This reads like an apologists guide to modern Ubuntu. When I last tried Ubuntu, I was infuriated that I couldn't modify panel settings easily. I don't want twitter, broadcast, UbuntuOne, and the other junk all over the place. I don't want periodic notifications from software that I despise. The review doesn't address customizability, and I have zero interest in using the OS again in the meantime. Not being able to easily resize components or customize menus is unacceptable.
- Status
ilikeandroid
Distinguished
- Oct 10, 2011
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
What a silly, biased article. I can't even begin to go through all the issues that I have with these tests. First, you compare some very old games, so the "gaming" test is really rather moot. Why don't you try running Linux games on Linux and the closest Windows rivals eh? Cross-platform solutions be dammed, they rarely take full advantage of OpenGL 4.2 and Linux. For example, Nexuiz on an E2 AMD APU runs fine on "medium" settings at 1920*1080p. I doubt you could get playable games at 1920*1080p on a lower end APU with a modern Windows game! Second, would you mind telling me what would happen after a few months of normal usage with Windows? That's right, the registry will get corrupted and the disks would get fragged. You also avoided mentioning the fact that Linux has much lower hardware requirements! Finally, you failed to mention which drivers you were using with the graphics cards.
Valek, your embarrassing the Linux users here. :-( Operating systems aren't a zero sum game.
>What a silly, biased article.
What a silly, biased, baseless charge. The author is a Linux user.
>I can't even begin to go through all the issues that I have with these tests.
Therapy might help.
>First, you compare some very old games, so the "gaming" test is really rather moot.
How is it moot? Running identical software on two different OSes compares the current driver/OS/file system performance of the OSes.
>Why don't you try running Linux games on Linux and the closest Windows rivals eh?
What is a "closest rival"? What good would it be to, say, run Call Of Duty on one PC and Battlefield on another? How does that benchmark the systems?
>Cross-platform solutions be dammed, they rarely take full advantage of OpenGL 4.2 and Linux. For
>example, Nexuiz on an E2 AMD APU runs fine on "medium" settings at 1920*1080p. I doubt you
>could get playable games at 1920*1080p on a lower end APU with a modern Windows game!
Nexuiz is getting high scores not because it's taking advantage of OpenGL 4.2 but because it's not very graphically demanding.
Also, what you're asking fails to grasp the notion of "benchmark". This isn't an OS comparison article, it's a benchmarking article.
>Second, would you mind telling me what would happen after a few months of normal usage with
>Windows?
You'd calm down?
>That's right, the registry will get corrupted and the disks would get fragged.
1) I say this as a Linux user, Windows registries don't magically get corrupt after a few months. This is as true as Linux users needing to compile all of their own software on a command line. Second, ext4 fragments just like NTFS, just under opposite conditions; I don't want to write a page of text explaining how and why here though. NTFS packs files together and ext4 spreads them out on the disk. This can hurt NTFS if there's lots of little files and hurt ext4 if there's a need to write a large file. NTFS maximizes contiguous free space and ext4 maximizes space between files.
>You also avoided mentioning the fact that Linux has much lower hardware requirements!
Standard desktop Linux doesn't have *much* lower requirements, and again, this isn't a comparison article. This is like complaining that the browser Grand Prix benchmark articles don't talk about browser X's feature Y. Benchmarking articles are about numbers/quantitative things, not qualitative things or features.
> Finally, you failed to mention which drivers you were using with the graphics cards.
Finally, a point that relates to benchmarks!
>What a silly, biased article.
What a silly, biased, baseless charge. The author is a Linux user.
>I can't even begin to go through all the issues that I have with these tests.
Therapy might help.
>First, you compare some very old games, so the "gaming" test is really rather moot.
How is it moot? Running identical software on two different OSes compares the current driver/OS/file system performance of the OSes.
>Why don't you try running Linux games on Linux and the closest Windows rivals eh?
What is a "closest rival"? What good would it be to, say, run Call Of Duty on one PC and Battlefield on another? How does that benchmark the systems?
>Cross-platform solutions be dammed, they rarely take full advantage of OpenGL 4.2 and Linux. For
>example, Nexuiz on an E2 AMD APU runs fine on "medium" settings at 1920*1080p. I doubt you
>could get playable games at 1920*1080p on a lower end APU with a modern Windows game!
Nexuiz is getting high scores not because it's taking advantage of OpenGL 4.2 but because it's not very graphically demanding.
Also, what you're asking fails to grasp the notion of "benchmark". This isn't an OS comparison article, it's a benchmarking article.
>Second, would you mind telling me what would happen after a few months of normal usage with
>Windows?
You'd calm down?
>That's right, the registry will get corrupted and the disks would get fragged.
1) I say this as a Linux user, Windows registries don't magically get corrupt after a few months. This is as true as Linux users needing to compile all of their own software on a command line. Second, ext4 fragments just like NTFS, just under opposite conditions; I don't want to write a page of text explaining how and why here though. NTFS packs files together and ext4 spreads them out on the disk. This can hurt NTFS if there's lots of little files and hurt ext4 if there's a need to write a large file. NTFS maximizes contiguous free space and ext4 maximizes space between files.
>You also avoided mentioning the fact that Linux has much lower hardware requirements!
Standard desktop Linux doesn't have *much* lower requirements, and again, this isn't a comparison article. This is like complaining that the browser Grand Prix benchmark articles don't talk about browser X's feature Y. Benchmarking articles are about numbers/quantitative things, not qualitative things or features.
> Finally, you failed to mention which drivers you were using with the graphics cards.
Finally, a point that relates to benchmarks!
sergiovallejos
Honorable
- Apr 12, 2012
- 4
- 0
- 10,510
With same structures (opengl), linux gets faster than windows. That's the thing here. We must compare with justice. If actually many games are developed for DX, is just because money business. With time, when people's mind evolve together with tech, linux will be more powerfull than now, and take place over windows in other aspects too. The only main thing Windows is actually better is for GAMING, and just because their restrictive directx implementation: it is clear that Microsoft politically negotiate with differents game developers to make their products only compatible with directx, so other operating systems like linux cannot implement the directx code because is propietry of MS.
The real thing is that in each other serious tasks than gaming, Linux do the works a way better, faster, and stable than its rival.
The real thing is that in each other serious tasks than gaming, Linux do the works a way better, faster, and stable than its rival.
sergiovallejos
Honorable
- Apr 12, 2012
- 4
- 0
- 10,510
sorry about the comment above, the fucking window telling me to register for give my opinion is freaking me. That was for another post comparing gaming beetwing win vs linux.
sergiovallejos
Honorable
- Apr 12, 2012
- 4
- 0
- 10,510
With same structures (opengl), linux gets faster than windows. That's the thing here. We must compare with justice. If actually many games are developed for DX, is just because money business. With time, when people's mind evolve together with tech, linux will be more powerfull than now, and take place over windows in other aspects too. The only main thing Windows is actually better is for GAMING, and just because their restrictive directx implementation: it is clear that Microsoft politically negotiate with differents game developers to make their products only compatible with directx, so other operating systems like linux cannot implement the directx code because is propietry of MS.
The real thing is that in each other serious tasks than gaming, Linux do the works a way better, faster, and stable than its rival.
The real thing is that in each other serious tasks than gaming, Linux do the works a way better, faster, and stable than its rival.
sergiovallejos
Honorable
- Apr 12, 2012
- 4
- 0
- 10,510
Great analysis, but I feel you should compare the two OS's on another parameter i.e. "price of purchase".
[citation][nom]dreadlokz[/nom]since I use free windows 7 ultimate... no point to change for Linux =)[/citation]
Sure there is... you'd gain all the features of Windows 8 today plus things like one tool to update all the software on your system, many different file system options, etc.
Sure there is... you'd gain all the features of Windows 8 today plus things like one tool to update all the software on your system, many different file system options, etc.
[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]That's the problem, I've always considered Windows king for gaming, but after looking at Doom 3, and the performance boost over Windows 7. Are we sure we're developing for the right platform? I mean games on Linux theoretically would run a lot better.[/citation]
Bet the author had a hard time to find fresher 3d titles than the old Doom3 that runs well on Linux's nowadays fragmented distributions
Bet the author had a hard time to find fresher 3d titles than the old Doom3 that runs well on Linux's nowadays fragmented distributions
As someone who has been running Windows games on both MMeerkat-Wine/old-laptop and Win7/newer-desktop I can say that upgrading to Ocelot was a mistake, my performance took a severe hit. My Win desk has 4x the memory, granted my lappy has dedicated vram for its old 7600nvidia and of course only DX9 compared to DX11 on the Win7x64 machine.
But before upgrade to 9.0x to 11.10(skipped the narwhale build alltogether) my Linux lappy was keeping up with the Win7 desker, very admirably, now it's no contest. Sadly Ubuntu has replaced a fast, sleek running kernel with one fattened w/ bloatware of desktop graphical Tomfoolery.
No thanks to the Unity age Unbuntu.
But before upgrade to 9.0x to 11.10(skipped the narwhale build alltogether) my Linux lappy was keeping up with the Win7 desker, very admirably, now it's no contest. Sadly Ubuntu has replaced a fast, sleek running kernel with one fattened w/ bloatware of desktop graphical Tomfoolery.
No thanks to the Unity age Unbuntu.
im assuming that none of you people did your homework. linux is a gamer platform, hackers use it and people use it. blizzard is the only game complany that absolutly does not suport linux based systems. overall Linux is a better OS than windows and when i say linux i mean all of the versions, since linux is free, meaning it is open source, anyone can play with the kernel, in short you can modify it to do whatever you want, as long as you keep it opensource. and for the record microsft uses the same kernal it was the original dos kernal, only the guy who wrote the operating system stoled it from unix. in short don;t use this page to bash linux the swedish guy might get offended. plus hay if you have a smart phone it runs on linux duh. android is a linux OS. in short i am not siding with windows or aganced it i am only pointing out that learn the facts before you hit your keyboard. and yes windows is more popular because most people dont know what linux is or how to get it. but one thing i will say is linux is still better than mac OS even if it is derived from the same kernal. and all you gamers are going to be in a big shock when none of your games run on windows 8
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram