|
Plus linux is very bare bones to begin with which can help with the benchmark, linux is more like a race car striped down to what you needed, while windows is a luxury car gets you from point a to b in style and comfort. If you loaded up the features of windows into linux you'd probably see very similar opengl numbers.
To be honest I find most of the additions from M$ to be completely useless and unneeded. They're just there to take up space and to slow down the system most of the time (Through dozens of unnecessary services, for example). To me, the more barebones an OS is, the better. I don't find all the M$ additions "comfort", more like annoyances, not a luxury car but a car that costs as much as one while driving like a normal one and having spikes on the nut as a "bonus feature"
To each his own, I guess.
|
On August 04 2012 06:33 EAGER-beaver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 06:06 semantics wrote:metro isn't a bad interface it's pretty nice in some aspects, if you habitually only used pinned programs on a task bar or icons to start and use programs it's a nice thing as it adds features to those interactions. Metro just removes the start button and menu because their developers found only a few number of people used it regularly, everyone else rarely touched the start button except to shut down the machine or start up a program they haven't touched in a long time. People fear change but don't bother to actually try it out before they freak out. The sad part is this happens with every windows, people called XP i think a tonka toy becuase of the new look of the start bar, people disliked vista and 7's task bar and clear view because again change, even though pinning is pretty dope (after all pinning is just an expansion on quick launch icons, and metro is an extension of pinning). Frankly i could never use anything that didn't have windows 7's snap feature as it's more intuitive then hitting windows key + left/right. Yes somethings are different but different doesn't auto mean end of the world... On August 04 2012 06:06 EAGER-beaver wrote: I love linux, but you don't have a choice over which desktop OS you want to use. Linux just doesn't have the driver support of windows, and developers prefer directx which is microsoft only. The preference for directx over opengl isn't just from the monopoly of 1 platform over the other, directx is much easier to use from a developer stand point, even if it is slower. It's a complete api that plugs into all the major input devices, keyboard, mice, game controllers, and audio controls, opengl is video only and I don't think there's a framework that comes close to the ease of development that directx currently enjoys.
Still though, I'd love to see an open platform wrest control back from microsoft and to a lesser extent apple. If valve and blizzard are serious about linux support and can get amd and nvidia to start supporting linux as well I'd easily make the jump from linux being a small partition on one of my harddrives on an old retired machine to my main platform. DirectX isn't slower Opengl 4.2 and DirectX 11 are very similar Opengl 4.2 vs directX 9c are very different which is what valve's comparison would be like. Plus linux is very bare bones to begin with which can help with the benchmark, linux is more like a race car striped down to what you needed, while windows is a luxury car gets you from point a to b in style and comfort. If you loaded up the features of windows into linux you'd probably see very similar opengl numbers. I never said directx was slower then opengl, I said even if, as in the difference in raw speed is a minor point compared to the developer point of view of working with the different API's. Opengl 4.2 and directx are very similar, opengl and directx9 are different? What? How so? I'm just mentioning the key differences between the two, regardless of version, for a developer. If you open up an opengl library vs a directx one, directx is a complete package to everything on your PC, opengl is strictly video. And linux isn't like a race car, it's more like a choo-choo train ? Opengl 4.2 and dx11 both don't have the cpu overhead that dx9c has it was significantly reduced, that is simple performance gain right there. Ofc most people don't see this because often when DX11 is used it's used with all it's features they don't make a DX9 looking game in DX11 so it ends up costing more, or worse they just slap dx11 features onto dx9 and its just clunky. And yeah i suppose you can look at linux as a choo-choo train but car to car i thought was easier to look at haha. After all what would windows be in that?
|
The only thing keeping me on a windows PC is the game are here. Get good games I want on Linux and im ditching the sinking Windows ship
|
Pretty much everyone uses Windows and will continue Windows, so it's not like Valve is going to drop the overwhelming percentage of their customers just to switch to an OS family few people use. Steam will always be on Windows.
I typically use Ubuntu for non-.NET development so it'll be cool to play some games while working without having to reboot to Windows .
|
Trains are actually way more comfortable than cars are. Especially if you manage to get a ticket for a personal wagon.
Linux requires intellectual capabilities of it's user, "you want this part to work like this or like this?". Windows is like "okay, we got a new part, let's make it work whatever way I think is better".
|
On August 03 2012 16:19 Nikon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 16:06 konadora wrote: all we have to do is stay on windows 7 :p You mean on Windows XP At this moment, there's not a single thing that runs on Windows 7 that can't run on WinXP for me, while the reverse is unfortunately true Battlefield 3 would like to have a word.
EDIT: and I expect that a lot more developers are going to drop DX9 support in the near future.
|
I've been dual booting 7 and Mint for a while now. I like them both, but I try to use linux wherever possible. It's more work but I enjoy learning this sort of stuff.
|
On August 06 2012 00:31 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 16:19 Nikon wrote:On August 03 2012 16:06 konadora wrote: all we have to do is stay on windows 7 :p You mean on Windows XP At this moment, there's not a single thing that runs on Windows 7 that can't run on WinXP for me, while the reverse is unfortunately true Battlefield 3 would like to have a word. EDIT: and I expect that a lot more developers are going to drop DX9 support in the near future.
I expect that they won't. 20,55% of computers were still on DX 9 or lower in July this year according to Steam Survey. Will probably be another year until it becomes standard to start dropping it on demanding games. No reason for indie games and similar to drop it unless they really want the features of 10/11 instead of developing for DX 9 from start.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
|
Linux is relatively user friendly these days, its also free and quite a good operating system.
Only real reason to use windows these days is compatibility.
I am very happy that steam is going to Linux, its a great thing for PC gaming since windows 8 from what I have heard is poorly optimized for home computers and designed for tablets and such.
|
Why exactly is this a good thing? It's not like all the other comapanies are going linux as well now.
|
On August 03 2012 06:15 semantics wrote: ^ games for mac are more likely to happen then games for linux just due to market share and type of buyer. Next thing people will say is opera will overtake chrome, ie and firefox after all it has a bright future. And Euclideon's engine will make polygon games a thing of the past.
idk if this has been answered already, but the mac OS is just a modified linux essentially. So if its ready for linux its pretty much ready for mac.
I would support mac/linux over windows any day, the moment the compatibility is there i'm jumping ship. I generally don't like apple very much but I really dislike what I have seen from windows 8 and I would rather games be designed for a freeware operating system.
|
On August 06 2012 13:43 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 00:31 maartendq wrote:On August 03 2012 16:19 Nikon wrote:On August 03 2012 16:06 konadora wrote: all we have to do is stay on windows 7 :p You mean on Windows XP At this moment, there's not a single thing that runs on Windows 7 that can't run on WinXP for me, while the reverse is unfortunately true Battlefield 3 would like to have a word. EDIT: and I expect that a lot more developers are going to drop DX9 support in the near future. I expect that they won't. 20,55% of computers were still on DX 9 or lower in July this year according to Steam Survey. Will probably be another year until it becomes standard to start dropping it on demanding games. No reason for indie games and similar to drop it unless they really want the features of 10/11 instead of developing for DX 9 from start. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ That's barely 1/5th, and those people aren't in the market for "hardcore" games like BF3 in the first place, so developers are not likely to take them into account.
|
On August 06 2012 00:31 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 16:19 Nikon wrote:On August 03 2012 16:06 konadora wrote: all we have to do is stay on windows 7 :p You mean on Windows XP At this moment, there's not a single thing that runs on Windows 7 that can't run on WinXP for me, while the reverse is unfortunately true Battlefield 3 would like to have a word. EDIT: and I expect that a lot more developers are going to drop DX9 support in the near future.
near future.. being 2-4 years, maybe.
|
On August 03 2012 02:08 Medrea wrote: OpenGL is shit honestly. But even if you have a different opinion than me thats fine.
Its fine because.... Source Engine. Are you fucking kidding me? Who cares about that archaic crap anymore. Time to move on folks.
EXCLUSIVE: Next-Gen Source 2 Engine Is In Development
Our resident investigator Barnz has done some more digging in the Source Filmmaker script files, and he's uncovered probably some of the biggest news we've ever reported on our site. He's found many more references to a "Source 2", but not just one vague line like our previous entry. We're only one file deep, and already it's clear that the references to "Source 2" are indeed referring to a next-gen engine that Valve is currently developing. I'm only going to show one line in this post, but there are about 60+ references here, and this one line is probably the most telling.
Sorry if it's been mentioned already.
|
Linux taking over windows would be a dream come true.
|
pretty much the only thing that has really kept me on windows is that pretty much everything is supported. Good to see we can switch soon
|
On August 06 2012 19:59 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 06:15 semantics wrote: ^ games for mac are more likely to happen then games for linux just due to market share and type of buyer. Next thing people will say is opera will overtake chrome, ie and firefox after all it has a bright future. And Euclideon's engine will make polygon games a thing of the past. idk if this has been answered already, but the mac OS is just a modified linux essentially. So if its ready for linux its pretty much ready for mac. I would support mac/linux over windows any day, the moment the compatibility is there i'm jumping ship. I generally don't like apple very much but I really dislike what I have seen from windows 8 and I would rather games be designed for a freeware operating system. Yes and i already know that mac is a unix-like so similar to linux-ish by sharing unix history but they are quite far form each other there is quite a bit of work to make a game that works on mac to work on linux. Mac software esp in graphics != linux compatible. And with that said mac still commands alot more of personal computers market share then linux ever has or ever will which is where game companies target. Stop being a hater and get shit right you'd know that although a linux based gaming system may be nice for you developers will prefer the support and ease of use of directX for the most part and if one thing has always held true devs are lazy when it comes to things outside of content creation in games. So as long as markets persist, with xbox and windows directX will hold strong and because of that windows will hold strong.
|
On August 07 2012 03:26 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 19:59 zbedlam wrote:On August 03 2012 06:15 semantics wrote: ^ games for mac are more likely to happen then games for linux just due to market share and type of buyer. Next thing people will say is opera will overtake chrome, ie and firefox after all it has a bright future. And Euclideon's engine will make polygon games a thing of the past. idk if this has been answered already, but the mac OS is just a modified linux essentially. So if its ready for linux its pretty much ready for mac. I would support mac/linux over windows any day, the moment the compatibility is there i'm jumping ship. I generally don't like apple very much but I really dislike what I have seen from windows 8 and I would rather games be designed for a freeware operating system. Yes and i already know that mac is a unix-like so similar to linux-ish by sharing unix history but they are quite far form each other there is quite a bit of work to make a game that works on mac to work on linux. Mac software esp in graphics != linux compatible. And with that said mac still commands alot more of personal computers market share then linux ever has or ever will which is where game companies target. Stop being a hater and get shit right you'd know that although a linux based gaming system may be nice for you developers will prefer the support and ease of use of directX for the most part and if one thing has always held true devs are lazy when it comes to things outside of content creation in games. So as long as markets persist, with xbox and windows directX will hold strong and because of that windows will hold strong.
Mac is based on unix, but apart from the bash console, mac is nothing like linux.
For example you can't change your window manager on mac, and you don't have a good package manager. Package managers are great because you can install anything immediately without even using the browser, and being able to change your window manager is the one thing that I love about Linux more than anything else.
The usability on most GUI based window managers are just really bad though, there are some really good ideas (3d workspaces, tabbed file explorer, conky, etc), but its not seamless like windows, its kind of all over the place and buggy. I have a console based tiling window manager which is extremely fast for doing anything (bash is a million times better than dos), but obviously learning hundreds of commands is not viable for the everyday user.
I'm sure though that GUI's will become much much better if Linux becomes more popular. Much better than Windows or Mac even because there will be all these free mods out there to get it exactly how you want.
|
|
|
|