More and more poor clueless users getting to nowhere installing that stuff according to some howtos. Who are writing those? And why are they directing people to install it in the first place? The only person I've found who created that howto everyone links to - Tom Wickline states EXPLICITLY THAT THIS IS FOR TESTING PURPOSES ONLY!!! AND NOT TO BE USED WITH ANY REAL LIFE APPLICATION! Are there are somebody else who directs users to do that? Oh and btw all topics regarding problems after/during installing native DirectX on Wine will be deleted.
Ditto And don't come into irc and expect me to not tell you to remove you wine prefix directory if you have used that guide.
Ok, according to vitamin's reaction, i understood that trying directx 9 with wine was evil and a great great danger :D For direct9 no-support on this forum...mmm... it's yours afterall :?
recent games require native dll that are not yet implemented.... but you know that i suppose :?
chourmovs wrote:> recent games require native dll that are not yet implemented.... but you know that i suppose :? > > Maybe my poor english prevent me to understand what is your goal here, and why you erase my 2 last posts. In all the case it comes against appdb phylosophy witch is to demonstrate what wine can do, specially in recent game emulationBoth of your posts had nothing to do with the topic. As well as this one. Stay on topic or your posts will be removed in the future. It seems you do not want to understand that installing native DirectX on Wine is not a viable option! It breaks Wine the same way winetools did several years ago.
chourmovs wrote:> recent games require native dll that are not yet implemented.... but you know that i suppose :? > >Here is how we handle this situation: We (that is the Users) file a bug report and we also update or create an Applications Database entry that tells the developers there is a problem. Without this input, we the Users will never see any improvements in the code base. There is a team of developers trying very hard to implement all of the functions of DirectX version 9. If we (the Users) decide that installation of DirectX 9, which is not supported in any fashion, will fix the problem, this is unacceptable. Please understand that you, on your own, can install the entire DirectX package, but be advised this will not work and may actually make your Wine installation unusable requiring a complete re-installation of it (this is not a trival task and may force you to re-install any and all Windows applications.) Here is what I think should happen: 1. The suggestion to install DirectX 9 should be removed from the Applications Database, if it has not been already. 2. We (the Users) need to file appropriate bug reports, IF THEY DO NOT ALREADY EXIST. If a bug report exists, please create an appropriate login on Bugzilla and add your name to the CC: area so you will be advised of the status of the bug and if any fixes need to be reviewed/tested. 3. We need to constantly update the Applications Database, on a release by release basis, of any applications we are using or attempting to use with Wine. Note that no application can be rated Platinum if you have to use a native dll to get the program to function properly. It is functionally correct to use a native dll from a Windows XP installation, provided you have a licensed copy of Windows XP (I do and it is licensed forever) and you do not use Wine and WindowsXP at the same time. This IS NOT true for .dlls provided with applications as the EULA may be different. This is definitely not true for some of the products produced by Microsoft. The bottom line: Do not install DirectX 9 onto Wine and then expect the developers to fix any problems you encounter. This is what we call "Not Supported". The same is true for what I am doing, however the program and Wine continue to function properly and I am not happy as many fixes are needed to get the program to work, properly, with all Wine builtin .dll files. However, I am also willing to work to get all functionality of the program to work (I do a little development on the side.) James McKenzie
Ok i can understand your goal now!! We can use native dll but we don't have to report result in appdb, bugzilla or in this forum cause it make confusion for developper who try to make dx9 capabilities included I have to reformulate, i'm sorry my brain is slow this time Thank you for your deeper explanations ...I have to say that a big job of cleaning is waiting appdb and bugzilla supervisors :D
vitamin wrote:> If people so dumb that they don't get that themselves, no explanation will help them. Nor will they bother reading that explanation.can't be agree with that but i'm not sure you'll understand if i develop 8)
Dan Kegel wrote:> Ah, but will you stop being so peremptory and martial?[Laughing]
David there's two different thing on this thread, read carefully :D 1) Vitamin try to tell us , with his own words :D, that installing directx9 is not a good way to improve wine's code (i resume), and that's why it's not supported in this forum. We can presume his knowledge and his investsment in this project allow him to say that 2) Vitamin, despite of his rank of moderator on this general help forum, don't want to waste his time explaining wine's stuff to dumby (but overQIfied ;) ) person like us... and THAT is difficult to accept for me
David Shaw wrote:> vitamin wrote: > > > David Shaw wrote: > > > > > > > Please do not assume that everyone knows and understands what you do and > > > that those who don't are dumb, Vitamin. *I* don't understand why trying > > > to install DirectX under Wine is a bad idea (not that I've ever wanted > > > to do so) and, with an IQ of 148, I can hardly be accused of being > > > dumb. Thank you. > > > > > > David Shaw > > > > > > > > > > > > With such a high IQ you sure should know how to use google. > > > > I do - and I do. However, my point was that not everyone is at your > level of knowledge of Wine - as, indeed, you are not at my level of > knowledge in some field or other (not knowing your background, I cannot > say what that field may be, but I can guarantee that there is one) - and > simply to accuse people of being dumb because of that is somewhat > offensive. Should you ever need my help in that field - or anyone > else's help in a field in which their knowledge and experience is > superior to yours - would you be happy with my calling you dumb simply > because you come to me for assistance and education rather than going to > Google? I suspect you would not tolerate that kind of treatment from me > and I would therefore ask that you not expect us to tolerate it from > you. Thank you. > > David ShawI'll have nothing against you calling me that in the field I know nothing about. And I'll appreciate any help in such a field. Here where I _know_ what I'm talking about I'd really like to see people listen. Not say "F*off I know what I'm doing! Oh btw how to fix this problem I've caused myself?"
[quote="vitamin"]BACK to where we started. WHY and WHO asking people to install native DirectX? All posts NOT RELATED to answering those _TWO_ questions will be removed.[/quote] I think for many of them the 'who' doesn't exist. If you install a game under windows at the end it will ask you if you want to install it, it is a standard question where (nearly) everybody answer yes because it can only make the thing work better. And under windows if you are using a game and have error messages about directX, you just take the last version and update without even thinking about it. The main point is installing directX under windows is something normal and people expect it to solve their game problems just like it has always done under windows. So if a windows program has problem using directX under wine, they just think it is the best way to solve their own problem without bothering everybody. Maybe it ends up being a bad thing for their wine installation but it is just 'the normal way' under windows. One way to solve this problem may be to detect when a user is about to install directX and show a popup explaining clearly than going further may result in more problem than they had before and that it is not a way to solve problems. I'm not talking about blocking directX installation but just showing a warning message people have never seen when trying to install directX before (maybe showing a wine logo and a big "danger" sign)
@vitamin...I've a few things now (sorry, my english isn't that good, so I might have missunderstood some things) First: Why are you so angry? I don't get it yet...I want to know what is the problem exactly...if I understand it right, the problem are the many other directX dlls that are overriting the builtin ones...so if a user then have a bug you can't determine if the bug is a really wine bug, or it is a directX bug, caused by the careless installation of DX9. Is that right? But back to your 2 questions: I think "Tlarhices" is right...the problem is, that most users are seeing, that the game *wants* maybe a directX_36.dll or a function out of this dll. Instead of downloading this dll from a mirror (there are enough of them) they simple download directX9 and install it...the effect (for the user) is the same: the game is working I've installed directX because I read that TM:Nations Forever will work when you install it...I will try to simple download the dll that the game wants... And Vitamin...don't be so rough...you don't have to offend(?) me or someone else
[quote="Dan Kegel"] Right. Usually. It would probably help if winetricks supported grabbing just the needed DLL for the user. If anyone has suggestions for the right recipe, I'm all ears. Ideally it would involve a download from microsoft.com, rather than some dodgy dll archive site.[/quote] You could take the redist version from microsoft website, using cabextract on the exe and once again cabextract on the cab containing the dlls. It's not subtle but it works, but I think the question is : does it respect the license ? There is no license on the download page, just a list of supported operating systems.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Tlarhices <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> You could take the redist version from microsoft website, using cabextract on the exe and once again cabextract on the cab containing the dlls.Sounds perfect. Patches gratefully accepted :-)> does it respect the license ?We can mark it "requires windows license" in the help description.
Dan Kegel wrote:> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Detructor <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote: > > > @vitamin... > > First: Why are you so angry? > > > > That's just the way he is when lots of people do something he doesn't like. > It's an occupational hazard of trying to support wine users :-) >I'm not in IT, but I do have to routinely deal with students who claim to be unaware of some policy of mine that's stated clearly in the syllabus (usually the one about not accepting late papers), so I have a pretty good idea of just how frustrating it can be to deal with people who seem to be willfully obtuse. Over the years I've found that the best response, both for my mental health and their learning, has been to simply remind the student that the policy is in the syllabus, and they are responsible for knowing the contents of the syllabus. Period. If that means they fail my class, so be it--it's not my job to save students from the consequences of their own negligence. To get back to the issue of how to deal with people who do something that's explicitly not supported and then ask for help in this forum, I suggest creating a standard, polite-but-firm response that explains that this is not supported by the wine developers, and the only solution to their problem is to delete /.wine and reinstall everything that was in it. The inconvenience of having to do this should be enough to teach most people a lesson, and for the few it doesn't, no amount of berating is going to reach them anyway. JMHO.
At one point in time, I was pretty good with Unix & C (C++) programming but things change and I got away from that for a number of years. When it comes to Wine Im pretty much of a noob. Right now, the only contribution I feel I can make to the project is by testing applications. Ive noticed that the majority of applications in the AppDb seem to be games, so I think it might be helpful to have more information about non-game applications. But when I install some of my applications, they fail miserably. So, I look around for information to help getting my applications to work (using Google, AppDb and the like) and I find instructions on how to install DirectX and use the DLL overrides. I do this and now my applications work much better than with the builtin DLLs. The program that didnt work before, now works. So, I guess Ive done a bad thing. When you dont have a good grasp of the theory, you fall back on the empirical. Id also like to say that on some forums Im considered somewhat of an expert. In those settings I am sometimes guilty of providing a kurt answer when someone asks a question that has been asked and answered within the last week. However, hostility in a forum, particularly on the part of experts, can be very counterproductive to a project. It tends to drive away people who could become enthusiastic supporters. If someone feels he is trying to do the right thing and gets slapped down by experts he may just opt out altogether or worse, become an active detractor. I would like to better understand the theory of how the parts of Wine hook together. Some of the issues involve the implementation of DirectX and .NET under Wine. Unfortunately, I really have not found the sort of explanation that answers my questions. There seems to be one group who well understand the issues and feel that they dont need to be explained and another group who are struggling with the most basic concepts and a gulf in between. I think that the project is running well ahead of the documentation and this is part of the problem. For instance, in this thread it has been mentioned that there are actually a few native DirectX DLLs that one might need to use. In the FAQ a few DLLs are listed where you must use the builtin and not much is said about the rest. I think it would probably be a good idea for the FAQ to be updated with a list of all the DirectX DLLs, what services they provide and which ones should work 100% as builtins, which ones may still have issues and which ones need to be installed from native DirectX. This would certainly have prevented me from installing DirectX with a lot of overrides. But as I said, if this list exists, I have not found it.
DRNewcomb wrote:> I think it would probably be a good idea for the FAQ to be updated with a list of all the DirectX DLLs, what services they provide and which ones should work 100% as builtins, which ones may still have issues and which ones need to be installed from native DirectX. This would certainly have prevented me from installing DirectX with a lot of overrides. But as I said, if this list exists, I have not found it.I think Tom's page (where i guess you got the info from to install directX) is clear enough about this: Quote: Keep in mind d3d8, d3d9, ddraw will only work as builtin, and in most cases you should try to use builtin dsound and dinput. I have had limited success with (dsound and dinput) in native Windows mode btw... The reason why these dlls have to be used in builtin mode is there need for direct access to your hardware. direct music and direct play can be used in native windows mode in most circumstances.""