Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!
pc games
Simply PATHETIC!
STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
yet...
YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
PATHETIC!
PATHETIC!
PATHETIC!
So the conclusion is clear many Linux users are as DUMB, BLIND and
SHEEP like Windows users are.
Now if STEAM is stopping Linux users from running PC Games under
Linux, which I find totally expected cause leaving out and restricting
is precisely what STEAM does best, the only thing to do is join what
I've been doing since 2004, FIGHT AGAINST TYRANT VALVE and its
DICTATORSHIP PRISON STEAM!
PS: Now if you will use the fact I'm using Windows against me, let me
make this clear, my natural and obvious choice would always be Linux I
just don't use it cause I'm a PC Gamer and Linux is not enough Gaming
platform for me, so again I ask everyone working in the Linux market
to once and for all turn it also into a strong viable gaming platform
so many of us can finally leave Windows and join you, and no I'm not
talking about emulations I'm talking about a true optimized gaming
platform, I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to
turn it into a great gaming platform!
FoolsGold
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!
I presume you're referring to this bru-ha-ha?
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=79480
> STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
> STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
> STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
> STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
> STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
> STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
> STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
> yet...
> YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
> VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
> PATHETIC!
> PATHETIC!
> PATHETIC!
People want games on Linux. Most (all?) commercial games are
closed-source. You'll never have commercial games on Linux if you're an
open-source zealot who won't accept compromise, which is why the desire
to see Steam on Linux is fairly strong, since most people are reasonable.
> So the conclusion is clear many Linux users are as DUMB, BLIND and
> SHEEP like Windows users are.
You're generalizing again.
> Now if STEAM is stopping Linux users from running PC Games under
> Linux, which I find totally expected cause leaving out and restricting
> is precisely what STEAM does best, the only thing to do is join what
> I've been doing since 2004, FIGHT AGAINST TYRANT VALVE and its
> DICTATORSHIP PRISON STEAM!
You CAN run Steam in Linux, you just run it though Wine or Cedega. I've
tried it, the client works rather well after a few steps. The popular
stuff like Source/GoldSrc-based games work with varying levels of
success, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it for long-term use.
> PS: Now if you will use the fact I'm using Windows against me, let me
> make this clear, my natural and obvious choice would always be Linux I
> just don't use it cause I'm a PC Gamer and Linux is not enough Gaming
> platform for me, so again I ask everyone working in the Linux market
> to once and for all turn it also into a strong viable gaming platform
> so many of us can finally leave Windows and join you, and no I'm not
> talking about emulations I'm talking about a true optimized gaming
> platform, I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to
> turn it into a great gaming platform!
You're a hypocrite. STOP FUCKING GENERALIZING!
magnate
> pc games wrote:
> > STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
> > STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
> > STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
> > STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
> > STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
> > STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
> > STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
> > yet...
> > YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
> > VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
> > PATHETIC!
> > PATHETIC!
> > PATHETIC!
>
> People want games on Linux. Most (all?) commercial games are
> closed-source. You'll never have commercial games on Linux if you're an
> open-source zealot who won't accept compromise, which is why the desire
> to see Steam on Linux is fairly strong, since most people are reasonable.
I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux, thousands more
which run perfectly in DosBox, and still more which run with varying
degrees of success under WINE.
I confess to being a bit of an open-source zealot, but even trying to
put that to one side I really don't see the need for Steam. Surely the
issue is that people want their favourite new games to run under
Linux, not that they want to be able to d/l and install them using
Steam?? The lobby for porting games I can understand much more easily,
but I don't see what a Linux Steam client would do for anybody. It
wouldn't make any of the games work any better than they do already.
Personally I already have more games than I will ever be able to play,
even if I never boot into Windows again. But if I wanted more games to
be available, I would want native Linux versions in shiny boxes with
nice manuals. Steam is neither here nor there.
I'd just like to end this post with the disclaimer that I still think
pc games is a complete plonker, even though I feel uncomfortably close
to his position on this one.
CC
Hadron
> On Jul 31, 10:02 am, FoolsGold <f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pc games wrote:
>> > STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
No it doesn't. Linux is not against protecting against piracy.
>> > STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
>> > STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
>> > STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
Steam is FREE as in "free beer" isn't it? I tried it recently and tried
some videos and game demos. Nice piece of SW.
>> > STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
You don't need to install Steam or play the games. You have a choice.
>> > STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
>> > STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
>> > yet...
>> > YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
>> > VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
>> > PATHETIC!
>> > PATHETIC!
>> > PATHETIC!
>>
>> People want games on Linux. Most (all?) commercial games are
>> closed-source. You'll never have commercial games on Linux if you're an
>> open-source zealot who won't accept compromise, which is why the desire
>> to see Steam on Linux is fairly strong, since most people are reasonable.
>
> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux, thousands more
Hundreds of crap games. A few classic openGL ones such as UT2003, QIV
etc but really, not a lot. Gaming on Linux is decidedly retro.
http://sdl-sopwith.sourceforge.net/sshot.shtml
> which run perfectly in DosBox, and still more which run with varying
> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> I confess to being a bit of an open-source zealot, but even trying to
> put that to one side I really don't see the need for Steam. Surely the
Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under
Ubuntu. Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
> issue is that people want their favourite new games to run under
> Linux, not that they want to be able to d/l and install them using
> Steam?? The lobby for porting games I can understand much more easily,
> but I don't see what a Linux Steam client would do for anybody. It
> wouldn't make any of the games work any better than they do already.
It would make running them easier since steam would take care of setting
it up to work I would have thought. Having messed around with CEDEGA and
WINE I found it really not to be worth the effort.
>
> Personally I already have more games than I will ever be able to play,
> even if I never boot into Windows again. But if I wanted more games to
> be available, I would want native Linux versions in shiny boxes with
> nice manuals. Steam is neither here nor there.
That aint going to happen. Linux users do not, as a general rule, buy
games. See http://lokigames.com for more details. Its why more & more
games makers are deserting Linux. Of course it doesn't help that HW
OpenGL is still only just working for a lot of ATI card owners and that
the sound sub system is a complete and utter mess between difference
distros.
> I'd just like to end this post with the disclaimer that I still think
> pc games is a complete plonker, even though I feel uncomfortably close
> to his position on this one.
>
> CC
>
--
FoolsGold
> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux, thousands more
> which run perfectly in DosBox, and still more which run with varying
> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> I confess to being a bit of an open-source zealot, but even trying to
> put that to one side I really don't see the need for Steam. Surely the
> issue is that people want their favourite new games to run under
> Linux, not that they want to be able to d/l and install them using
> Steam?? The lobby for porting games I can understand much more easily,
> but I don't see what a Linux Steam client would do for anybody. It
> wouldn't make any of the games work any better than they do already.
>
> Personally I already have more games than I will ever be able to play,
> even if I never boot into Windows again. But if I wanted more games to
> be available, I would want native Linux versions in shiny boxes with
> nice manuals. Steam is neither here nor there.
>
> I'd just like to end this post with the disclaimer that I still think
> pc games is a complete plonker, even though I feel uncomfortably close
> to his position on this one.
I've given up caring about a Steam client too though. It would be NICE,
sure, but it's also unrealistic. A native Linux client is useless
without native Linux games to go along with it, and since there's only
about three games I know of on Steam that have Linux versions
(Introversion's stuff), that's stuff-all. So you're right, what's the point?
Like has been said, you can run Steam and some Steam-based games in
Linux, but that's a really bad idea IMHO. When an update to the Steam
client or the Source engine is released, it might work fine in Windows
but fuck up totally with Wine, which makes long-term use suck.
Davorin Vlahovic
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!
aburn {afrodita}[~] $apt-cache search steam
steam - Environment for cooperative knowledge management
steam-lib - Environment for cooperative knowledge management (libs)
'nuff said.
--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
Benjamin Gawert
> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
With the majority of them being just plain crap.
> thousands more
> which run perfectly in DosBox,
Yeah, right. DOS games.
> and still more which run with varying
> degrees of success under WINE.
With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
Benjamin
FoolsGold
> * magnate:
>
>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>
> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
(a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
mods, standalone games)
(b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>> thousands more
>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>
> Yeah, right. DOS games.
Gotta LOL at that. :)
>> and still more which run with varying
>> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows. I noticed a similar
situation with HL2 where it did seem to be running faster, until I
realized it was stuck in DX8 for some reason. Apparently you can enable
DX9 mode, but it sucks balls performance-wise, and I don't like the idea
of my hardware not being fully brutalizing.
> Benjamin
Nick (aka FoolsGold.)
Hadron
Be careful. There are actually some COLA posters who maintain that Linux
is a far better gaming platform than windows. Aside from the lack of
commercial games, the trouble with the ALSA v OSS factions, the
departure of most game developers from OpenGL to DirectX, the closing of
LokiGames, the pisspoor nature of most native Linux games and the
reluctance of Linux users to actually pay for any games they might have
a point.
The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
are.
Had the Linux community done more earlier to attract Games companies
then it might have been taken more seriously as an option for a home
OS. Unfortunately there is a hard core here who think gaming is for
pre-pubescent teenagers and not for far guys with beards who live in
their mother's basements.
FoolsGold
> I don't like the idea
> of my hardware not being fully brutalizing.
I have no idea what the hell happened there. That's suppose to say
"fully utilized" at the end. :)
Quaestor
>I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here.
>
*plonk*
--
Those who try to hide behind Godwin are the real net-nazis.
Philosophy: Joking about why we cuss so much.
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html
[fourth line intentionally left blank]
CoinSpin
"pc games" <pcgame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185871091.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
| Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
| Simply PATHETIC!
|
|
| PS: Now if you will use the fact I'm using Windows against me, let me
| make this clear, my natural and obvious choice would always be Linux I
| just don't use it cause I'm a PC Gamer and Linux is not enough Gaming
| platform for me, so again I ask everyone working in the Linux market
| to once and for all turn it also into a strong viable gaming platform
| so many of us can finally leave Windows and join you, and no I'm not
| talking about emulations I'm talking about a true optimized gaming
| platform, I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to
| turn it into a great gaming platform!
|
And yet... If STEAM was available for Linux users, it would encourage
development of gaming on that platform... And how would you suggest that
the developers that may decide to move to Linux protect themselves from
piracy?
It's never as black and white as you see it in your head, PC... There's so
much gray in the world.
CoinSpin
magnate
> FoolsGold <f...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> >> * magnate:
>
> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>
> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.
> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>
> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
> > mods, standalone games)
This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
eye candy is less important to me.
> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
version is neither here nor there.
> >>> thousands more
> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>
> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>
> > Gotta LOL at that. :)
Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...
> >>> and still more which run with varying
> >>> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> >> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>
> > Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
> > the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows. I noticed a similar
> > situation with HL2 where it did seem to be running faster, until I
> > realized it was stuck in DX8 for some reason. Apparently you can
> > enable DX9 mode, but it sucks balls performance-wise, and I don't like
> > the idea of my hardware not being fully [utilised].
What's interesting here is how you came to realise that it was stuck
in DX8. Did it look noticeably less impressive? Or were you
consciously checking to see whether your hardware was fully utilised?
This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.
> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
> are.
Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.
> Had the Linux community done more earlier to attract Games companies
> then it might have been taken more seriously as an option for a home
> OS. Unfortunately there is a hard core here who think gaming is for
> pre-pubescent teenagers and not for far guys with beards who live in
> their mother's basements.
?? That sounds like you believe that gaming is for fat guys with
beards who live in their mothers' basements. Very odd.
The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
a ton of open-source games, which are the sort most ideologically
suited to the Linux environment, and of course the sort that run best
on Linux and have the best support.
Hadron wrote:
>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.
Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
need "SW protection" because the software is free.
>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.
CC
Hadron
> On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> FoolsGold <f...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>> >> * magnate:
>>
>> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>>
>> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>
> By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
> don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
> do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.
No. The majority are plain crap. Don't play the eye candy line.
There are some good ones of course - well, ok ones, but dated. The best
action games being from ID and Epic.
>
>> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
>> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>>
>> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
>> > mods, standalone games)
>
> This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
> eye candy is less important to me.
What strategy games do you play? Loki ported Alpha Centauri and went bust.
>
>> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
>> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>
> The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
> about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
> version is neither here nor there.
Not many. Sorry.
>
>> >>> thousands more
>> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>>
>> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>>
>> > Gotta LOL at that. :)
>
> Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
Pretty much. People stopped developing DOS games eons ago. Games
developed for DOS are pretty rubbish by todays standards. There are a
few exceptions but not many.
> totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
> DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...
Yes, all very old and "been there done that". All very good in their
day.
>
>> >>> and still more which run with varying
>> >>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>
>> >> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>>
>> > Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
>> > the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows. I noticed a similar
>> > situation with HL2 where it did seem to be running faster, until I
>> > realized it was stuck in DX8 for some reason. Apparently you can
>> > enable DX9 mode, but it sucks balls performance-wise, and I don't like
>> > the idea of my hardware not being fully [utilised].
>
> What's interesting here is how you came to realise that it was stuck
> in DX8. Did it look noticeably less impressive? Or were you
> consciously checking to see whether your hardware was fully utilised?
>
> This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
> be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.
Steam is nothing to do with eye candy.
>
>> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
>> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
>> are.
>
> Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
> measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.
It's a measure. And pretty sad that you even think to deny that the
advances in graphics have added a total new dimension to gaming. or are
you one of these nerd types who can "picture the dungeon in your head"
and plays D&D with the computer rolling the dice?
>
>> Had the Linux community done more earlier to attract Games companies
>> then it might have been taken more seriously as an option for a home
>> OS. Unfortunately there is a hard core here who think gaming is for
>> pre-pubescent teenagers and not for far guys with beards who live in
>> their mother's basements.
>
> ?? That sounds like you believe that gaming is for fat guys with
> beards who live in their mothers' basements. Very odd.
Learn to read. I was referring to the Linux gamers ... :-; "Here" being
COLA.
> The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
No : it does. As people of all ages like to play games -whether flight
sims or fps or strategy or rpg or ....
> free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
> and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
Why? So you admit Linux users do not pay for SW? A lot of people will be
pissed off to hear that as they consider releasing commercial ports of
the SW. Whoops. Another bit of crap advocacy.
> a ton of open-source games, which are the sort most ideologically
Mostly complete crap.
> suited to the Linux environment, and of course the sort that run best
> on Linux and have the best support.
Mostly complete crap. Sorry. But even most HW zealots would admit that
the games simply are not there - forget about the reasons why. We know
the reasons why.
>
> Hadron wrote:
>>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
>>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.
>
> Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
> delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
> most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
> need "SW protection" because the software is free.
You clearly have no idea of the real meaning of OSS. OSS is not
necessarily "free" as in "free beer". Go read up on it.
>
>>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
>>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
>>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
>
> Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.
It is if you like gaming. Which clearly you don't as you appear to know
sweet fuck all about gaming, graphics, standards, cross platform games,
delivery systems, OSS games, and quality levels of modern releases.
>
> CC
>
--
chrisv
>magnate wrote:
>
>>I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here.
>
>*plonk*
Hehe...
turk
news:13au8cj...@corp.supernews.com...
Actually, I thought "fully brutalized" was a perfectly apt description.
Here, I thought you were being clever.
Hell, I get angry when my favorite Counter-Strike:Source server goes to some
crappy low res map that lulls my 8800GTX to sleep. If you've got the
horses, why keep 'em locked in the stable?
turk
--
To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to
the dead.
-- Thomas Paine
Roy Schestowitz
A main concern in this revolt had something to do with the fact that Linux
users helped make Steam attractive. As often is the case, contributions come
from the open source community. It's natural to expect some minimal gesture in
return (and no, not a middle finger, but a thumbs up).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Rid your machine from malware. Install GNU/Linux.
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
waterskidoo
Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform however
with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.
The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
this worthwhile.
Tim O
wrote:
>Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
>Simply PATHETIC!
Linux users don't matter because Linux is a dead OS for gaming.
It had a very brief heydey when id, Epic and even Activision offered
serious support, but its now basically an afterthought or not even a
consideration.
Once again, PCGames beats around the bush trying to incite some kind
of controversy over nothing. His interest in Linux is because its
free, just like his shitty dial-up internet connection that won't
support any downloadable content.
Hadron
> On 2007-07-31, Benjamin Gawert <bga...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> * magnate:
>>
>>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>>
>> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>>
>>> thousands more
>>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>>
>> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>>
>>> and still more which run with varying
>>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>
>> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>>
>> Benjamin
>
> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform however
> with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
> under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
> the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.
I don't think they will. It's a catch 22. People don't want Linux for
home because already it is dead as a gaming platform.
> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
> this worthwhile.
What are these potential performance increases of which you speak?
The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL under
Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.
A modern game takes 10s if not hundreds of people to design, write, QA,
localise and distribute. There is simply no market for games by current
Linux users unfortunately.
WDS
> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform however
> with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
> under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
> the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.
> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
> this worthwhile.
The gaming companies don't care a bit about that. They look at one
thing, how many copies am I going to sell (i.e., how much money will I
rake in) compared to the cost of producing those copies? Right now
that is marginal at best for games for Macs and non-existant for
Linux. And actually, the action right now is in console games because
the money is better.
dapunka
Yes... Linux home users generally use software that's free (as in
beer), which is no good to the games software manufacturers. And, as
has been pointed out many times before (but never by me, until now),
hardcore gamers generally use consoles for gaming.
Please not my use of the word "generally" in the above paragraph. I
am wildly and dangerously generalising, and will have someone's eye
out with that thing if I'm not careful*
* paraphrasing King Harold's last words at Hastings.
Ivan Marsh
> I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to turn it into a
> great gaming platform!
My Linux systems make money, not polygons.
Go buy a PS2.
Tim O
wrote:
>My Linux systems make money, not polygons.
Counterfieting? What software recreates the best $100's?
Christopher Hunter
>> and still more which run with varying
>> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!
It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
actually /worsens, the user's experience!
C.
Christopher Hunter
*Well* *said!*
C.
waterskidoo
>
> The gaming companies don't care a bit about that. They look at one
> thing, how many copies am I going to sell (i.e., how much money will I
> rake in) compared to the cost of producing those copies? Right now
> that is marginal at best for games for Macs and non-existant for
> Linux. And actually, the action right now is in console games because
> the money is better.
Sad but true. I pretty much agree with you and the other person
who says it's a catch-22.
ray
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!
>
> platform, I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to
> turn it into a great gaming platform!
Strange. I don't reacll crying for 'steam' at all. In fact, I don't have
the foggiest idea in the world what it is, and, quite frankly, I don't
give a shit.
Ivan Marsh
'Bout Da' Benjamins 2.5
CoinSpin
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:qhps28e...@googlemail.com...
| waterskidoo <water....@yahoo.com> writes:
|
<snip>
|
| What are these potential performance increases of which you speak?
|
| The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL under
| Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
| companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
| than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.
|
And the last benchmarks I saw showed OpenGL under Linux with some of the new
unified shader video cards brutalizing DX10 under Vista... But hell, that's
not hard, most games run faster under XP than Vista (unless of course you
are using proprietary Vista hardware/software combinations not available in
XP, yah I know, extinguish the flames before they start). The point is that
MS is releasing bloatware OS packages that keep getting more and more
bloated, while Linux keeps the overhead minimized...
But most people will never know or care because MS has done a great job of
cornering the market when it comes to a PC operating system, which means
that if you want to make money you program towards the platforms with the
most numbers - consoles and Windows. Can't see Linux ever getting through
the chokehold MS has on the market and getting out there as a true
mainstream platform without something pushing it there... A killer Linux
app, or something that would give it some appeal other than the "fun for the
enthusiast or tinkerer" moniker that it gets stuck with now.
It's just too bad... There is so much potential lurking there in Linux,
just waiting to be tapped.
CoinSpin
Tim O
>Strange. I don't reacll crying for 'steam' at all. In fact, I don't have
>the foggiest idea in the world what it is, and, quite frankly, I don't
>give a shit.
Consider yourselves lucky not to have had a run in with our resident
lunatic till now. STEAM is an online game delivery and authentication
system. Its a totally voluntary thing to use, but its existence seems
to have sent him off the deep end.
At this point, he's just trying to suck in anyone he can into the
goofball discussions he creates. He's not quite a troll, since he's on
topic for most forums, but he is 100% asshole.
Benjamin Gawert
>>>>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>>>>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>>>> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>
> By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
> don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
> do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.
No, I'm not talking about eye candy. I'm talking about games that share
gfx, gameplay and controls of mobile phone games from two years ago.
Lots of Linux games are more or less some kind of remake of any ancient
(classic) game from the ATARI/Amiga/DOS aera, and they also look that way.
>>> When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
>>> quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>>> (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
>>> mods, standalone games)
>
> This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
> eye candy is less important to me.
I don't give too much on eye candy, too. But hey, it's 2007, and even
the most crap-ass el-cheapo PC has some kind of 3D gfx. I don't want
some C64 gfx any more. Besides that the gameplay of most Linux games is
just a copy of some old classic. There's rarely something new.
>>>>> thousands more
>>>>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>>>> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>>> Gotta LOL at that. :)
>
> Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
> totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
> DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...
Yeah, how great. I already played them when DOS was current, and the
replay value of even the best games is finite.
Sadly, that's all regarding games on Linux: dozens of copies and remakes
of homecomputer-aera and mobile phone games and ways to play DOS games.
>>>>> and still more which run with varying
>>>>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>>> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>>> Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
>>> the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows.
Sure. People swear a lot if they just believe hard enough. That's what
snake oil is for ;-)
And no, Linux doesn't have a "lower overhead" than Windows. That's just
wish-thinking.
> This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
> be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.
Don't think so. It's not about eye candy but that people aren't appealed
by mobile phone quality games any more, and also not by playing old DOS
games.
> The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
> free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
> and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
> a ton of open-source games, which are the sort most ideologically
> suited to the Linux environment, and of course the sort that run best
> on Linux and have the best support.
That describes the Linux attitude quite well - ignoring the end user
wishes. Another reason why Linux on the desktop hasn't been the
breakthrough it was expected by the Linux community for several years now.
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
Why should that be the case?
> however
> with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
> under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
> the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.
Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.
It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac ;-)
> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
> this worthwhile.
Which "potential performance increase"?
Benjamin
Rex Ballard
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!
>
> STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
Granted, Empire wasn't exactly real-time 3D animation, and it took a
while for hardware to catch up to BZ-Flag, but these are two very good
examples of ways that Linux users have been able to join others in a
"Community Game".
Sure, it's a bit like Jabber or IRC servers. There are directories of
servers offering the game, and the registries are mirrored, which
means that it might take a day or two for a new server to hit the
registry mirror, but once it's online, it's not that hard to find.
Creating collaborative game servers isn't all that difficult. You
have game clients, you have game servers, and you have a registry.
You could use UDDI (a wide-open Standard used in SOA applications for
business), or you could have your client connect to an LDAP server (or
have your LDAP server contact the game server's LDAP server. The
servers register themselves with the registry server, and clients
contact the registry to see which servers have the game they want to
play.
> STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
> STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
> STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
> STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
> STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
> STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
> yet...
STEAM is also a registered trademark.
> YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
> VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
It's certainly their choice to make STEAM a Windows only product. But
then again, there is nothing to stop some college sophomore from
taking the public description of public protocols described in the
paragraph above, create an Open Source registry, and let Linux users
register their game servers. FreeCiv, BZFlag, Poker, or whatever
else, all available for community play.
The games can be implemented using OpenGL code, which means that the
games can be played on Windows, Sony, Nintendo, Linux, and Mac.
Remember that company (Microsoft) who wanted to restrict their search
engine to "Windows Only" users. And this other company (Google)
decided that they would make ANYBODY's content searchable? How did
that turn out?
;-)
If the publisher wants to limit STEAM to "Vista Only" it's their
choice.
Of course, there are risks and consequences to that kind of choice.
FoolsGold
> * waterskidoo:
>
>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>
> Why should that be the case?
>> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> this worthwhile.
>
> Which "potential performance increase"?
I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux install
compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by the
operating system = more of the games, or something like that.
graeme
(snips)
> The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL under
> Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
> companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
> than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.
In the last benchmarks I saw Vista was crucified by XP. Up to a 30% loss
in fps rate. So much for optimising Dx and an "upgrade". Another reason
to give Vista a miss.
> A modern game takes 10s if not hundreds of people to design, write, QA,
> localise and distribute. There is simply no market for games by current
> Linux users unfortunately.
Unfortunately. If a decent Linux native game comes out I buy it. The
game writers more often release server binaries.
Zank Frappa
> It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
> simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!
If you're talking 3D games I'd love to see that myself, u got a link?
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens, the user's experience!
Hmm, I'll give you Windows ME and maybe Vista (too early to tell but it
certainly looks that way right now). Most other versions of Windows
fared ok in that regard.
Hadron
> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
>>> and still more which run with varying
>>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>
>> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>
>
> It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
that most wont run on Linux?
> simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!
Fool. You embarrass yourself and other Linux users.
>
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens, the user's experience!
Only for Linux zealots. Windows is an excellent gaming
platform. Sorry. But its true. And the gaming market seems to back it
up.
http://www.lokigames.com for more details.
Hadron
He would fit in very well in C.O.L.A.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good tirade and a few lies.
Hadron
> On 31 Jul, 19:58, WDS <B...@seurer.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 11:24 am, waterskidoo <water.ski...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform however
>> > with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
>> > under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
>> > the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.
>> > The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> > this worthwhile.
>>
>> The gaming companies don't care a bit about that. They look at one
>> thing, how many copies am I going to sell (i.e., how much money will I
>> rake in) compared to the cost of producing those copies? Right now
>> that is marginal at best for games for Macs and non-existant for
>> Linux. And actually, the action right now is in console games because
>> the money is better.
>
> Yes... Linux home users generally use software that's free (as in
> beer), which is no good to the games software manufacturers. And, as
> has been pointed out many times before (but never by me, until now),
> hardcore gamers generally use consoles for gaming.
Wrong. "Hardcore" gamers use PCs.
Family "platform consoley type games" are generally played on Consoles.
Hadron
> "Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:qhps28e...@googlemail.com...
> | waterskidoo <water....@yahoo.com> writes:
> |
>
> <snip>
>
> |
> | What are these potential performance increases of which you speak?
> |
> | The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL under
> | Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
> | companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
> | than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.
> |
>
> And the last benchmarks I saw showed OpenGL under Linux with some of the new
> unified shader video cards brutalizing DX10 under Vista... But hell,
> that's
DX10? you mean with the almost no games using it and the late drivers?
Yup. Possibly.
> not hard, most games run faster under XP than Vista (unless of course you
> are using proprietary Vista hardware/software combinations not available in
> XP, yah I know, extinguish the flames before they start). The point is that
> MS is releasing bloatware OS packages that keep getting more and more
> bloated, while Linux keeps the overhead minimized...
You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
>
> But most people will never know or care because MS has done a great job of
> cornering the market when it comes to a PC operating system, which means
> that if you want to make money you program towards the platforms with the
> most numbers - consoles and Windows. Can't see Linux ever getting
> through
Good. We agree.
> the chokehold MS has on the market and getting out there as a true
> mainstream platform without something pushing it there... A killer
> Linux
There was a reason. MS worked with the API developers and the HW
manufacturers from day one.
> app, or something that would give it some appeal other than the "fun for the
> enthusiast or tinkerer" moniker that it gets stuck with now.
But who will invest the money? no one will buy it.
>
> It's just too bad... There is so much potential lurking there in Linux,
> just waiting to be tapped.
No doubt. But it missed the boat IMO.
FoolsGold
> <snip>
Another thing I just noticed... why, the FUCK, did you decide to cross
post this in two Linux newsgroups as well? One of them's a fucking
ADVOCACY group for Christ's sake!
No wonder this thread's become bloated with responses. It's as if he's
trolling or something...
Tim O
<chrise...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
>you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
>simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
>specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!
Yea, I'm always astonished by that... Not to see the multiple games
running on a cube, but to find out my favorite games are Penguin
Bowling, Penguin Asteroids, Penguin Pong and a ripoff of Minesweeper,
only with worse graphics.
Linux blows for games, with a capital BLOWS. There was a surge about 4
years ago, but the party is over.
Tim Smith
Benjamin Gawert <bga...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.
It's a particularly bad niche for a games developer, because not only
are they starting with a small market (Linux desktop uses), a rather
vocal component of that market is strongly opposed to any closed source
software, so the game developer (if their game is not open source) will
have to put up with a lot of being badmouthed by people who consider
their presence an affront to the purity of Linux.
> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac ;-)
It definitely is more appealing. Mac users in general don't require
software to pass a religious test before they'll consider it, and have
historically shown themselves willing to buy good software.
--
--Tim Smith
waterskidoo
> * waterskidoo:
>
>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>
> Why should that be the case?
Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.
Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
the kernel. IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.
> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.
Pretty much true. They are making too much money with Windows and
console games.
> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac ;-)
At the moment the Mac seems to have an ever increasing audience due
to the iPod, iPhone etc.
>> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> this worthwhile.
>
> Which "potential performance increase"?
See above.
> Benjamin
waterskidoo
>
> I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux install
> compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by the
> operating system = more of the games, or something like that.
Exactly.
It's 'she' btw :)
WDS
I don't blame the companies. The whole point of a company (well, most
of them) is to make money for their investors. I've love to see
certain games on certain platforms but I would never invest in
them. :-(
Christopher Hunter
> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
> that most wont run on Linux?
They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!
C.
Christopher Hunter
> And no, Linux doesn't have a "lower overhead" than Windows.
Linux has a /much/ lower overhead than Windows - if only because it doesn't
need "anti-virus", "anti-spyware", "anti-trojan", "anti-adware" and all the
rest of the "anti-" crap running all the time.
The fundamental structure of Linux dictates that it is substantially more
efficient than the badly-written spaghetti-code of Windows /ever/ can be.
Don't believe the marketing hype about Vista taking years to "re-write
everything" - that's complete nonsense. Vista was thrown together in under
9 months because Ballmer needed to get /something/ into the marketplace.
It's just XP with added useless eyecandy and "performance" further crippled
by the inclusion of "nag dialogues" to give the illusion of "security" and
ineffective DRM measures that will just annoy legitimate users.
> Another reason why Linux on the desktop hasn't been the
> breakthrough it was expected by the Linux community for several years now.
That might be true where you /live/ but 'round here we have <5% Windows use
in this neighbourhood. There are huge areas of the world where Windows
simply isn't used any more. Americans persist with that crippled
"operating system" out of mistaken patriotism - their government will
probably outlaw any other OS sooner or later...
C.
Benjamin Gawert
>> And no, Linux doesn't have a "lower overhead" than Windows.
>
> Linux has a /much/ lower overhead than Windows -
Nope, it doesn't.
> if only because it doesn't
> need "anti-virus", "anti-spyware", "anti-trojan", "anti-adware" and all the
> rest of the "anti-" crap running all the time.
Yeah, right. As if these programs would be part of the operating system.
But I agree that most of them are crap, especially personal firewalls
are a pure waste of ressources. A good virus scanner is more than enough
if the one using the computer uses at least a minimum of common sense.
> The fundamental structure of Linux dictates that it is substantially more
> efficient than the badly-written spaghetti-code of Windows /ever/ can be.
You obviously never looked at the Linux kernel for example. It got way
better now but not until long ago it was a very nice example of multiple
cooks spoiling the broth.
At work we develop embedded/rugged applications for both Windows and
Linux (and some other OSes, too), and Linux undoubtly has a lot of
advantages in several aeras. However, lower overhead or cleaner code is
definitely not one of them. Most documentation just plain sucks, too.
And regarding games, the Linux gfx drivers are just plain slow compared
to their Windows counterparts. Guess where the majority of optimzation
goes into ;-)
> Don't believe the marketing hype about Vista taking years to "re-write
> everything" - that's complete nonsense. Vista was thrown together in under
> 9 months because Ballmer needed to get /something/ into the marketplace.
> It's just XP with added useless eyecandy and "performance" further crippled
> by the inclusion of "nag dialogues" to give the illusion of "security" and
> ineffective DRM measures that will just annoy legitimate users.
You shouldn't believe anything that some wannabe-experts tell you about
Vista. It's not a complete rewrite but it's much more than just
Windowsxp with added eyecandy. The whole gfx subsystem for example has
been rewritten, GDI for example is dead now. Same is valid for the audio
subsystem and the network stack, too. Then there are other improvements
you never will notice when just looking at the desktop.
If you need that eye candy or not is another story, though. For me the
new look of Vista drags off after some time of useage, I find the
Windowsxp theme much more appealing. However, that is a thing of pure
personal preference and hardly a problem with any somewhat newer (i.e 4
years or younger) PC.
>> Another reason why Linux on the desktop hasn't been the
>> breakthrough it was expected by the Linux community for several years now.
>
> That might be true where you /live/ but 'round here we have <5% Windows use
> in this neighbourhood. There are huge areas of the world where Windows
> simply isn't used any more.
As for example? I can tell you that in mainland Europe (that's where I
live btw, Germany) Windows is still dominating, same for Eastern Europe.
And I'm quite sure that even in the UK Windows still holds the majority
of market share for desktop environments. Linux usually gets less than
10% in this regard.
As to the server market (something where Linux really has it's
strength), Windows Server is gaining market share back from Linux.
And even in those asian countries and 3rd world countries where a
homebrew CD with Windows, Office, and lots of other stuff goes for a few
bucks Windows is also dominant.
> Americans persist with that crippled
> "operating system" out of mistaken patriotism - their government will
> probably outlaw any other OS sooner or later...
As much as I agree about the blind patriotism of a certain part of the
Americans, this has nothing to do with partriotism. It's just a fact
that the majority of applications are available for Windows and not
Linux. And Linux just still lacks in several areas. Just have a look on
how many notebooks run flawlessly with Linux out of the box, with
working power saving features and all hardware supported. You can count
them on one hand. Windows on the other side supports S2R and S2D for
years now. Useability isn't also up on par with Windows and MacOS, and
like with Linux games most free applications are just crap, too. There
are some pearls (like Firefox, Thunderbird, Staroffice etc) but these
are also available for other platforms.
IMHO the reason why Linux is still stagnating is the ignorance of the
Linux community when it comes listening to user wishes. If you tell them
that the need for fiddling around with the command line just to setup
networking or change the gfx driver is just anachronistic you probably
will be beaten to death, it's basically the same like telling an
American that the US is not god's own country. Then there are the inside
wars of the community (i.e. the endless discussion about if closed
source code should be allowed or not), and the lack of organization.
They don't realize that they are just harming themselves.
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI interface.
In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but in an increase
in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects, though.
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
If that would be true. Just install any current distro like
(K/Ed)Ubuntu, SuSE, Redhat, Fedora or whatever. You end up with a
shitload of tools and programs most users never need and want (just name
the usual dozens of text editors, XML parsers and other stuff). KDE and
GNOME are already bloated like hell, too, and you see that on their
performance.
The advantage of Linux is that you *can* do a very lean and
ressource-optimized installation, similar to Damn Small Linux for
example. However, you also loose gfx and sound and other goodies
necessary for a system suitable for gaming.
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
>> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
>> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.
>
> It's a particularly bad niche for a games developer, because not only
> are they starting with a small market (Linux desktop uses), a rather
> vocal component of that market is strongly opposed to any closed source
> software, so the game developer (if their game is not open source) will
> have to put up with a lot of being badmouthed by people who consider
> their presence an affront to the purity of Linux.
Right, that's another problem. I find it ridiculous how the community
attacks gfx vendors like ATI/AMD and Nvidia because they don't want to
open source their drivers. Heck, they (the community) should be happy
that both companies develop for their operating system. Instead, they
are attacking them.
>> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac ;-)
>
> It definitely is more appealing. Mac users in general don't require
> software to pass a religious test before they'll consider it, and have
> historically shown themselves willing to buy good software.
Exactly. BTW: the Mac is still the platform where Shareware/Donationware
is very strong. That's probably why there is a lot of very good
shareware available for it.
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
>>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>> Why should that be the case?
>
> Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.
Nope. Unlike Windows you can tune Linux for using very few ressources
but then it's far from being useable as a gaming platform (or even as a
desktop computer).
> Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
> the kernel.
Same in Windows.
> IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.
In theory a dog can fly if you put a rocket in his arse. But it's still
a dog ;-)
Yes, you can tune Linux (which basically is just the kernel). For gaming
you need much more than the kernel. You need X for example, gfx drivers,
some sound subsystem (but which one?), networking, and a shitload of
libraries and other stuff that all need to be of the correct version to
work together. Talk about DLL hell, eh?
A fully useable Linux installation doesn't consume less resources than
Windows.
>> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac ;-)
>
> At the moment the Mac seems to have an ever increasing audience due
> to the iPod, iPhone etc.
Probably, even when Apple removed the word "Computers" from their name.
But now with the Mac being x86/x64 instead of PowerPC this makes porting
games more easy.
Benjamin
pc games
wrote:
> A main concern in this revolt had something to do with the fact that Linux
> users helped make Steam attractive. As often is the case, contributions come
> from the open source community. It's natural to expect some minimal gesture in
> return (and no, not a middle finger, but a thumbs up).
Are you telling me the Linux community helped in the creation of
STEAM? Helped in the creation of the "Monster"?
That is so disapointing! I though you guys knew better than that...
I see the Linux community as the equivalent of the "French resistence"
in WWII and did you ever saw the "French resistence" helping the Third
Reich?
And from Valve you will only get the middle finger to those that are
not SHEEP OBEYING SUBMISSIVE FOLLOWERS, but I will not take the insult
and shut-up, you bet I'll retribute the "compliment" as I'm doing
since November 2004, so this is specially for you Valve, FUCK YOU!
YEAH FUCK YOU TOO!
Benjamin Gawert
>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>> that most wont run on Linux?
>
> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
You have any benchmarks from a somewhat reputable source to back that
up? Because my experience is just the opposite. *If* a game runs under
Cedega or Wine the performance was always far from that when running
under Windows on the same system.
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!
I know several hardcore Linux users that say the same about any new
Linux distribution that comes out (due to the bloat of KDE and GNOME but
also the bloat of the OS installation itself).
Benjamin
FoolsGold
> * FoolsGold:
>
>>>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>>>
>>> Why should that be the case?
>>
>>>> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>>>> this worthwhile.
>>>
>>> Which "potential performance increase"?
>>
>> I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux
>> install compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by
>> the operating system = more of the games, or something like that.
>
> If that would be true. Just install any current distro like
> (K/Ed)Ubuntu, SuSE, Redhat, Fedora or whatever. You end up with a
> shitload of tools and programs most users never need and want (just name
> the usual dozens of text editors, XML parsers and other stuff). KDE and
> GNOME are already bloated like hell, too, and you see that on their
> performance.
Well all the extra stuff you mentioned, stuff like a truckload of text
editors and shit, it's not like that stuff is loaded on startup is it?
They merely take up disk space; they're not normally running when you're
trying to run a game. In terms of the services (or daemons I suppose),
the system programs running when you're playing a game, THAT'S where the
overhead is measured, which is generally smaller in Linux, generally.
> The advantage of Linux is that you *can* do a very lean and
> ressource-optimized installation, similar to Damn Small Linux for
> example. However, you also loose gfx and sound and other goodies
> necessary for a system suitable for gaming.
Wha? All you need are the necessary GL drivers, probably some SDL libs
and you're pretty much good to go. What else do you need for gaming?
>
> Benjamin
graeme
Crap. Where have you been the past 6 months? Almost across the board
games on Vista are slower,
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.htmlart=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
graeme
Vista _is_ DX10.
magnate
> magnate <chr...@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> FoolsGold <f...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> >> >> * magnate:
>
> >> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> >> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>
> >> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>
> > By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
> > don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
> > do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.
>
> No. The majority are plain crap. Don't play the eye candy line.
It's a valid line, since it's the most significant difference between
gaming on Windows and gaming on Linux - as you yourself acknowledge
below.
> There are some good ones of course - well, ok ones, but dated. The best
> action games being from ID and Epic.
Ok, at least we've met at some point.
> >> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
> >> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>
> >> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
> >> > mods, standalone games)
>
> > This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
> > eye candy is less important to me.
>
> What strategy games do you play? Loki ported Alpha Centauri and went bust.
I never really got into SMAC, though it has tremendous potential. The
mind control exploit spoiled it slightly for me (and I have an
annoying tendency to reload when I lose a battle, which is very bad).
My favourite strategy games are Dominions 2/3, MoO 1/2, MoM,
VGAPlanets 3. I'm also a big fan of roguelikes, which are more
tactical.
> >> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
> >> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>
> > The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
> > about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
> > version is neither here nor there.
>
> Not many. Sorry.
Here we agree - not many modern, commercial games run well under
Linux.
> >> >>> thousands more
> >> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>
> >> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>
> >> > Gotta LOL at that. :)
>
> > Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
>
> Pretty much. People stopped developing DOS games eons ago. Games
> developed for DOS are pretty rubbish by todays standards. There are a
> few exceptions but not many.
No, there are lots of exceptions. Just because a game runs in DOS and
therefore has limited graphics does not necessarily mean it's not fun
to play.
> > totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
> > DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...
>
> Yes, all very old and "been there done that". All very good in their
> day.
The fact that you've played all these games is a much more valid
reason for not liking them anymore than simply saying "they run in
DOS, they must be crap".
Personally I haven't had much time to play all the games out there
(and I spent a lot of time playing the ones I did get into), so I'm
very happy firing up a classic DOS game like Jagged Alliance or
Fallout2 or Machiavelli the Prince, because I never played it before.
My guess is that there are more people like me, who haven't played a
lot of these great games, than like you, who have played them all and
are no longer able to be entertained by them. Of course, it's not in
the interests of games companies to point this out.
> > This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
> > be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.
>
> Steam is nothing to do with eye candy.
Except insofar as it is a vehicle to deliver "modern" games, which
major on eye candy.
> >> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
> >> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
> >> are.
>
> > Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
> > measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.
>
> It's a measure. And pretty sad that you even think to deny that the
> advances in graphics have added a total new dimension to gaming. or are
> you one of these nerd types who can "picture the dungeon in your head"
> and plays D&D with the computer rolling the dice?
So you acknowledge that (in your view) advances in graphics are a key
element of modern gaming. You don't have to be a nerd to be easygoing
about eye candy. Sure, it looks nice, but it's way down the list of
what makes a great game for me.
> "Here" being COLA.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the acronym COLA. What is it?
> > The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
>
> No : it does. As people of all ages like to play games -whether flight
> sims or fps or strategy or rpg or ....
No, it doesn't. It only "needs" to attract games companies if you
think that Linux "needs" to attract people who play modern eye-candy
games. Where is the need? Where is the published corporate strategy
for Linux which says it needs to grow in that particular market? Er,
it doesn't exist. Linux doesn't *need* to do anything. It grows in the
way its community wants it to grow. If that's in crap remakes of
classic board games, that's what people want.
> > free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
> > and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
>
> Why? So you admit Linux users do not pay for SW? A lot of people will be
> pissed off to hear that as they consider releasing commercial ports of
> the SW. Whoops. Another bit of crap advocacy.
Well, I can't speak for a majority of Linux users, but a lot of users
I know use it precisely because it is free in both senses. Those type
of users would not be interested in putting copy-protected software
onto their system. I'm sure there is a whole other user base who would
be happy to install and pay for commercial software, as RedHat have
proved.
> > Hadron wrote:
> >>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
> >>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.
>
> > Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
> > delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
> > most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
> > need "SW protection" because the software is free.
>
> You clearly have no idea of the real meaning of OSS. OSS is not
> necessarily "free" as in "free beer". Go read up on it.
Odd that you should say that, when my previous post used both "gratis"
and "libre". Perhaps you don't understand non-English words.
> >>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
> >>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
> >>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
>
> > Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.
>
> It is if you like gaming. Which clearly you don't as you appear to know
> sweet fuck all about gaming, graphics, standards, cross platform games,
> delivery systems, OSS games, and quality levels of modern releases.
Ooh diddums, teddy left the pram here, didn't he?
Benjamin Gawert
>> If that would be true. Just install any current distro like
>> (K/Ed)Ubuntu, SuSE, Redhat, Fedora or whatever. You end up with a
>> shitload of tools and programs most users never need and want (just
>> name the usual dozens of text editors, XML parsers and other stuff).
>> KDE and GNOME are already bloated like hell, too, and you see that on
>> their performance.
>
> Well all the extra stuff you mentioned, stuff like a truckload of text
> editors and shit, it's not like that stuff is loaded on startup is it?
No. But it takes up disk space.
> They merely take up disk space; they're not normally running when you're
> trying to run a game. In terms of the services (or daemons I suppose),
> the system programs running when you're playing a game, THAT'S where the
> overhead is measured, which is generally smaller in Linux, generally.
Not really. Just install any Linux distro and then have a look on what
services are running in the background. You'd be surprised.
>> The advantage of Linux is that you *can* do a very lean and
>> ressource-optimized installation, similar to Damn Small Linux for
>> example. However, you also loose gfx and sound and other goodies
>> necessary for a system suitable for gaming.
>
> Wha? All you need are the necessary GL drivers, probably some SDL libs
> and you're pretty much good to go. What else do you need for gaming?
X11 for example?
And how about networking (if you want to play multiplayer games)? That
means the complete network stack.
And that's just what instantaneous came to mind.
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
>>> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up
>>> the security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of
>>> performance.
>> BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI
>> interface. In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance
>> but in an increase in performance. It doesn't offer any new
>> effects, though.
>>
>> Benjamin
>
> Crap. Where have you been the past 6 months? Almost across the board
> games on Vista are slower,
Right. And that says exactly *what* about DX10? Yes, nothing.
Of course it's not that the Vista gfx drivers still lack the amount of
optimization that the XP drivers do have. And it's not that the
completely new architecture of DX10 hardware (AMD Radeon 2xxx and
Geforce 8) lacks the driver optimization that the drivers for the older
(conventional) gfx cards got over the last 8 years or so. And of course
it's not possible that Vista still needs enhancements that will help
overall performance, something which Windowsxp already got in the now
almost 6 years it's out.
Of course all this is just unimportant. The only reason why games are
slower in Vista than in XP must be DirectX 10. Yeah, right. Get a clue.
> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.htmlart=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
"URL not found"
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
> Follow up:
>
> Vista _is_ DX10.
BS. Vista is an OS, DX10 is a collection of standardized APIs. Apples
and oranges.
Benjamin
Hadron
It doesn't really work like that. Most games playing XP machines are
dedicated and don't run web servers, databases etc.
XP really does give the machine over to the game.
As for the comments about preemptive multitasking etc, it really doesn't
make much difference whatsoever since people who play fast FPS (which
are generally still single threaded anyway) simply don't run other
things in the bg.
No doubt Linux is better designed - but as far as games players go its a
big "shrug - runs faster and more reliably on XP". Wine and CEDEGA can
work but more often than not its a real pain in the butt to get them
working.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>> that most wont run on Linux?
>
> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
No. Some do. And no they dont run better at all. There is some claims
that disk bound games run smoother - I can believe that. But please dont
claim that the DirectX emulator runs faster than the native calls
because it simply is not true - especially at the latest DX versions.
>
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!
Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Or are you just another
ignorant fan boy making things up as you go along?
Hadron
DX10 is slower. I also pointed a lot of it is down to immature
drivers. Some is down to the architectural changes which were necessary
to keep stuff away from the inner rings of the OS.
Hadron
> On Jul 31, 3:30 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> magnate <chr...@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> > On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> FoolsGold <f...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>> >> >> * magnate:
>>
>> >> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>> >> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>>
>> >> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>>
>> > By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
>> > don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
>> > do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.
>>
>> No. The majority are plain crap. Don't play the eye candy line.
>
> It's a valid line, since it's the most significant difference between
> gaming on Windows and gaming on Linux - as you yourself acknowledge
> below.
I acknowledge no such thing. I said eye candy isnt everything. But
modern games tend to come with eye candy and substance, Its called
survival of the fittest. There is simply no need to port to Linux
because the denizens of places like COLA would never buy games for a
start. Hell, they probably don't buy their own burritos.
>
>> There are some good ones of course - well, ok ones, but dated. The best
>> action games being from ID and Epic.
>
> Ok, at least we've met at some point.
>
>> >> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
>> >> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>>
>> >> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
>> >> > mods, standalone games)
>>
>> > This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
>> > eye candy is less important to me.
>>
>> What strategy games do you play? Loki ported Alpha Centauri and went bust.
>
> I never really got into SMAC, though it has tremendous potential. The
> mind control exploit spoiled it slightly for me (and I have an
> annoying tendency to reload when I lose a battle, which is very bad).
>
> My favourite strategy games are Dominions 2/3, MoO 1/2, MoM,
> VGAPlanets 3. I'm also a big fan of roguelikes, which are more
> tactical.
>
>> >> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
>> >> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>>
>> > The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
>> > about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
>> > version is neither here nor there.
>>
>> Not many. Sorry.
>
> Here we agree - not many modern, commercial games run well under
> Linux.
Good.
>
>> >> >>> thousands more
>> >> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>>
>> >> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>>
>> >> > Gotta LOL at that. :)
>>
>> > Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
>>
>> Pretty much. People stopped developing DOS games eons ago. Games
>> developed for DOS are pretty rubbish by todays standards. There are a
>> few exceptions but not many.
>
> No, there are lots of exceptions. Just because a game runs in DOS and
> therefore has limited graphics does not necessarily mean it's not fun
> to play.
There's a good chance if you have any familiarity with gaming
trends. DOS games were fun in DOS days. Now most are simply a laughable
retro trip. Similar to 70s haircuts.
>
>> > totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
>> > DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...
>>
>> Yes, all very old and "been there done that". All very good in their
>> day.
>
> The fact that you've played all these games is a much more valid
> reason for not liking them anymore than simply saying "they run in
> DOS, they must be crap".
I never said they "must be crap". I said most are when judged by todays
standards.
>
> Personally I haven't had much time to play all the games out there
> (and I spent a lot of time playing the ones I did get into), so I'm
> very happy firing up a classic DOS game like Jagged Alliance or
> Fallout2 or Machiavelli the Prince, because I never played it before.
>
> My guess is that there are more people like me, who haven't played a
> lot of these great games, than like you, who have played them all and
> are no longer able to be entertained by them. Of course, it's not in
> the interests of games companies to point this out.
Or to target Linux of the majority are like you and are happy to play
last decades standard.
>
>> > This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
>> > be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.
>>
>> Steam is nothing to do with eye candy.
>
> Except insofar as it is a vehicle to deliver "modern" games, which
> major on eye candy.
So you agree. Nothing to do with eye candy at all.
>
>> >> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
>> >> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
>> >> are.
>>
>> > Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
>> > measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.
>>
>> It's a measure. And pretty sad that you even think to deny that the
>> advances in graphics have added a total new dimension to gaming. or are
>> you one of these nerd types who can "picture the dungeon in your head"
>> and plays D&D with the computer rolling the dice?
>
> So you acknowledge that (in your view) advances in graphics are a key
> element of modern gaming. You don't have to be a nerd to be easygoing
> about eye candy. Sure, it looks nice, but it's way down the list of
> what makes a great game for me.
You seem to be intent in twisting what I said. I said eye candy advances
are a key element in modern gaming. There are other key elements. Like
surround sound, depth of gameplay, rendering speed, etc etc etc etc.
Most old games that will play on Linux are pretty poor in comparison to
the more modern crop.
>
>> "Here" being COLA.
>
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the acronym COLA. What is it?
Comp.Os.Linux.Advocacy
>
>> > The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
>>
>> No : it does. As people of all ages like to play games -whether flight
>> sims or fps or strategy or rpg or ....
>
> No, it doesn't. It only "needs" to attract games companies if you
> think that Linux "needs" to attract people who play modern eye-candy
> games. Where is the need? Where is the published corporate strategy
> for Linux which says it needs to grow in that particular market? Er,
> it doesn't exist. Linux doesn't *need* to do anything. It grows in the
> way its community wants it to grow. If that's in crap remakes of
> classic board games, that's what people want.
But it hasn't been growing very well I am afraid. The home market is
massive. Of course it would benefit Linux to crack that.
>
>> > free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
>> > and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
>>
>> Why? So you admit Linux users do not pay for SW? A lot of people will be
>> pissed off to hear that as they consider releasing commercial ports of
>> the SW. Whoops. Another bit of crap advocacy.
>
> Well, I can't speak for a majority of Linux users, but a lot of users
> I know use it precisely because it is free in both senses. Those type
> of users would not be interested in putting copy-protected software
> onto their system. I'm sure there is a whole other user base who would
> be happy to install and pay for commercial software, as RedHat have
> proved.
Not very well.
>
>> > Hadron wrote:
>> >>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
>> >>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.
>>
>> > Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
>> > delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
>> > most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
>> > need "SW protection" because the software is free.
>>
>> You clearly have no idea of the real meaning of OSS. OSS is not
>> necessarily "free" as in "free beer". Go read up on it.
>
> Odd that you should say that, when my previous post used both "gratis"
> and "libre". Perhaps you don't understand non-English words.
Perhaps. Good chance.
>
>> >>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
>> >>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
>> >>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
>>
>> > Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.
>>
>> It is if you like gaming. Which clearly you don't as you appear to know
>> sweet fuck all about gaming, graphics, standards, cross platform games,
>> delivery systems, OSS games, and quality levels of modern releases.
>
> Ooh diddums, teddy left the pram here, didn't he?
>
As I said : you are happy to play old stuff. Fine. Most people aren't as
they have been there and done that. Your ability to be easily amused
with yesterdays left overs means you really shouldn't be commenting on
modern games or modern trends for Linux since you clearly are happy to
stay in "yesterday".
Davorin Vlahovic
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>> that most wont run on Linux?
>
> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
facilities.
--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
Hadron
> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrise...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>
>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>
> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
calls. m'kay? This has been done to death with.
> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
> facilities.
Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't. The in
between DLL emulates what it thinks the win32 api would do with the
passed parameters. Its why it needs to be changed so soften as yet
another "state" of the win32 is discovered not to be covered in the
emulation layer.
And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
CoinSpin
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e7d4y8c...@googlemail.com...
| "CoinSpin" <coin^spam^sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
|
| > "Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
| > news:qhps28e...@googlemail.com...
| > | waterskidoo <water....@yahoo.com> writes:
| > |
| >
| > <snip>
| >
| > |
| > | What are these potential performance increases of which you speak?
| > |
| > | The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL
under
| > | Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
| > | companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
| > | than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.
| > |
| >
| > And the last benchmarks I saw showed OpenGL under Linux with some of the
new
| > unified shader video cards brutalizing DX10 under Vista... But hell,
| > that's
|
| DX10? you mean with the almost no games using it and the late drivers?
| Yup. Possibly.
|
| > not hard, most games run faster under XP than Vista (unless of course
you
| > are using proprietary Vista hardware/software combinations not available
in
| > XP, yah I know, extinguish the flames before they start). The point is
that
| > MS is releasing bloatware OS packages that keep getting more and more
| > bloated, while Linux keeps the overhead minimized...
|
| You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
| security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
|
Oh, believe me, I am wellllllll versed in DX10... I wasn't getting into the
nitpicking details there, but in essence you are correct - they redesigned
the pipelines to remove alot of the weird specialization that had been
kludged together over the years in the DX APIs, to take a cleaner and more
pure approach with the unified shader architecture... In theory, this would
allow graphics card manufacturers to concentrate on just creating cards with
killer graphics pipelines, and not have to worry about all of the little odd
kernels and modes that had to be supported for all the previous DX models.
This was why MS made a break and essentially "started over from scratch"
with DX10, which was both applauded (finally MS is doing the OPPOSITE of
bloatware and refining a process) and despised (backwards compatibility was
compromised for the sake of advancement).
The point I was making before was that the brand new DX10-based video cards
are built to run fastest in a true DX10 environment which takes advantage of
their new architecture... Even with the crappy state of driver support in
Vista, it still can have an advantage over a platform like Linux which has
nothing but generic baseline drivers to work with those cards until
something better is put together - but if you did your best to compare
apples to apples between the 2 operating systems on identical hardware,
Linux would have an advantage because there is much less housekeeping to
distract the system from what it's supposed to be doing at the moment. The
problem is you can't really compare apples to apples in this case,
particularly if you start looking at Vista (and DX10) optimized hardware &
software combinations, which will work the video side of the mix alot harder
and end up minimizing the relative differences that the actual background OS
makes in performance.
CoinSpin
Xocyll
reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
the signs say:
>Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
>> And no, Linux doesn't have a "lower overhead" than Windows.
>
>Linux has a /much/ lower overhead than Windows - if only because it doesn't
>need "anti-virus", "anti-spyware", "anti-trojan", "anti-adware" and all the
>rest of the "anti-" crap running all the time.
Er, neither does Windows if it's being run by any halfway competent
person. Yes I realize that's probably a minority of windows users, but
it's still true.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Roy Schestowitz
That's a spirit... but I think it'll just annoy them if you adopt this
attitude, rather than be polite.
--
~~ Best of wishes
In an Open world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates? -- ??
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 27.1%us, 4.5%sy, 1.0%ni, 62.8%id, 4.2%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
Gerry Quinn
coin^spam^sp...@hotmail.com says...
> The point I was making before was that the brand new DX10-based video cards
> are built to run fastest in a true DX10 environment which takes advantage of
> their new architecture... Even with the crappy state of driver support in
> Vista, it still can have an advantage over a platform like Linux which has
> nothing but generic baseline drivers to work with those cards until
> something better is put together - but if you did your best to compare
> apples to apples between the 2 operating systems on identical hardware,
> Linux would have an advantage because there is much less housekeeping to
> distract the system from what it's supposed to be doing at the moment. The
> problem is you can't really compare apples to apples in this case,
> particularly if you start looking at Vista (and DX10) optimized hardware &
> software combinations, which will work the video side of the mix alot harder
> and end up minimizing the relative differences that the actual background OS
> makes in performance.
And "much less housework" doesn't necessarily mean anything, if in both
cases it is still only an insignificant amount of RAM and CPU time,
neither of which are necessarily bottlenecks anyway in any particular
game.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
emaila...@nomailthanks.com says...
> Christopher Hunter wrote:
> > It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> > you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
> > simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> > specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!
>
> If you're talking 3D games I'd love to see that myself, u got a link?
Of course he doesn't. Look at the newsgroups list - he obviously comes
from the morons' one.
- Gerry Quinn
Davorin Vlahovic
> Davorin Vlahovic <nr...@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>
>> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrise...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>>
>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>>
>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>
> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
> calls. m'kay?
No.
>> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
>> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
>> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
>> facilities.
>
> Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
> win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't.
Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
execution - only the system calls are intercepted.
> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
> myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
Softies :)
Anyway, even if someone is a wine developer it doesn't have to mean that
he/she (ok, who am I kidding - he) knows what an emulator is.
The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
"transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
calls).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_2000_architecture.svg
Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.
Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management) so for a
win32 app it doesn't really matter what kind of kernel is behind the
win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux :) But in that case it
doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
it as an environment subsystem on Linux.
Hadron
> On 2007-08-01, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Davorin Vlahovic <nr...@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>>
>>> On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrise...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
>>>>> that most wont run on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
>>>> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
>>>
>>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>>
>> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
>> calls. m'kay?
>
> No.
is that all you have?
>
>>> That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
>>> drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
>>> the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
>>> facilities.
>>
>> Sorry? Do you believe for ONE minute that the built in calls to external
>> win32 have exact equivalents on the host? Well, they don't.
>
> Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
> sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
> mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
> execution - only the system calls are intercepted.
No most of them do not have it. The entire state and flag set are
different. Screen handling? Are you joking? They have totally different
APIs. Ditto for sound.
Sure the opcodes are not emulated. But "Emulation" means a lot mode than
that.
>> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
>> myth. And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
>> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>
> Softies :)
>
> Anyway, even if someone is a wine developer it doesn't have to mean that
> he/she (ok, who am I kidding - he) knows what an emulator is.
Oh please. You have one meaning. There are others.
>
> The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
> it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
> "transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
> calls).
No. Thats not how I am thinking of it.
The system calls are intercepted and WINE emulates what the equivalent
win32 code would do. What is so hard for you to understand here?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_2000_architecture.svg
>
> Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.
So?
>
> Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management) so for a
> win32 app it doesn't really matter what kind of kernel is behind the
??????????????????
> win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux :) But in that case it
> doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
> it as an environment subsystem on Linux.
What *are* you talking about?
I think you should go back and start from scratch and you seem to be
scratching around in the dark.
Just FYI:
The programs are windows code.
They call system calls/win32 : these are intercepted.
At this stage WINE pretends to be the win32/system APIs in Windows. It
*emulates* what the windows code would do - it doesn't know what the
windows code really does other than the usual reverse engineering.
And before you embarrass yourself as much as Spike1 and some others did:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/
Tim O
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>That's a spirit... but I think it'll just annoy them if you adopt this
>attitude, rather than be polite.
Thanks for the chuckle. Obviously coming from someone who hasn't had a
lot of experience with the mental patient known as PCGames.
Saying your anaylisis is correct would be the understatement of the
month.
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> A main concern in this revolt had something to do with the fact that Linux
> users helped make Steam attractive. As often is the case, contributions come
> from the open source community. It's natural to expect some minimal gesture in
> return (and no, not a middle finger, but a thumbs up).
Linux users made a Windows-only distribution system with DRM
attractive??? The open source community contributed to building it???
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Christopher Hunter <chrise...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
> > that most wont run on Linux?
>
> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
> many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.
That's great in theory, but falls apart when you try to put it into
practice.
For non-MMORPGs, what you find in practice is that by the time the game
comes out, and Wine gets updates to handle it, and it finally plays
well--its an old game and your friends have all finished it and gone on
to something else. That's annoying.
For MMORPGs, at least, by the time they work in Wine, your friends are
probably still playing--50 levels higher than you. But by then, people
will know how to quickly powerlevel, so they can get you up to where you
can play with them.
That's better than the non-MMORPG case, but still not good, because you
miss out on the early days of the game. An MMORPG has a completely
different feel when it is new, when no one is high level, and no one has
been far outside the cities, and no one has figured out the formulas
behind the combat system and magic system, etc..
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Davorin Vlahovic <nr...@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote:
> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
(Pedantic mode on)
Actually, it is an emulator. If you go back and check out old versions
of the Wine documentation, and follow them forward, you can find the
interesting story behind that.
Originally, WINE stood for "WINdows Emulator". That was in the official
documentation for every release. It was that way for quite a while.
When Microsoft was trying to get a trademark on "Windows", there was
some concern among the developers that they might get in trouble over
the name. That's when someone came up with the idea of WINE meaning
"Wine Is Not an Emulator". However, that didn't go anywhere. The
official documentation continued to say WINE stood for "WINdows
Emulator".
It continued this way for a long time. Eventually, the official
documentation changed to say that WINE was either "WINdows Emulator" or
"Wine Is Not an Emulator", and told the reader to use whichever the
reader preferred.
What finally got them to drop the emulator part was concern that it
would mislead some people into thinking that WINE was a *hardware*
emulator. When most people think of emulators, they think of things
like Bochs, when emulator the hardware of one CPU on another. These
emulators are usually very slow. If people thought of WINE as an
emulator, they'd think that it must therefore be very slow, and avoid it.
So, for what would be called market positioning reasons in a commercial
product, they stopped *calling* it an emulator.
However, it is important to note that throughout all this, there was no
change in how it actually worked. It was an emulator before the
documentation change, and so it remained an emulator afterwards, and
still is to this day.
--
--Tim Smith
Benjamin Gawert
> Yea, I'm always astonished by that... Not to see the multiple games
> running on a cube, but to find out my favorite games are Penguin
> Bowling, Penguin Asteroids, Penguin Pong and a ripoff of Minesweeper,
> only with worse graphics.
Hey, you forgot the top game of 2006: Tux Racer ;-)
Benjamin
waterskidoo
> * Tim Smith:
>>> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
>>> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.
>>
>> It's a particularly bad niche for a games developer, because not only
>> are they starting with a small market (Linux desktop uses), a rather
>> vocal component of that market is strongly opposed to any closed source
>> software, so the game developer (if their game is not open source) will
>> have to put up with a lot of being badmouthed by people who consider
>> their presence an affront to the purity of Linux.
>
> Right, that's another problem. I find it ridiculous how the community
> attacks gfx vendors like ATI/AMD and Nvidia because they don't want to
> open source their drivers. Heck, they (the community) should be happy
> that both companies develop for their operating system. Instead, they
> are attacking them.
There are different philosophies WRT to Linux and Linux systems.
Some people are purists and want complete Open Source software and
will not acknowledge closed source at all.
I respect the opinions of these people and although I wish that
it were like that I realize it is not and might never be.
However, without people like that, it will never stand a chance
of happening so like I said I do appreciate and respect their
efforts. As for me, if it's Linux that's all I care about.
I use Windows as well (XP) and respect OSX too.
I use what works for me in a particular application.
Most times it's Linux, but sometimes Windows is the only
solution.
Davorin Vlahovic
>>>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>>>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>>>
>>> Wine *is* an emulator in that it *emulates* the equivalent win32 API
>>> calls. m'kay?
>>
>> No.
>
> is that all you have?
No, thought you'd have scanned through the whole post before answering
it. Guess I was wrong.
>> Most of them have it. Ie. reading the contents of a file or a directory,
>> sending/receiving data over the net, screen handling, etc, etc. Not to
>> mention _not_ emulating the execution unit (CPU) for opcode
>> execution - only the system calls are intercepted.
>
> No most of them do not have it. The entire state and flag set are
> different. Screen handling? Are you joking? They have totally different
> APIs. Ditto for sound.
Because of different APIs there is a need to rework the way of calling
the targeting system's APIs through win APIs but the principles stay the
same - catch an event, draw border, move window, fill background,
repaint...
> Sure the opcodes are not emulated. But "Emulation" means a lot mode than
> that.
The thing is not a lot is being "emulated". There's just a relativly
thin layer that glues together many things. GDI? Part of Xlib.
Direct3D? OpenGL. DirectSound? ALSA.
>> The way you're thinking about it, windows is a windows emulator because
>> it all gets intercepted sooner or later by the win32api subsystem that
>> "transcribes" the calls into nt api calls (see the ntdll.dll and the nt*
>> calls).
>
> No. Thats not how I am thinking of it.
Well, I'm not clairvoyant. But, never the less, my point stands even if
it's not the way you're thinking of it.
> The system calls are intercepted and WINE emulates what the equivalent
> win32 code would do. What is so hard for you to understand here?
Suppose you're right. What is Xlib then? Is it an emulation? Because,
you know, it catches some API calls and transcribes them to X Window
System protocol.
Let's go a step further - what is GTK/Qt? It too catches some API calls
and transcribes them to Xlib/X Window System protocol.
Is GTK or Qt also emulation?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_2000_architecture.svg
>>
>> Take a good look at environment subsystems part of the diagram.
>
> So?
So tell me the diff between Win32 subsystem on windows and WINE on
Linux. As far as I can see, these two things do the same work. Using
your definition Win32 apps aren't native on windows either.
>> win32 subsystem. It might as well be Linux :) But in that case it
>> doesn't mean it's an emulation. Which in this case it is not. Think of
>> it as an environment subsystem on Linux.
>
> What *are* you talking about?
>
> I think you should go back and start from scratch and you seem to be
> scratching around in the dark.
I'm ok where I am, thank you very much.
> Just FYI:
>
> The programs are windows code.
No, those programs are x86 32bit protected mode code, executed the same
way it would be executed on any x86 CPU in protected mode.
> They call system calls/win32 : these are intercepted.
System calls? No, win32 _subsystem_ calls :) Windows has around 200
system calls, but only about 20 are documented.
What you're thinking of are library calls, just like printf is a libc
library call. They do exactly the same things WINE does.
> At this stage WINE pretends to be the win32/system APIs in Windows. It
> *emulates* what the windows code would do - it doesn't know what the
> windows code really does other than the usual reverse engineering.
So, at what stage Xlib starts pretending to be a X Window System protocol
API?
> And before you embarrass yourself as much as Spike1 and some others did:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/
Couldn't care less.
Davorin Vlahovic
> In article <slrnfb0qse...@afrodita.home.lan>,
> Davorin Vlahovic <nr...@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote:
>> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
>> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?
>
> (Pedantic mode on)
>
> Actually, it is an emulator.
Actually, I guess we have a "row" over what is exactly an emulator :)
IMHO, ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html) would be a
Windows emulator/implementation, but Wine would not. Wine could be a
part of an emulator, but it's not emulator as it is.
At best it's a compatibility layer.
Christopher Hunter
> Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management)
No. It's predominantly ancient spaghetti code which nobody at Redmond
actually understands any more. Any modularity is purely accidental!
Windows is an unmaintainable mess, and the sooner it's junked and replaced
with a proper OS kernel, with a proper scheduler, proper memory management,
truly coherent code and developer base that actually cares about the
product, the sooner Microsoft can release a working product.
C.
Christopher Hunter
> Windows has around 200 system calls, but only about 20 are documented.
19 of those 20 are incorrectly or inaccurately documented, and 199 out of
the 200 don't work properly.
Actually, my /cheat/ /sheet/ shows 211 system calls.
C.
Ivan Marsh
I wonder how much VMS code is still being used in Vista.
Ivan Marsh
> And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
> myth.
Uh... no, it's not. Wine does in fact stand for "Wine Is Not An Emulator"
because Wine is not an emulator.
> And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to
> it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:
"Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running Windows
applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating systems.
Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs would, running
without the performance or memory usage penalties of an emulator, with a
similar look and feel to other applications on your desktop."
From the Wine FAQ:
"Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?
They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original name
for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there really is no
point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so please use the simpler,
current name of the project: Wine. It's what we use."
Davorin Vlahovic
>
>> Windows are of modular design (wasted by lousy management)
>
> No. It's predominantly ancient spaghetti code which nobody at Redmond
> actually understands any more. Any modularity is purely accidental!
Modularity is a side-effect of having an almost-microkernel kernel :)
> Windows is an unmaintainable mess, and the sooner it's junked and replaced
> with a proper OS kernel, with a proper scheduler, proper memory management,
> truly coherent code and developer base that actually cares about the
> product, the sooner Microsoft can release a working product.
Actually, NT kernel is (compared to other parts of the OS) pretty solid.
Thufir
> A fully useable Linux installation doesn't consume less resources than
> Windows.
Perhaps. I know that with Linux if I overload the memory with too many
apps doing too many thing and manage to freeze gnome, which I do from
time to time, I can generally ctrl-alt-backspace and just re-login. In
windows, it would be ctrl-alt-delete to restart.
In my experience, windows desktops are not nearly as reliable as Linux.
In Linux, it's easier to run different apps on different desktops. I
haven't seen Vista, but imagine that Microsoft is trying to go that route
but doesn't want to appear like the idea of multiple desktops didn't
originate with them.
So, Linux consumes less of my resources, or at least allows me to better
manage my resources (primarily time).
-Thufir
Christopher Hunter
>> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
>> actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!
>
> Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Or are you just another
> ignorant fan boy making things up as you go along?
I'm certainly /not/ ignorant, having worked for a couple of major software
corporations in the USA (they have no real native talent so had to import
us Europeans).
For your benefit - from one who was there - "Vista" was thrown together from
the mess of XP in about 7 months. All the years of "Longhorn" development
were scrapped, along with WinFS (which was the *only* truly original piece
of code *ever* created inside Microsoft).
"Aero" had been lying around for about 4 years, and Ballmer loved it, so it
had to be tacked on. MS is doing some major deals with film companies, so
they had to include DRM. The DRM screws with the DX10 calls, so the
performance of DX10 is abysmal under Vista.
The poor suckers who bought Vista or Vista-installed machines are returning
them in droves - it simply doesn't work properly. You can't even play a
DVD in proper resolution with Vista. It's susceptible to almost /any/
virus. Even some of the ancient ones (like CIH) are returning and
corrupting BIOSes after a few boots.
OEMs are howling at MS because they can't sell their "uprated" machines
designed to handle Vista.
Microsoft's "best ever operating system" has proven to be a disaster, and is
unlikely to be fixed any time soon - Redmond are already calling it ME2 and
looking towards the next product!
C.
Christopher Hunter
> Look at the newsgroups list - he obviously comes
> from the morons' one.
That's rich, coming from a thick mick.
Christopher Hunter
> A fully useable Linux installation doesn't consume less resources than
> Windows.
Entirely wrong - by about 45% in the case of XP and 85% in the case of
"Vista". Comparing the two OSs on the same hardware is /very/
illuminating. Linux is often an order of magnitude faster than Windows,
task for task.
BTW - Vista is the most incredibly bloated piece of crapware you'll ever see
(if you were ever allowed to see the source). It's written by a bunch of
"programmers" that think Visual Basic is a programming language!
C.
Christopher Hunter
> * Hadron:
>
>> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
>> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.
>
> BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI interface.
> In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but in an increase
> in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects, though.
DX10 is just there to allow the Vista DRM to work. It has terrible speed
issues.
C.
Christopher Hunter
> Of course it's not that the Vista gfx drivers still lack the amount of
> optimization that the XP drivers do have.
Nope. You've missed the point. DX10 was purely written to allow the Vista
DRM to work (sort of - like any MS product). The Vista drivers are
crippled by the DRM layer that they have to contend with. That, and the
abysmal sched design.
C.