20 Jul, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
That's not really very accurate. There are codebases that run just dandy on Windows. Dead Souls,
for example, and Coffeemud don't require cygwin to run in Windows.


Nothing he's posted in this thread has been very accurate. Smaugwiz also runs just dandy in Windows, I know lots of people that run tbaMUD and CircleMUD in MSVC++ as well.
20 Jul, 2009, Davion wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Zeno owns a hosting server, so why didn't he post here?


http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topi...

Not only does he post here (as one of our top posters I might add), he -announced- his free hosting here. :)
20 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
The amount of time a codebase takes to compile has little to nothing to do with the latency it will have when running…… and latency is affected by more than just what's running…

Let me spell it out for you since your comprehensive skills are beyond poor as always. Compiling takes a lot of processing power, so if you re-compile your mud - while the actual mud is up and running - that increases latency on the mud that is up and running, the additional latency goes away when the compile ends.

And yes, latency is affected by more than just what is running, Captain Obvious.
20 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Wow, somebody is feeling snarky today. And somebody forgot that compilation is a more or less one-time event when compared to the constant running of the MUD. So sorry, no, the compiling time is basically irrelevant.
20 Jul, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Wow, somebody is feeling snarky today. And somebody forgot that compilation is a more or less one-time event when compared to the constant running of the MUD. So sorry, no, the compiling time is basically irrelevant.


Not all that one time at all when in the development stage and adding changes every few hours.
20 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Such a game is far less likely to have many remote players, and therefore very unlikely to care about increased latency.

The point is that you can very well run a MUD even on old hardware without issues at all, except for more recent languages that require more horsepower.
20 Jul, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
The point is that you can very well run a MUD even on old hardware without issues at all, except for more recent languages that require more horsepower.


No one but Igabod has argued with that. Scandum suggested a 2 GHZ processor, 2 GHz processors were available 5-10 years ago and are nothing new.
20 Jul, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm pretty sure this is a new forum that was created probably not very long ago. With no fanfare being made about it's creation, more then likely not many people know it even exists. But now we do.
20 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Such a game is far less likely to have many remote players, and therefore very unlikely to care about increased latency.

That still leaves you with 10 minute compile times. For all intense and purposes a newbie is best off getting an early xp capable computer which is typically around 100$ on ebay.
20 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
I wasn't arguing against getting a better computer… that would be an "intense" argument. :wink:
20 Jul, 2009, Grimble wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
For all intense and purposes…

unmangled
21 Jul, 2009, soldierofthelord wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'd like to thank everyone for their input in this thread. You've given me a lot of information to think about and I'm sure that most of it is accurate. My current plan is to do testing on my pc and then switch to a hosting server once I'm ready to run a beta test. Just out of curiosity, if I'm building on my pc, where do the new objects get saved? To my harddrive? Also, how do I switch over to a hosting server? Do I have to upload a zip file that contains all of the files to the server?

Davion said:
Not only does he post here (as one of our top posters I might add), he -announced- his free hosting here. :)


What I meant was that zeno didn't post in this board, not the site as a whole. Also, I'm already aware of his announcement of offering free MUD hosting. I was referring to him not posting on how to run a server, not on having a server.
21 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
In that case you'd want to install cygwin and develop your mud in it. Since cygwin is a lot like linux switching to a server should come easy when the time is there.
21 Jul, 2009, soldierofthelord wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, I have Cygwin. It came along with one of the mudlibs that I've downloaded. It might have come with Dead Souls, I don't remember. How would I go about using Cygwin? Would I have to telnet to it like I do to my local host?
21 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
soldierofthelord said:
Actually, I have Cygwin. It came along with one of the mudlibs that I've downloaded. It might have come with Dead Souls, I don't remember. How would I go about using Cygwin? Would I have to telnet to it like I do to my local host?


If I remember it is GUI-less and runs like terminal.
21 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
soldierofthelord said:
How would I go about using Cygwin? Would I have to telnet to it like I do to my local host?

I wrote a walk through for installing cygwin and compiling tintin++ on it a while ago that might get you started.

http://tintin.sourceforge.net/install.ph...
21 Jul, 2009, Banner wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
andLinux > Cygwin
21 Jul, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Cygwin is a damn nightmare.
21 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Never really had trouble with it myself. Dunno what people are doing with it that's causing so much misery. :wink: For me it was always just download the setup program, install the stuff, and it worked. It's usually a fair bit easier than setting up and dealing with a whole Linux installation. (That said, I prefer a whole Linux installation now, but I have that option and am rather comfortable with it.)
21 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
andLinux is a superior option all around. It's a full linux installation without GUI that runs concurrent and is tethered with a virtual nic inside windows with a little toolbar interface. It's easy to install. You will be done in maybe a few clicks. Doesn't use too much Ram and you can turn it off when you want. It shares file system as well and doesn't take too much ram. I'll give you a caveat though. It doesn't work on 64 bit architecture.
20.0/73