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!