Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

If I was going to dual-boot, I'd go with Mint/Win7.

[BigD145]

Well... I must admit I am a computer programmer and have been on good terms with the command prompt for some years now, but that was all on Windows, where things were a lot different.

I suppose if you have something against typing you may have some troubles, but only when you want to do something out of the ordinary...

The browser that Mint comes with? Would not open for me. That's the kinds of troubles Linux gave me. I pick a GUI and the default programs would not work half the time. So far the only Linux anything that has worked for me is Android and RetroPi.

[feelotraveller]

My advice to everyone here: Ditch Windows 10 and go with Linux.

Exactly what I have just done (except I never made to 10...).

My new Linux OS installed in about 5 minutes (maybe 15 if you count me staring at options and making choices) whereas recently upgrading my mothers Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 took more than a couple of hours and that's just the download/install not the dealing with partition issue which Microsoft released it with.

And so far as I understand nearly all of whatever problems there are with running games on Linux come from them being Windows software.  Mostly from Microsoft trying to force everyone to use their proprietry software like for example DirectX.  Mac users run into exactly the same sorts of problems.  A better comparision would be for games that run natively in each format - anyone got any comparisons of say Dwarf Fortress on the same machine/hardware but with different OS installed?

[Arx]

In my experience, a lot of games run better on Linux. Nonetheless, there aren't many designed for linux.

Also Microsoft isn't trying to force anyone to use DirectX. They just offer a platform that nearly everyone uses.

[feelotraveller]

Well yes and no.  While your statement is undoubtedly true it is also a situation deliberately manufactured by Microsoft.  It's a bit dated now but for instance have a look at the following link:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX

While the network effect is quite natural and understandable (nearly everyone uses it because nearly everyone uses it, more people using it means more driver support, etc) the campaign by Microsoft is a documentable one.  Spreading 'fear, uncertaintly, doubt' (quite unfounded it can be noted in hindsight) about the future of OpenGl support and running misleading advertising campaigns of the gains to be had by better DirectX versions, are two examples the above link canvasses.

Also part of the reason Linux is a better gaming OS (at least when we are talking about running games natively) is because OpenGL (again for example since there are other fish in the sea) is a quicker and generally better (more advanced features sooner, at least historically) API set.  If you accept that (maybe I've got all wrong?) then the question really is why do game developers decide to go with DirectX (even though their game would be better with OpenGL)?

[Thief^]

Most big developers use Windows because:
a: Visual Studio is so damn awesome, and until recently it had no mac/linux support
b: Windows has >95% market share among systems (according to the steam survey) so it's not as financially viable to target Mac/Linux. Among those with Mac/Linux, the majority have some form of Windows system available as well, so the true Windows percentage is higher.
c: Linux used to be awful for fragmentation, making packaging, installing and testing a pain (i.e. expensive). At least now it's 99% Ubuntu and relatives on desktops. Similarly trying to target Mac during the PowerPC->x86 transition was a horrifying prospect. Windows on the other hand has pretty amazing inter-compatibility between versions.

b is a bit of a chicken/egg problem, as gamers now avoid non-windows systems because of the lack of games developers targeting non-windows, and game developers avoid non-windows because of the lack of gamers with non-windows systems.

It's not really anything to do with DirectX, most of the big games engines (used by the vast majority of big games) have an OpenGL backend available, and even support targeting Mac/Linux directly. Some games engine editors will even run on Mac/Linux. The issue is whether the games developers themselves would see any benefit to testing and releasing on those platforms. The answer is unfortunately that it's often a massive expense with little to gain.

[feelotraveller]

a.  That's what I'm saying, proprietary issues.
b.  Figures I've seen elsewhere suggest 89/9/2 for win/mac/linux.  I think the steam figures are misleading since linux/mac users using wine contribute to the windows tally.  So true windows percentage is lower.
c.  As fragmented as ever, or more so.  If you are looking at the steam figures it is misleading since they only support a couple of OS's but of course many other OS's work (and get counted) via these.

Not a DirectX thing.  More just knee jerk reaction to comments saying how terrible Linux is, especially for gaming.  And lets not get me started about BIG developers... 

[Thief^]

a: I actually wrote my post before yours, I just thought it was still worth posting. I was more disagreeing with the fact that it's DirectX vs OpenGL. It's not, it's Visual Studio that is the decider, not the graphics API.

b: Regarding wine... They should probably be their own category, but they can run Windows games, so arguably the existence of wine is actually harming the likelihood of developers making full Linux ports of their games. Why would they go to the expense, when you can just run the Windows version anyhow?

[Sonlirain]

I'd like to point out that SteamOS that's based on linux had terribad performance in tests.

It might have improved since last time i checked tho.

[TheBiggerFish]

SteamOS shouldn't be indicative of Linux as a whole?

[Aklyon]

Certainly not. Mostly I've heard of ubuntu when it comes to steam linux.

[Sonlirain]

I just assume that a version of the OS cut down to be almost 100% about running games yet is worse than windows at actually doing so is a dead ringer for "not really all that good for running games".

[Aklyon]

Too many distros to assume, tbh. Most of them have WINE too, while I have no idea what SteamOS actually has besides 'linux, of some sort'.

[Sonlirain]

Yeah but you'd think that whatever specialists they have at valve would take the best option available.
And in this case what they chose/made is sub par.

[Thief^]

From what I know SteamOS runs Valve games better than Windows. But with its small install base and developers not having the budget to optimise their Linux ports, it's going to run all other games worse (and not through its own fault!).

As for the Linux distro people use... I've just seen that SteamOS possibly doesn't take part in the steam survey at all. Other than that, the stats on the survey aren't great, listing three Ubuntu versions totalling 42.5% of Linux users, one Mint version as another 9.58%, a generic "Linux 64 bit" at another 8.81% (who knows what that is), and a massive "Other" category of 39.11%. Which most likely includes a few more Ubuntu and Mint versions. It's still an easy win for Ubuntu and relatives, though.