I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful if you could reply to this message with the make and model.
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:50:39 AM UTC-10, Nicole wrote:
> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run > Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you > are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful > if you could reply to this message with the make and model.
> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run
> Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you
> are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful
> if you could reply to this message with the make and model.
Homebrew, ASUS motherboard, 6 core AMD 3200 processor, 16 gigs of ram, two Nvidia PCI-e GT-520 video cards with 2 gigs of vram each. Ubuntu 12.04 64bit, XFCE desktop and Oracle 7 Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.0-b21, mixed mode)
Runs great! I running two LCD monitors and am about to install 2 more. I want to see the client spanned across 4 monitors. That will be a hoot. Plus, I got it all on a shoe string poverty budget by putting it together myself, shopping my parts piecemeal. Ric
-- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
A few months ago we made some testing sessions and traffic capture
using computers from one of our computer labs. Our hardware resources
were a little bit humbler than described above. We used for both
clients and server machines equipped with Intel i5 750 2.66GHz
processors, 4096 MB of RAM and dedicated AMD Ati HD 4350 1GB GPU.
All clients ran Windows XP Professional SP3 32 bits, the server ran
Ubuntu 10.04 for amd64 architecture.
Sun JDK 6.0 was installed in all the machines (32 bits version in XP
irons and 64 bits in the Ubuntu server).
We used the standard OWL windows resolution in all the clients.
Client machines performance was OK, running OWL client had a minimum
impact over the resource consumption, the CPU load kept low during the
testing sessions and we didn't experience any serious graphic issue.
The server also ran flawlessly, we began our testing sessions with
only 2 concurrent clients and increased this number up to 15. The user
experience for 15 concurrent avatars began to show some degradation
(avatars began to flick) . Monitoring the server resources, we saw
that the OWL server process was mainly CPU intensive at that point.
> On 05/22/2012 09:50 AM, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
>> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run
>> Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you
>> are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful
>> if you could reply to this message with the make and model.
> Homebrew, ASUS motherboard, 6 core AMD 3200 processor, 16 gigs of ram, two
> Nvidia PCI-e GT-520 video cards with 2 gigs of vram each. Ubuntu 12.04
> 64bit, XFCE desktop and Oracle 7 Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build
> 23.0-b21, mixed mode)
> Runs great! I running two LCD monitors and am about to install 2 more. I
> want to see the client spanned across 4 monitors. That will be a hoot. Plus,
> I got it all on a shoe string poverty budget by putting it together myself,
> shopping my parts piecemeal. Ric
> --
> My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
> "There are two Great Sins in the world...
> ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
> Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
> http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
Thanks for this information. Could you also tell me something about your network? It sounds like all the client machines were running on the same internal network as the server? Do you have any data on the bandwidth characteristics of your network?
> A few months ago we made some testing sessions and traffic capture
> using computers from one of our computer labs. Our hardware resources
> were a little bit humbler than described above. We used for both
> clients and server machines equipped with Intel i5 750 2.66GHz
> processors, 4096 MB of RAM and dedicated AMD Ati HD 4350 1GB GPU.
> All clients ran Windows XP Professional SP3 32 bits, the server ran
> Ubuntu 10.04 for amd64 architecture.
> Sun JDK 6.0 was installed in all the machines (32 bits version in XP
> irons and 64 bits in the Ubuntu server).
> We used the standard OWL windows resolution in all the clients.
> Client machines performance was OK, running OWL client had a minimum
> impact over the resource consumption, the CPU load kept low during the
> testing sessions and we didn't experience any serious graphic issue.
> The server also ran flawlessly, we began our testing sessions with
> only 2 concurrent clients and increased this number up to 15. The user
> experience for 15 concurrent avatars began to show some degradation
> (avatars began to flick) . Monitoring the server resources, we saw
> that the OWL server process was mainly CPU intensive at that point.
> Best regards
> 2012/5/23 Ric Moore<wayward4...@gmail.com>:
>> On 05/22/2012 09:50 AM, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
>>> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run
>>> Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you
>>> are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful
>>> if you could reply to this message with the make and model.
>> Homebrew, ASUS motherboard, 6 core AMD 3200 processor, 16 gigs of ram, two
>> Nvidia PCI-e GT-520 video cards with 2 gigs of vram each. Ubuntu 12.04
>> 64bit, XFCE desktop and Oracle 7 Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build
>> 23.0-b21, mixed mode)
>> Runs great! I running two LCD monitors and am about to install 2 more. I
>> want to see the client spanned across 4 monitors. That will be a hoot. Plus,
>> I got it all on a shoe string poverty budget by putting it together myself,
>> shopping my parts piecemeal. Ric
>> --
>> My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
>> "There are two Great Sins in the world...
>> ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
>> Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
>> http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
To help answer my own question, I took a drive over to my local Best Buy store. They have lots of computers on display connected to the Internet and were even kind enough to install Java on a few machines so I could test out Wonderland. Of the Windows machines I tested, this laptop seemed like the best combination of cost, graphics capability, and processor speed:
At $330, performance was slow, but the avatars rendered well, as did the graphics in the orientation world with its AMD Radeon HD 6310 graphics card. I would never recommend this laptop, but it was nice to see Wonderland running on such a low end machine.
Unfortunately, the slightly higher end Toshiba Satellite with an Intel HD graphics card had problems rendering transparency:
The Air has the same or similar Intel HD graphics card ( Intel HD Graphics 3000).
I'm wondering if this transparency problem is something we could fix in our software? I have a feeling the problem is going to be cropping up quite a bit since it seems like there are a lot of new machines on the market with this type of Intel HD integrated graphics capability. Other than the transparency problem, everything else looks quite good.
> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run > Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and > you are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely > helpful if you could reply to this message with the make and model.
> I'm wondering if this transparency problem is something we could fix in
> our software? I have a feeling the problem is going to be cropping up
> quite a bit since it seems like there are a lot of new machines on the
> market with this type of Intel HD integrated graphics capability. Other
> than the transparency problem, everything else looks quite good.
In the Linux world, and the gaming world in general, nVidia has their act together 100% of the time. I'd place ATI a good second and Intel a distant third. But, my opinion only comes from reading the tech support lists and observing who does the most crying. Results are similar on gaming lists. ATI has improved ~much~ over it's past performance, I'll give them that. But, I'll use nVidia so I don't get a surprise.
ATI now provides a nice little setup program, for just about all OS's, and most folks greatly benefit by it. I forget the name. Ric
-- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
If the issue on all a integrated Intel cards is really the same, we could
investigate a workaround in Wonderland. The real trick would be to find the
simplest possible model (like a cube) that demonstrates the problem. Can
you post some screenshots of the issue (or better yet, file a bug and add
the screen shots there)?
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
> To help answer my own question, I took a drive over to my local Best Buy
> store. They have lots of computers on display connected to the Internet and
> were even kind enough to install Java on a few machines so I could test out
> Wonderland. Of the Windows machines I tested, this laptop seemed like the
> best combination of cost, graphics capability, and processor speed:
> At $330, performance was slow, but the avatars rendered well, as did the
> graphics in the orientation world with its AMD Radeon HD 6310 graphics
> card. I would never recommend this laptop, but it was nice to see
> Wonderland running on such a low end machine.
> Unfortunately, the slightly higher end Toshiba Satellite with an Intel HD
> graphics card had problems rendering transparency:
> The Air has the same or similar Intel HD graphics card ( Intel HD Graphics
> 3000).
> I'm wondering if this transparency problem is something we could fix in
> our software? I have a feeling the problem is going to be cropping up quite
> a bit since it seems like there are a lot of new machines on the market
> with this type of Intel HD integrated graphics capability. Other than the
> transparency problem, everything else looks quite good.
> Nicole.
> On 5/22/12 9:50 AM, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run
> Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you
> are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful if
> you could reply to this message with the make and model.
I have submitted issue 273 to document and track this Intel HD graphics rendering problem. I have also created a Google Doc with screenshots that illustrate the problem:
> If the issue on all a integrated Intel cards is really the same, we > could investigate a workaround in Wonderland. The real trick would be > to find the simplest possible model (like a cube) that demonstrates > the problem. Can you post some screenshots of the issue (or better > yet, file a bug and add the screen shots there)?
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
> To help answer my own question, I took a drive over to my local
> Best Buy store. They have lots of computers on display connected
> to the Internet and were even kind enough to install Java on a few
> machines so I could test out Wonderland. Of the Windows machines I
> tested, this laptop seemed like the best combination of cost,
> graphics capability, and processor speed:
> At $330, performance was slow, but the avatars rendered well, as
> did the graphics in the orientation world with its AMD Radeon HD
> 6310 graphics card. I would never recommend this laptop, but it
> was nice to see Wonderland running on such a low end machine.
> Unfortunately, the slightly higher end Toshiba Satellite with an
> Intel HD graphics card had problems rendering transparency:
> The Air has the same or similar Intel HD graphics card ( Intel HD
> Graphics 3000).
> I'm wondering if this transparency problem is something we could
> fix in our software? I have a feeling the problem is going to be
> cropping up quite a bit since it seems like there are a lot of new
> machines on the market with this type of Intel HD integrated
> graphics capability. Other than the transparency problem,
> everything else looks quite good.
> Nicole.
> On 5/22/12 9:50 AM, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
>> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run
>> Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year
>> and you are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be
>> extremely helpful if you could reply to this message with the
>> make and model.
> I have submitted issue 273 to document and track this Intel HD graphics
> rendering problem. I have also created a Google Doc with screenshots that
> illustrate the problem:
> There is a pointer to this document in the issue.
> Nicole.
> On 5/23/12 11:41 PM, Jonathan Kaplan wrote:
> Nicole,
> If the issue on all a integrated Intel cards is really the same, we could
> investigate a workaround in Wonderland. The real trick would be to find the
> simplest possible model (like a cube) that demonstrates the problem. Can you
> post some screenshots of the issue (or better yet, file a bug and add the
> screen shots there)?
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
>> To help answer my own question, I took a drive over to my local Best Buy
>> store. They have lots of computers on display connected to the Internet and
>> were even kind enough to install Java on a few machines so I could test out
>> Wonderland. Of the Windows machines I tested, this laptop seemed like the
>> best combination of cost, graphics capability, and processor speed:
>> At $330, performance was slow, but the avatars rendered well, as did the
>> graphics in the orientation world with its AMD Radeon HD 6310 graphics card.
>> I would never recommend this laptop, but it was nice to see Wonderland
>> running on such a low end machine.
>> Unfortunately, the slightly higher end Toshiba Satellite with an Intel HD
>> graphics card had problems rendering transparency:
>> The Air has the same or similar Intel HD graphics card ( Intel HD Graphics
>> 3000).
>> I'm wondering if this transparency problem is something we could fix in
>> our software? I have a feeling the problem is going to be cropping up quite
>> a bit since it seems like there are a lot of new machines on the market with
>> this type of Intel HD integrated graphics capability. Other than the
>> transparency problem, everything else looks quite good.
>> Nicole.
>> On 5/22/12 9:50 AM, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
>> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run
>> Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you are
>> happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful if you
>> could reply to this message with the make and model.
Yes, all the machines were connected to the same internal network,
Ethernet Gigabit, sharing the same collision domain. All the machines
were also equipped with Gigabit NICs, so bandwidth wasn't an issue for
us during the testing sessions.
> Thanks for this information. Could you also tell me something about your
> network? It sounds like all the client machines were running on the same
> internal network as the server? Do you have any data on the bandwidth
> characteristics of your network?
> Thanks!
> Nicole.
> On 5/23/12 6:34 AM, maxmalkav wrote:
>> A few months ago we made some testing sessions and traffic capture
>> using computers from one of our computer labs. Our hardware resources
>> were a little bit humbler than described above. We used for both
>> clients and server machines equipped with Intel i5 750 2.66GHz
>> processors, 4096 MB of RAM and dedicated AMD Ati HD 4350 1GB GPU.
>> All clients ran Windows XP Professional SP3 32 bits, the server ran
>> Ubuntu 10.04 for amd64 architecture.
>> Sun JDK 6.0 was installed in all the machines (32 bits version in XP
>> irons and 64 bits in the Ubuntu server).
>> We used the standard OWL windows resolution in all the clients.
>> Client machines performance was OK, running OWL client had a minimum
>> impact over the resource consumption, the CPU load kept low during the
>> testing sessions and we didn't experience any serious graphic issue.
>> The server also ran flawlessly, we began our testing sessions with
>> only 2 concurrent clients and increased this number up to 15. The user
>> experience for 15 concurrent avatars began to show some degradation
>> (avatars began to flick) . Monitoring the server resources, we saw
>> that the OWL server process was mainly CPU intensive at that point.
>>> On 05/22/2012 09:50 AM, Nicole Yankelovich wrote:
>>>> I'm trying to put together a list of specific computers that run
>>>> Wonderland well. If you've purchased a new computer in past year and you
>>>> are happy with the way it runs Wonderland, it would be extremely helpful
>>>> if you could reply to this message with the make and model.
>>> Homebrew, ASUS motherboard, 6 core AMD 3200 processor, 16 gigs of ram,
>>> two
>>> Nvidia PCI-e GT-520 video cards with 2 gigs of vram each. Ubuntu 12.04
>>> 64bit, XFCE desktop and Oracle 7 Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build
>>> 23.0-b21, mixed mode)
>>> Runs great! I running two LCD monitors and am about to install 2 more. I
>>> want to see the client spanned across 4 monitors. That will be a hoot.
>>> Plus,
>>> I got it all on a shoe string poverty budget by putting it together
>>> myself,
>>> shopping my parts piecemeal. Ric
>>> --
>>> My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
>>> "There are two Great Sins in the world...
>>> ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
>>> Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
>>> http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
