Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!

waterskidoo wrote:

> 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.

uh huh. And "in theory" Linux should be on everyone's computer, 'cause
according to Linux bozos it runs rings around Windows. In reality... well,
just open your eyes.



>> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> this worthwhile.

A solid decade of wasted "Linux potential" is getting real old.

I notice in cola la-la land that Linux always wins in the future, always has
the potential to best Windows, is in theory better than Windows, is a better
gaming platform, etc. Outside of cola these claims have NEVER happened.

On 2007-07-31, FoolsGold <fg DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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

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.

It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!

C.

In article <7105286.L3gu0H6RGb RemoveThis @schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups RemoveThis @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

In article <D2Vri.13072$7c.11231@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter RemoveThis @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

* 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.

Benjamin

* 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.

>> 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

* waterskidoo:

>>> 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

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:19:41 +0200, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * 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.
>
> Benjamin

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==

Follow up:

Vista _is_ DX10.

* graeme:

>>> 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 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

* graeme:
> Follow up:
>
> Vista _is_ DX10.

BS. Vista is an OS, DX10 is a collection of standardized APIs. Apples
and oranges.

Benjamin

waterskidoo <water.skidoo.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 2007-07-31, FoolsGold <fg.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>

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.