[WINEHQ] Spelling fixes for WWN286
Francois Gouget
fgouget at free.fr
Fri Aug 5 18:00:06 CDT 2005
Changelog:
* wwn/wn20050805_286.xml
Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr>
Assorted spelling fixes.
--
Francois Gouget fgouget at free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/
Linux, WinNT, MS-DOS - also known as the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
-------------- next part --------------
Index: wwn/wn20050805_286.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvs/lostwages/wwn/wn20050805_286.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1 wn20050805_286.xml
--- wwn/wn20050805_286.xml 4 Aug 2005 23:00:09 -0000 1.1
+++ wwn/wn20050805_286.xml 5 Aug 2005 22:52:39 -0000
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ Using this tool I was able to install a
stored on my C: in their executable form. Again, this may seem like the type
of thing that a long-time Linux user would scoff at but if you are trying to
move to Linux in a a gradual manner or you just happen to be attached to
-certain programs tools like this can prove invaluable. This process could be
+certain programs, tools like this can prove invaluable. This process could be
done in just a few clicks but took a good deal longer than a standard Windows
installation due to the internal adjustments that must be made.</p></quote>
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ PHP, you might be interested in looking
<topic>Architecture</topic>
<p>It's known there are performance issues with some sensitive areas
of Wine. On Windows, calls between threads and processes can be
-handled really fast directly within the server. With Wine, those
+handled really fast directly within the kernel. With Wine, those
same calls require the wineserver to handle the synchronization, which
itself is just another Linux process. Those roundtrip IPC calls to
the server can be expensive, and a lot of work has gone into trying
@@ -144,19 +144,19 @@ to make sure those roundtrips are minimi
<p>Oliver MÖssinger illustrated an example of a performance
problem with a test program:</p>
<quote who="Oliver Mossinger"><p>
-attached i have a test case whitch demonstates the differece between Windows
+attached i have a test case which demonstrates the difference between Windows
and wine. There is also a sample program 'TEST.CPP' attached.</p><p>
On Windows XP
<ol>
<li> Start 'test.exe' from a dos-box... you see some FAST counting integers</li>
-<li> Start a other (loop.pl) program witch consumes mutch cpu time.</li>
+<li> Start another (loop.pl) program which consumes much cpu time.</li>
<li> the output of 'test.exe' is slower but FAST</li></ol></p><p>
On wine
<ol>
<li> Start 'test.exe' from a dos-box... you see some FAST counting integers</li>
-<li> Start a other (loop.pl) program witch consumes mutch cpu time.</li>
+<li> Start another (loop.pl) program which consumes much cpu time.</li>
<li> the output of 'test.exe' is very slow</li></ol></p><p>
This different behavior starts from wine version 20041201. The version before
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ probably improve the behavior on Windows
<p>Felix Nawothnig thought there was a real issue here that needed
fixing:</p>
<quote who="Felix Nawothnig"><p>
-That's just a workaround. Our PeekMessage is definitly misbehaving - I
+That's just a workaround. Our PeekMessage is definitely misbehaving - I
ran the attached test-program in Wine and WinXP... here are the results:
</p><p>
Wine:
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ WinXP:
PeekMessage(...) yielded 0 times<br />
PeekMessage(... PM_NOYIELD) yielded 0 times
</ul></p><p>
-(The numbers slightly differ between runs for obvious reasons but they
+(The numbers differ slightly between runs for obvious reasons but they
are close enough (with an error margin of +/- 10 we could maybe make
this a real testcase))
</p><p>
More information about the wine-patches
mailing list