoft has come to recommend using a standard OEM ID field. I think it was MS-DOS5.0. The purported reason being that sometimes device driver people use the OEM ID Field.
NO device drivers were ever specified. I've never discovered one hat uses the OEM ID Field either.
Also, MS own debug utility exposes the precise location where the kernel IO.SYS is doing the dirty work. It is fully provable and it cannot be refuted. This is why I don't hesitate to talk about it in detail.
Knowing where the stumbling block is, I'm not going to trip over it.
---------------------
As far as the NTFS I don't trust it. I don't get involved in troubleshooting people's problems with NTFS and I think they might think me a fool if I suggest maybe, just maybe the problem is with NTFS and something you may have triggered.
Moreover, I think it has gone way beyond the point why anyone needs to explain or justify why they don't trust MS or its products.
My sincere opinion is, if any does trust them as many obviously do, I'm all ears for the reasons why.
Regards,
Bruce
-
Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Very interesting post Bruce
Most people are happy with a product that almost works or mostly works.
For general usage XP is sufficient.
Microsoft are liars. That works. Hence marketing.
I am interested in a working OS
Not one that has a manufactured pedigree
Puppy people are genuine, able and supportive.
In critical or extreme use (time travel, medicine, hadron colliders)
There is no way a toy should be employed.
Imagine a life support machine with
a Blue screen of death
It's funny? No? m m m . . .
We are often using Beta software. Puppy is often at the cutting edge.
That is OK because that is made clear. Despite that
more is done and useful . . .
Now that most users can use Remastering
It is time to start promoting unleashed.
Create a solid base. Make it work.
Improve and refine.
woof woof . . .
Most people are happy with a product that almost works or mostly works.
For general usage XP is sufficient.
Microsoft are liars. That works. Hence marketing.
I am interested in a working OS
Not one that has a manufactured pedigree
Puppy people are genuine, able and supportive.
In critical or extreme use (time travel, medicine, hadron colliders)
There is no way a toy should be employed.
Imagine a life support machine with
a Blue screen of death
It's funny? No? m m m . . .
We are often using Beta software. Puppy is often at the cutting edge.
That is OK because that is made clear. Despite that
more is done and useful . . .
Now that most users can use Remastering
It is time to start promoting unleashed.
Create a solid base. Make it work.
Improve and refine.
woof woof . . .
There is some extremely useful info here. Since I still am faily new to linux (about 6 months now) about the very first thing I HAVE been doing is installing wine! I now realize that I don't play any M$ games,...I usually use it only for an astrology program I kind of like (astrowin,..or "astrolog") I don't see anything like that in linux (?) Guess if there was a good linux astrology program,....I wouldn't even install wine at all. Hmmmmmm,....(but I still get nostalgic to watch Johnny Castaway on his island,....) I could get over it tho' if only I had a decent astrology thingy.
nitehawk wrote:...I could get over it tho' if only I had a decent astrology thingy.
Astrology or astronomy?
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
If you mean astronomy, look at this puplet: http://www.puppylinux.org/downloads/pup ... skies-livenitehawk wrote:if only I had a decent astrology thingy.
Be brave that God may help thee, speak the truth even if it leads to death, and safeguard the helpless. - A knight's oath
No,...Astrology,....but I'm not into it obsessively,...(just mildly) so maybe it isn't a big issue to worry about a wine install. Besides,...since posting I've completely crashed my computer
(which is a hobby of mine, actually) and lost the wine install I had.
Thank goodness for Puppy! Crashes aren't much of an issue anymore. (I "tinker" 'way too much, sometimes,...and get things really bonkers). No,...I wasn't fooling with wine when it happened (nether the program nor the beverage),.....I installed mplayer and somehow my graphic card froze. Oh, well,...Puppy was easy to slap back on,...and get up-and-running again (never could do THAT with ol' windoze).
(which is a hobby of mine, actually) and lost the wine install I had.
Thank goodness for Puppy! Crashes aren't much of an issue anymore. (I "tinker" 'way too much, sometimes,...and get things really bonkers). No,...I wasn't fooling with wine when it happened (nether the program nor the beverage),.....I installed mplayer and somehow my graphic card froze. Oh, well,...Puppy was easy to slap back on,...and get up-and-running again (never could do THAT with ol' windoze).
That's one of the major things that has kept me with Puppy. I like to tinker around in Puppy's insides, and I will invariably do something bad. It happened more when I first came to Linux, but it was a great way to learn. Puppy let me go back to a fresh set up in ~5min, nothing else I've tried can get installed in less then 30min.nitehawk wrote:Crashes aren't much of an issue anymore. (I "tinker" 'way too much, sometimes,...and get things really bonkers).
Astrology program:
http://www.paganlink.org/library/astrol ... rolog.html
Everything else I found needed KDE.
Be brave that God may help thee, speak the truth even if it leads to death, and safeguard the helpless. - A knight's oath
Re: A way to speed up linux...
Make that three times.SirDuncan wrote:Twice.alienjeff wrote:You lost the bet.jesusfreak107 wrote:I am willing to bet that pretty much every Linux user, except for some of the newbies, run Wine.
Seriously, whenever I need to run a Windows program, I just boot into Windows. The programs never run quite right in Wine, anyway....
I love Wine fore all the things I got going but yes it is a bit to much like Windows if you use it for Explorer or constantly run games over the web like World of Warcraft.
I am not concerned about it running in the background because thats the updater not some Wine hacker playing the fiddle alone in your Linux system.
I will say that the only software that will do you any good without Fing up Wine maybe Hackthis.
If you are concerned about speed and Wine then I will recommend not to try the Wine NT kernel because you will be running that extra kernel every time you use Wine and yes it can be more easily hacked with the potential of screwing up more than a Wine virus ever could.
I hope this helps.
I am not concerned about it running in the background because thats the updater not some Wine hacker playing the fiddle alone in your Linux system.
I will say that the only software that will do you any good without Fing up Wine maybe Hackthis.
If you are concerned about speed and Wine then I will recommend not to try the Wine NT kernel because you will be running that extra kernel every time you use Wine and yes it can be more easily hacked with the potential of screwing up more than a Wine virus ever could.
I hope this helps.
Re: A way to speed up linux...
Shall we keep counting?silverojo wrote:Make that three times.SirDuncan wrote:Twice.alienjeff wrote: You lost the bet.
Seriously, whenever I need to run a Windows program, I just boot into Windows. The programs never run quite right in Wine, anyway....
Puppy Linux...
It just works!
It just works!
Re: A way to speed up linux...
Yep.peppyy wrote: Shall we keep counting?
I have wine installed so I can play with it and I'm a newbie (learn what I can!) and also playing with ies4linux..... anyone have shockwave running??
but I also have Vbox setup with a small Windows server 2k3 installed to a 400mb vdi just to run basic programs that really don't work under wine.... shockwave and Yahoo! messenger.
I don't run this much as my puppy is a 4gig flash drive and to save the read and writes I'm using a 512mb thumbdrive to host my windows drive. so it works great for me. well whenever I "need" to use it.
but I also have Vbox setup with a small Windows server 2k3 installed to a 400mb vdi just to run basic programs that really don't work under wine.... shockwave and Yahoo! messenger.
I don't run this much as my puppy is a 4gig flash drive and to save the read and writes I'm using a 512mb thumbdrive to host my windows drive. so it works great for me. well whenever I "need" to use it.