grubber

Wow. The amount of stuff copied from Chrome is amazing. Also, Mozilla says it's 6x faster than FF 3.6. I wonder if that means it's 2x slower, but measured on machine 12x faster (i.e. what I believe they did with previous releases) or if it's actually really faster. Anyway, I'm sticking with Chrome (Chromium actually).

Trackpoint FTW. Sadly not so many laptops have it (Lenovo, Dell, any other?)

Yes, we are. My apologies.

I wasn't talking specifically to you.

I find your attitude of "I don't know anything about Haskell or functional programming, but it surely must suck" quite silly. But that's just me.

I don't agree. There already are programming languages which make parallel programming easy, e.g. Haskell (which has been already mentioned in this thread). The problem is that most programmers do not want to use some strange, incomprehensible (for them) language, they want something they already know, probably with C-like syntax and semantics.

Also Virtual PC is crap with no 3D acceleration, snapshots or proper USB support. It's OK for simple applications though.

Well, you don't need a partition to run Linux. You can run some live CD distribution. Or you can install it on a flash drive. Or a file on your Windows partition. Or you can netboot from http://boot.kernel.org/. ;)

I like UAC. MS finally got their shit together and started doing something to rectify the mess they created by letting users work under administrator account all the time (and thus allowing application developers to act like pigs), which is great.

It seems like a configuration file issue. The most probable explanation is that the configuration file was created by a previous install of zdoom, not the one from the package, so it's missing the path to zdoom.pk3 in the package. Adding the line "Path=/usr/share/games/zdoom/" to the "[FileSearch.Directories]" section of ~/.zdoom/zdoom.ini should fix it.

There's a lot of attention on making JavaScript fast these days, so it would be OK performance-wise I guess, but the standard library lacks non-browser functionality (file access, sound, networking, etc) so it would be quite a hackjob IMO.

AFAIK Perl 6 isn't finished yet and Perl 5 doesn't have JIT compiler, so it would be slow as hell. A port to (any) dynamic language would be neat though (I'd port it to Python, but it doesn't have JIT compiler either).

Strange, works for me (clean install). How did you install it? Can you upload the built package somewhere?

Regarding Arch Linux: I maintain a zdoom package on AUR - it's not precompiled, but compiling it is as easy as typing "makepkg" in the console (or you can use yaourt).

Apparently it was found on a second hand bought HDD. More info here.

Hopefully we'll see ports to modern operating systems come out of this. There is of course the problem of it not being very legal, so let's wait how Eidos reacts. Don't hold your breath.

First of all: Unix scripts should use Unix line endings, otherwise they won't run. Also having a newline at the end of the script is a good practice, although not having it doesn't prevent it from running. Benchmark results: serial: 130-160 FPS parallel: 130-190 FPS CPU:vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5500 @ 1.66GHz stepping : 2 cpu MHz : 1667.000 cache size : 2048 KBRelevant PCI devices:00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/PM/GMS, 943/940GML and 945GT Express Memory Controller Hub (rev 03) 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03) 00:02.1 Display controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS/GME, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)OS: Arch Linux (x86_64) Relevant software packages:kernel26 2.6.35.8-1 xorg-server 1.9.2-2 xf86-video-intel 2.13.0-4 intel-dri 7.9-1 jre 6u23-1

Anaal Nathrakh. There's no other band I've been listening to for 5+ years and still enjoy it like the first time (well, second time, I actually didn't like it for the first time).

I don't know, it's a thin ice ;-) But I think I can at least agree with that OS/2 had really superb VDM which contemporary Windows couldn't match. Too bad it ended how it ended.

Thanks. Have a nice day too. I promise I won't ever make the mistake of mentioning anything non-Windows in a Windows thread again.

Just saying DOSEMU is no worse than NTVDM (which you seem to imply, just because you don't have a fucking clue about it - and frankly, I don't see why you are commenting on something you don't know). That's all. I'm certainly not trying to persuade anyone that they should install Linux so that they can run DOS apps. That would be stupid, wouldn't it? As for the irrelevant stuff, no comment. Tell me something I don't know. (Also, how would you know what's problem for me and what's not? All I said was no distribution model is perfect.)

Just another wild conclusion of an uninformed person. Yes, even if you don't think so, it does. And of course there are zealots from the other side glorifying The only right distribution model™, totally dismissing proc/cons of each of them. Again, DOSEMU handles everything you mentioned with ease. (I'm already bored with making this point, as you are obviously not going to read up anything about DOSEMU and just spew your wild guesses, so this is the last one.) Please, be so kind and point me to a place in this thread where I bashed Windows, even with a single word. Thank you. There are rumours that the next Windows release will be 64b only. So, will MS be dropping support for 16b apps completely, thus impairing backward compatibility? Or will they continue releasing 32b versions of Windows, just for the people to run their legacy apps? Isn't maintaining whole 32b OS actually harder than maintaining the emulator? Maybe they will include it in future releases. But who knows what they'll do.

Well, then it should have been emphasized for us idiots to understand. I really had the feeling it's about compatibility in general. I agree with that.

If it is, then it's kind of Captain Obvious statement, isn't it?

What CODOR said. Your statement that "No other OS can run anything from DOS, to early GDI/Win16 applications, to Win32 applications and beyond directly on top of the hardware or with minimal adaptation" is clearly not valid, because you can do everything you mentioned on Linux, which I believe qualifies as "other OS". Not what your earlier statement said (see above). With this statement I do agree. I don't care about emulation too, that's why I mentioned DOSEMU, which does as much emulation as Windows' native NTVDM, and Wine, which does no emulation at all. Let me again point out that I can do exactly that with DOSEMU, not on Windows, but on Linux! Well, there are worse things...