Wine vs XP

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by GraB, Apr 1, 2006.

  1. GraB

    GraB Guest

    GraB, Apr 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. GraB

    RJ Guest

    RJ, Apr 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. GraB

    -=rjh=- Guest

    RJ wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    >>
    >> Wine has the edge overall.

    >
    > Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    >


    Wine has the edge due to it being 100% free.

    Obviously, YMMV.
    -=rjh=-, Apr 1, 2006
    #3
  4. GraB

    MarkH Guest

    GraB <> wrote in
    news::

    > http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    >
    > Wine has the edge overall.


    I Read through the entire page and I disagree with your conclusion.

    Wine has the current lead on 67 tests
    Wine has a lag between 0.1 and 10.0 percent on 14 tests
    Wine has a lag between 10.1 and 20.0 percent on 9 tests
    Wine has a lag between 20.1 and 50.0 percent on 19 tests
    Wine has a lag of more than 50.1 percent on 21 tests
    Wine or XP aborted on 18 tests

    So that is 67 tests where the results running on Wine are better than
    the results running on WinXP. But there are 63 tests where WinXP was
    ahead or Wine and 18 others where one aborted, 15 of those aborted were
    Wine and 3 were WinXP. Counting the aborts we have Wine - 70 vs WinXP -
    78 (on the sites numbers)

    If you ignore the 18 aborted tests and just look at the rest then you
    find that Wine is still behind overall by a reasonable margin. Unless
    of course you are a tool and think that Wine ahead on app 'a' by 0.2%
    and WinXP ahead on app 'b' by 68% would make the 2 OSs even.

    Some analysis from the results

    Number of apps where one OS beats the other by more than 50%:
    Wine: 2
    WinXP: 21

    Number of apps where both scores were equal is 2, in both cases the site
    called it a win for Wine, which is a falsehood. To anyone objective 2
    identical scores is a tie, not a win to either. This makes the wins by
    Wine only 65, not 67.

    Number of apps where the win was under 1%, therefore you could argue
    that the results were close enough to call it a tie (not a clear win):
    Wine: 21
    WinXP: 2
    Therefore Wine had a lead of 1% or more on 44 tests, WinXP had a lead of
    1% or more on 61 tests (and WinXP leads by a larger average margin on
    those). That amounts to a very clear win to WinXP!

    This is why I run Windows apps on WinXP and Linux apps on SUSE or
    Knoppix.


    And remember: If you want to run a Windows app on Linux with Wine, it
    may not even work.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
    MarkH, Apr 1, 2006
    #4
  5. GraB

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    RJ <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    > >
    > > Wine has the edge overall.

    >
    > Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    >


    SSSHHHHHHH... no one is meant to know that. As soon as you need to use
    these artificial benchmarks to prove a point its because in reality you
    are trying to hide something far more important.
    whoisthis, Apr 1, 2006
    #5
  6. GraB

    GraB Guest

    On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:44:47 GMT, MarkH <> wrote:

    >GraB <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    >>
    >> Wine has the edge overall.

    >
    >
    >And remember: If you want to run a Windows app on Linux with Wine, it
    >may not even work.


    I understand MS are constantly trying to prevent Windows apps from
    running on wine, with each new update.
    GraB, Apr 2, 2006
    #6
  7. GraB

    RJ Guest

    In article <442ee6ca$>, says...
    > RJ wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    > >>
    > >> Wine has the edge overall.

    > >
    > > Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    > >

    >
    > Wine has the edge due to it being 100% free.


    No, if it cant run software it is of no consequence whether its free or
    not
    RJ, Apr 2, 2006
    #7
  8. GraB

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <442ee6ca$>, -=rjh=- <>
    wrote:

    > RJ wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    > >>
    > >> Wine has the edge overall.

    > >
    > > Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    > >

    >
    > Wine has the edge due to it being 100% free.
    >
    > Obviously, YMMV.


    Only if you also consider your time worth nothing too. The cost of
    software and hardware over the life time of the machine is negligible
    compared to the cost of wages for the person sitting at the keyboard.
    whoisthis, Apr 2, 2006
    #8
  9. GraB

    -=rjh=- Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <442ee6ca$>, -=rjh=- <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> RJ wrote:
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> says...
    >>>> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    >>>>
    >>>> Wine has the edge overall.
    >>> Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    >>>

    >> Wine has the edge due to it being 100% free.
    >>
    >> Obviously, YMMV.

    >
    > Only if you also consider your time worth nothing too.


    Well, the fact that I even read or post to ngs like this one is a fair
    indication, don't you think?

    The cost of
    > software and hardware over the life time of the machine is negligible
    > compared to the cost of wages for the person sitting at the keyboard.


    Bloody hell! Who said anything about hardware and wages!

    As I said, YMMV.
    -=rjh=-, Apr 2, 2006
    #9
  10. GraB

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>, -=rjh=- <>
    wrote:

    > whoisthis wrote:
    > > In article <442ee6ca$>, -=rjh=- <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> RJ wrote:
    > >>> In article <>,
    > >>> says...
    > >>>> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Wine has the edge overall.
    > >>> Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    > >>>
    > >> Wine has the edge due to it being 100% free.
    > >>
    > >> Obviously, YMMV.

    > >
    > > Only if you also consider your time worth nothing too.

    >
    > Well, the fact that I even read or post to ngs like this one is a fair
    > indication, don't you think?
    >
    > The cost of
    > > software and hardware over the life time of the machine is negligible
    > > compared to the cost of wages for the person sitting at the keyboard.

    >
    > Bloody hell! Who said anything about hardware and wages!
    >
    > As I said, YMMV.


    Its something I see as being pushed all the time by the OSS community,
    "Our software is free so its cheaper", well its called total cost of
    ownership, it includes productivity, maintainence, useability, etc etc
    etc.

    ALL UP, this DOES NOT mean that something that is free costs less.
    whoisthis, Apr 2, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <>, whoisthis <> wrote:
    >In article <>,
    > RJ <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >> > http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    >> >
    >> > Wine has the edge overall.

    >>
    >> Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    >>

    >SSSHHHHHHH... no one is meant to know that. As soon as you need to use
    >these artificial benchmarks to prove a point its because in reality you
    >are trying to hide something far more important.


    You might joke about it ... but I remember a time when the IBM computers we
    had at the time were not IBM compatable :)
    The generic clones were ... of course :)



    Bruce

    ----------------------------------------
    I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
    people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
    only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

    Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Apr 3, 2006
    #11
  12. GraB

    -=rjh=- Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <>, -=rjh=- <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> whoisthis wrote:
    >>> In article <442ee6ca$>, -=rjh=- <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> RJ wrote:
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> says...
    >>>>>> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Wine has the edge overall.
    >>>>> Xp has the edge due to it being 100% compatible
    >>>>>
    >>>> Wine has the edge due to it being 100% free.
    >>>>
    >>>> Obviously, YMMV.
    >>> Only if you also consider your time worth nothing too.

    >> Well, the fact that I even read or post to ngs like this one is a fair
    >> indication, don't you think?
    >>
    >> The cost of
    >>> software and hardware over the life time of the machine is negligible
    >>> compared to the cost of wages for the person sitting at the keyboard.

    >> Bloody hell! Who said anything about hardware and wages!
    >>
    >> As I said, YMMV.

    >
    > Its something I see as being pushed all the time by the OSS community,
    > "Our software is free so its cheaper", well its called total cost of
    > ownership, it includes productivity, maintainence, useability, etc etc
    > etc.
    >
    > ALL UP, this DOES NOT mean that something that is free costs less.


    Actually, I get pretty pissed off with so many people willing to
    express an opinion about what software option is best - whether it be
    from OSS zealots or MS fanboys. All seem to base their arguments on some
    kind of hypothetical scenario, whereas every case needs evaluating
    individually.

    As I've said a couple of times in this thread, YMMV, and I'm fully aware
    of the issues involved; and in my case (which, BTW, *is* my case and
    nobody else's) free *does* mean costs less.
    -=rjh=-, Apr 3, 2006
    #12
  13. GraB

    Phstpok Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    >
    >You might joke about it ... but I remember a time when the IBM computers we
    >had at the time were not IBM compatable :)
    >The generic clones were ... of course :)
    >
    >
    >


    My first pc was a sanyo 286 _partially_ IBM compatible. Still haven't
    worked outy which part yet. Ran all dos proggys I loaded up. Only had 2
    x 5.25 drives, no hd.

    Rob
    Phstpok, Apr 4, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. VINUM CANADA E-ZINE

    expanding wine appreciation

    VINUM CANADA E-ZINE, Aug 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    518
    VINUM CANADA E-ZINE
    Aug 5, 2005
  2. Corrie
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    4,903
    Dave Lear
    Oct 30, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    645
  4. steve
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    535
    theseus
    Aug 4, 2004
  5. Daniel

    Trying to run TUMONZ under wine

    Daniel, Dec 20, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    276
    Daniel
    Dec 20, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page