So, it does run on emulators (well, so I knew that it did, but...). How does it do? How fast is it? What's the emmulator's overhead? I've been considering a linux system, as I know it runs some things faster than Windows due to its far slimmer archecture. But UF3 stopped me, as I know emmulators are plagued by horrible performance due to what they are doing. However, a good windows on linux emme should be fast, since the native code (x86+) is the same. So what's it like?

it depends on which flavour linux, i can get it to run on debian. i haven't a clue what an emulator overhead is ? wine runs apophysis with practically no difference in peformance, x-windows has sometimes a bit of a problem catching up, some redraw flicker, i have other problems, ie have corrupted the my flmes flame file, mind you it was a bit big, ca one gig i think my husband said. i have no idea what kind of problems you my run into using uf because i don't use uf, and, my windows platform is win 98, i don't reackon much to any windows distro after win98 (i think they're all rubbish)

XP or 2k > 98. 98 is a 9x where 2k&XP are nt4 derivatives (XP less so). nt4 uses NTFS which owns FAT32. Plus, 98 has no security. Having a corrupt 1gb file on 98 would be common, on 2k/XP, it would be rare (I've had 6gb files, and nothing happens to them. NTFS handles volume better than FAT32, since FAT32 was built when the max size for a system was 10gb using about 4 drives). Emmulator overhead has to do with how much raw clock/memory time the emmulator itself uses (which then makes that clock not availible to the program it's running). I actually don't know anything about linux, though I did know there were zillions of versions, and that redhat was once really common, and that tarballs suck (at least they do on windows).

". Plus, 98 has no security" yes, i don't boot into the win98 platform at all. i seriously don't like xp, my girls have it on their machine and i'm not impressed, caused me endless headaches trying to maintain it. i think my problem was having win on a too small partition for what i was doing, ie rendering willy-nilly and not tidying up :) not sure why you think tarballs suck and how that is relevant to linux ?

.tar.gaz files take me forever to get open under windows (they're a linux zip format). "i think my problem was having win on a too small partition for what i was doing, ie rendering willy-nilly and not tidying up :)" yep, been there done that (tried it on a 5gb real drive. crashed windows in a record time of 10hrs.) you can make xp look like 9x quickly. Then its exactly the same plus the features. also, disabling the security in SP2 helps.

i don't understand why you'd want to use tar.gz files in windows :) "yep, been there done that (tried it on a 5gb real drive. crashed windows in a record time of 10hrs.)" yes i had allocated only 4gig of a 60 ig dive to windows and didn't take that into account when rendering and saved everything rendred in apo on that partition :) i'm really not interested on working on windows platforms, it's very rare to crash linux box, though i have manged that too quite often recently. i have now another 500 memory installed which brings me up to 1 gig of memory which should solve that problem as i want to make a longer film clip for my tutorial,probably using xaos output for the base image.