"Hang on... what''s this with Linux being too slow? I don''t understand... I run Linux and Windows on the same PC, with the same GeForce graphics card, and they both run my OpenGL programs at the same speed (faaaaaast)."
Yeah, he was wrong. Linux has much less overhead than Windows, so, theoretically, games can run faster in Linux than in Windows. There are fewer Linux games, however, because there is less of a market.
a few beginner, but important, questions
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
"Hang on... what''s this with Linux being too slow? I don''t understand... I run Linux and Windows on the same PC, with the same GeForce graphics card, and they both run my OpenGL programs at the same speed (faaaaaast)."
Yeah, he was wrong. Linux has much less overhead than Windows, so, theoretically, games can run faster in Linux than in Windows. There are fewer Linux games, however, because there is less of a market.
On a theoretical level you could also say DOS runs games faster than both Linux and Windows =]
Don''t say that. DOS is teh suxx0rz, write a game that''s bundled with your own OS. And make sure that it supports every single hardware configuration just as well as Windows does. (I know, that''s not well at all, but at least you have a lot of choices.)
"On a theoretical level you could also say DOS runs games faster than both Linux and Windows =]"
No... DOS only had support for 32 MB of RAM.
No... DOS only had support for 32 MB of RAM.
Author
"Hang on... what''s this with Linux being too slow? I don''t understand... I run Linux and Windows on the same PC, with the same GeForce graphics card, and they both run my OpenGL programs at the same speed "
Last time I ran a check On my gentoo machine versus my 2k machine, Quake 3 had 20 less fps. Also, much I also remind that linux games only support Nvidia, and even then binary packages instead of the source.
No, linux is not a gaming platform for a reason, and thus why 80% of all linux users dual boot
Linux isn''t built nor ready to handle the low latency (no, not even with patches) and timing freqs that high quality games require. It''s obvious, or more games would be in linux.
And the linux market is about 40%, not less. Overhead has nothing to do with game preformance, hardware properties and how well they are called deals with it. So, until you can show me benchmarks of Warcraft 3 on a nix versus windows. Oh wait, no WC3 for linux. Well, even better. Bench mark a fully tweaked and installed nix OS running quake 3, and then benchmark a fully tweaked and installed win OS running quakle 3. Windows out preforms, each time
No, I''m not a win lover, but I''ve given each OS the same amount of attention and am well aware of the pros and cons of both.
My final answer is still DirectX and C++ on windows machines, with portability to Mac.
Last time I ran a check On my gentoo machine versus my 2k machine, Quake 3 had 20 less fps. Also, much I also remind that linux games only support Nvidia, and even then binary packages instead of the source.
No, linux is not a gaming platform for a reason, and thus why 80% of all linux users dual boot
Linux isn''t built nor ready to handle the low latency (no, not even with patches) and timing freqs that high quality games require. It''s obvious, or more games would be in linux.And the linux market is about 40%, not less.
Overhead has nothing to do with game preformance, hardware properties and how well they are called deals with it. So, until you can show me benchmarks of Warcraft 3 on a nix versus windows. Oh wait, no WC3 for linux. Well, even better. Bench mark a fully tweaked and installed nix OS running quake 3, and then benchmark a fully tweaked and installed win OS running quakle 3. Windows out preforms, each time No, I''m not a win lover, but I''ve given each OS the same amount of attention and am well aware of the pros and cons of both.
My final answer is still DirectX and C++ on windows machines, with portability to Mac.
Author
Let''s also not forget that only win 95 and 98 were dos based, and so of course the handling would be faster on thse. win2k and XP are no longer DOS based and thus are much more streamlined for in OS applications. Thus why dos doesnt run as fast as it used to.
quote:Original post by battlefieldtactics
"Hang on... what''s this with Linux being too slow? I don''t understand... I run Linux and Windows on the same PC, with the same GeForce graphics card, and they both run my OpenGL programs at the same speed "
Last time I ran a check On my gentoo machine versus my 2k machine, Quake 3 had 20 less fps. Also, much I also remind that linux games only support Nvidia, and even then binary packages instead of the source.
No, linux is not a gaming platform for a reason, and thus why 80% of all linux users dual boot
And the linux market is about 40%, not less.
No, I''m not a win lover, but I''ve given each OS the same amount of attention and am well aware of the pros and cons of both.
My final answer is still DirectX and C++ on windows machines, with portability to Mac.
I have nothing against the Linux OS.. I think it is great for servers.. but you kind of pulled that 40% market share out of the air. Microsoft currently holds over 90% of the desktop market, and the majority of people that use Linux dual-boot (as you said).. and are not using Linux as their primary operating system, but something to tinker and play with in their spare time.
The server market is a different story. I can''t give any numbers as I am not up to par.. but I am damn sure that Linux holds more of a market share in servers than Microsoft does.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
