Kicking the programming in TrueSpace can around 2005-06-02 - By Lars Nilsson
Back
On 6/2/05, KMKrieger <pterochromics@(protected)> wrote:
> Lars, thank you for this info. Ironically, I undsertand the part about
> M$'s .net being it's own version of, and evidently therefore replacement
> for, Sun's JavaVM. That's the first thing anyone has said about it that I
> understood =:-o !!
Happy to be of service. ;)
> So if I do upgrade my machine (and tS), I can at least try W2KPro and see
> how it handles the additional RAM (I'm looking to be able to have 4GB,
> since I've heard it operates best in pairs).
Windows NT, 2K and XP probably deal equally well with 2GB, seeing how
they are in essence built upon the same underlying operating system
kernel (the "NT" kernel for lack of a better word). Don't quote me on
this though, I imagine it's possible they behave differently in some
cases.
> Re: the "open source" OS's to which you referred - do any run Window$
> programs, specifically tS? I never heard of these so I'm wondering whether
> they can handle the new GB-lvel RAM and new video drivers (such as for
> NVidia 6000 series)...
Since tS is not (up to and including version 6.6, I won't speculate on
unreleased versions) based on .NET, the question is really, how well
does Wine-type of emulation layers handle the execution of Win32
programs like trueSpace? The answer is, as far as I am aware, not very
well. This could change if enough effort was put into translating
required Windows system/driver dlls into Wine dlls/shared objects as
required by the application of interest.
See http://forums.caligari.com/discus/messages/74/18092.html? for some
partial successes in getting trueSpace to run under Linux, using the
Wine emulation layer.
> I get so fed up with being TOLD that I should and *will* <!!> love the XP
> interface; I've used it, and I *loathe* it. Additionally, the person whose
> computer I'd used it on had continual problems with XP - to the extent of
> just putting the XP machine back into the packing box, and going back to
> the old machine! So I don't believe the tales of how stable it supposedly
> is - that was said about *every* version of Window$, and it has always
> turned out to be just smoke'n'mirrors...which is why I'm wondering about
> other OSes.
I "love" XP, in the sense that I like its stability more than any
previous released operating system from Microsoft (NT/2K are probably
its equal for my purposes, but they're not perfect for home use if
game-related programs are being used). However, I don't particularly
like fancy OS GUIs. In the case of Windows XP, my first action is to
change the GUI to classic (changed in display properties->appearance),
whenever I install it. Other than that, I rely to 95% on my pinned
programs in the start menu for program startup and the "most recently
used" documents from within programs.
Fortunately, for the programs where "most recently used" does not make
sense (new file to be worked on each time, etc), the File Open box
usually goes to the same directory where a new file is stored instead.
That pretty much covers everything for me. Also, I have basically no
icons on my desktop (my computer at work has two), and I categorize
each program in the start menu. No hassles there really, when the
pinned items doesn't cover what I need to do (besides, MRU programs in
the start menu covers a lot too).
As far as open-source operating systems are concerned, I again go for
a minimalistic GUI. I ditch GNOME/KDE in a heart-beat and rely upon
WindowMaker. Any program I may want to run, be it GNOME or KDE based,
still works just fine, so why let the computer be bogged down by a
horrendous memory hog for no good reason?
Final words, I'm not sure what difference you will notice, UI-wise,
between Windows XP in Classic mode, and Windows 2K. Probably only the
start menu with its collection of items (unless you switch it to
classic mode there too, in which case most visual difference
disappear). This obviously does not cover the content within program
windows, like the control panel, etc, that may wildly different
content depending on installed software, etc. Oh yeah, that reminds
me, I switch the control panel's display from Category to Classic as
well.
What I end up with, is basically a UI that is more or less the same on
XP, 2K, NT and 98. If you can't stand Windows UI *at all* you're out
of luck, unless you fancy playing with WindowBlinds[1] style of
programs. However, in this case one is probably interested in more
rather than less eye-candy.
Lars Nilsson
[1] http://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
****************************************************************************
********
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.
To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account
Manager.
****************************************************************************
********
|
|
