PDA

View Full Version : My reason for not having Linux only computers...



Gustave
December 19th, 2007, 02:00 AM
I've been using Linux and Ubuntu for about a year now. My latest install is actually Mint (installed this weekend), but it's almost identical to Ubuntu in most ways, and I still have Gutsy on my other desktop.

Anyway, I love this install SOOOO much, it has made me consider giving up gaming!

NO WAY, you might say. Well, you're probably right, but still. I would GIVE UP my XP box in a HEARTBEAT if I could play the couple games I play exclusively on Linux! Progress has been made with Wine and one of the games, but I'd still need the XP box for updates; one of them is an MMO, so this is actually critical.

This install has everything I really need, and kinda want. I just desire it to have one more thing, and I'm just wondering if it'll ever happen.

I tried a few distros over the weekend, and I actually see why game companies won't develop for Linux. It's because they AREN'T developing for just Linux. They're developing for virtually every distro that's out there (and BOY are there a lot out there! it's hard to choose a new one!). Or, a little smarter thing would be to pick one for their game, but which? They're gonna alienate someone if they choose just one. So by not developing for us, they save money.

Oh, well. I'll still enjoy my new install, even though I'll never play games on it.

Oh, by the way, this isn't a bash on anything at all (well, maybe XP since I REALLY want it gone). I truly love my newest install and couldn't be happier. It's wicked cool looking, I have neat new stuff install I've never tried before, it's running smooth and fast, and other wonderful things. It's just a hope that things get better in the future, and maybe to open a little fun discussion.

gn2
December 19th, 2007, 02:18 AM
So what's the game you're struggling with that you want to run in Linux?

Gustave
December 19th, 2007, 05:56 AM
Does it matter? Right now it's LOTRO. It will be replaced, though, when the next big thing comes out. Which will absolutely not play in Linux, at first. At least not reasonably so for months until things get worked out. LOTRO won't run right now if you have an ATi card, at all, in Linux. And you need a windows box still so you can copy updates if you have an Nvidia. People have actually created a special launcher for the game, too, which is rather neat, so the community has really done a wonderful job to get where they are. However, the game has been out since June, I believe, and it's still not playable without windows.

All I'm saying is, as long as the high profile games are not developed for Linux, this will be an eternal struggle. A struggle which I don't have the knowledge or time to bother with, so I keep my XP box. In XP, it just works. I COULD go back and play Runescape, which is java based game in your browser. It's fun, in a 80s kinda way. But I won't. I enjoy playing the latest games. Always have, although in recent years, it's just been a couple games rather than the dozens that I used to play. I just don't have the time any more.

I just feel that Linux is the red headed step child sometimes, even though it's a freaking awesome system, that's free!! I truly feel that my last two installs are better than any m$ product I've used in the past, except for gaming support. (My last two were Mint and Gutsy)

I see people using computers all the time with resolution really messed up, flickering in their faces because the refresh rate is way off, and it makes me sad. I'm sad because it makes me realize that people are sheep and they won't bother to break out of this mold where they are told windows is better, and they don't care. I mean, they don't even care that their eyes are going buggy looking at the computer in front of them. They are taking actual physical harm. Why would they care about something as esoteric as Linux? Out of sight, out of mind.

I guess this is true of EVERYONE, though. At least with something. Some people don't care about computers, sure (even when it's right in front of them). Some people don't care about politics (an awful lot, actually, from voter turn out in the past). Some don't care what they eat, or do, or how they live (again, in spite of actual physical harm they are doing themselves!). As long as there is apathy, there will be windows and window-like products. And since human nature will never change, neither will this.

Humm. If a one line question got me to babble like that, I wonder if I can handle an actual dialog on this topic...

Tundro Walker
December 19th, 2007, 05:59 AM
So what's the game you're struggling with that you want to run in Linux?

BSOD Roulette...

macogw
December 19th, 2007, 06:43 AM
If they package just rpms and debs, they'll probably cover the majority of people who use Linux, since there's a ton of distros based on Red Hat (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mandriva...) and off of Debian (Ubuntu family, Mint, Xandros...)

scxtt
December 19th, 2007, 06:56 AM
. . . and I actually see why game companies won't develop for Linux. It's because they AREN'T developing for just Linux. They're developing for virtually every distro that's out there (and BOY are there a lot out there! it's hard to choose a new one!). Or, a little smarter thing would be to pick one for their game, but which? They're gonna alienate someone if they choose just one. So by not developing for us, they save money.no, they could "develop" for linux in general and basically cover any/all Linux distros, esp. if they release the source (don't hold your breath for that one ;)) ... the same principal you use to support them NOT developing for Linux is exactly how they get away w/ JUST developing for Windows (and sometimes Mac) ... i would say the real problem is that there isn't a UNIFIED game coding platform ... if they code their game w/ DirectX - well, that doesn't translate to any other OS ... i have no idea if OpenGL is a viable medium for windows, but they could cover a lot of ground if they release an OpenGL-based game ... maybe DirectX is "better", i have no idea, but the fact that there are 100's of distros (and some are deb-based and some are rpm-based + other packaging types) is really inconsequential IMO.

toupeiro
December 19th, 2007, 07:05 AM
Very few new games interest me. Thats probably why I don't feel the game support void so severely. I'd rather like to find some of the good ones and get them running in linux. Games like MDK and Worms 2, the first two Alone in the Darks on PC and games like Full Throttle.

lespaul_rentals
December 19th, 2007, 08:03 AM
If they package just rpms and debs, they'll probably cover the majority of people who use Linux, since there's a ton of distros based on Red Hat (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mandriva...) and off of Debian (Ubuntu family, Mint, Xandros...)

Exactly. RPM and DEB binaries will cover 90% of users, and for the other 10%, just allow for the download of source. There's no real "alienation" when someone ports a game to Linux, so long as they embrace Red Hat and Debian distros and allow people like Slackware and Gentoo users to build from source.

Halo Custom Edition is really the only game I've ever played religiously. Of course, Microsoft is the last company to expect to port a game to Linux, but if they did (or at least made a version that ran friendly with wine) they would go up 100 points in my book.

Presto123
December 19th, 2007, 08:14 AM
Honestly...I would take it if they would just run it on a Unix setup like Cube. Heck, I don't care that I have to have a terminal open up before I run it.

Would that not work for most distros out there? Just curious, really.

macogw
December 19th, 2007, 12:36 PM
no, they could "develop" for linux in general and basically cover any/all Linux distros, esp. if they release the source (don't hold your breath for that one ;)) ... the same principal you use to support them NOT developing for Linux is exactly how they get away w/ JUST developing for Windows (and sometimes Mac) ... i would say the real problem is that there isn't a UNIFIED game coding platform ... if they code their game w/ DirectX - well, that doesn't translate to any other OS ... i have no idea if OpenGL is a viable medium for windows, but they could cover a lot of ground if they release an OpenGL-based game ... maybe DirectX is "better", i have no idea, but the fact that there are 100's of distros (and some are deb-based and some are rpm-based + other packaging types) is really inconsequential IMO.

OpenGL is 100% portable. Doom and Quake were done in OpenGL. DirectX is used more because it has better/more documentation.

gn2
December 19th, 2007, 02:26 PM
Does it matter? Right now it's LOTRO.

Yes it does matter because someone might just know how to get it running, or know how to do a Google search:

http://www.lotrolinux.com/
http://linux.softpedia.com/get/GAMES-ENTERTAINMENT/RPG/LOTRO-Launcher-32060.shtml
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=386480
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iAppId=4891

forrestcupp
December 19th, 2007, 03:10 PM
It is possible to create a game that will run in any distro without packaging it as a deb or rpm. Just look at Loki's installers for games; they use .run files. Basically, a Linux binary will run on any distro. One of the main differences between distros is where it puts all of your files and how it accesses them. Loki's installers just put all of the binaries and files in your home directory. That's why it works on any install. That's also how games like Sauerbraten work. You just extract it to your home directory and run the binary.

tribaal
December 19th, 2007, 03:15 PM
Nvidia drivers are a binary blob that work on any distro... I don't see where the problem is.

- trib'

Johnny3
December 19th, 2007, 03:25 PM
I have to have a hard drive with windows xp on it. Because when earthlink has trouble with their dsl in my area and I have to use their support (what there is of it) they not know much about Firefox mush less Linux. They have #1 for windows, #2 for Apple, and #3 for other. Waited 15 minutes for other just to get a windows person ever though I pushed #3. Went he found out I had Linux he said he would transfer me to someone wait for 45+ minutes till my phone went dead. Put in my windows hard drive only to have dsl come back up.
Thanks Johnny3
Gainesville, Fl

coolzgeek
December 19th, 2007, 03:54 PM
even though i hate to admit it, linux is bad for gaming. You should use XP for gaming if you have an ATI card.
I don't buy ATI.

LeAstrale
December 19th, 2007, 04:13 PM
what is it with all this hype around DirectX being better?

How come a game like Unreal Tournament 3 is made for linux (with balzing graphics) if the best graphics is made by directx ?

anyway, if the game has a good gameplay you dont mind the graphics..

just for an example take Unreal Tournament (talking about the first one here) that isnt very cool graphics, but no one in the wwestern world has a computer incapable of playing the game. and the gameplay is among the best ever tried (thinking about multiplayer here)

/LeAstrale

aaargh486
December 19th, 2007, 05:02 PM
I don't know whether DirectX is better or worse than OpenGL, but I guess that if a lot of companies are prepared to pay the license fees for DirectX, there has to be some sort of advantage? No?
But you could say the same of Linux, and we all know that is not true. :D

Differences between distros are practically nihil. I have NEVER had a problem installing a commercial game that would have been solved by another distro. I practically always installs it in /usr/local/games/. If for one reason I doesn't work for you there at that spot, than you probably are smart enough to fix it yourself.

phrostbyte
December 19th, 2007, 05:07 PM
Exactly. RPM and DEB binaries will cover 90% of users, and for the other 10%, just allow for the download of source. There's no real "alienation" when someone ports a game to Linux, so long as they embrace Red Hat and Debian distros and allow people like Slackware and Gentoo users to build from source.

Halo Custom Edition is really the only game I've ever played religiously. Of course, Microsoft is the last company to expect to port a game to Linux, but if they did (or at least made a version that ran friendly with wine) they would go up 100 points in my book.

Not even needed. Both DEBs and RPMs are simple archives, you can extract the needed program data from them and install it manually if necessary. So the game will be pretty much playable on any distro (running on the right CPU arch), and 90% or whatever of all distros very incredible ease of install.

phrostbyte
December 19th, 2007, 05:13 PM
what is it with all this hype around DirectX being better?

How come a game like Unreal Tournament 3 is made for linux (with balzing graphics) if the best graphics is made by directx ?

anyway, if the game has a good gameplay you dont mind the graphics..

just for an example take Unreal Tournament (talking about the first one here) that isnt very cool graphics, but no one in the wwestern world has a computer incapable of playing the game. and the gameplay is among the best ever tried (thinking about multiplayer here)

/LeAstrale

It's mostly a bunch of a marketing hype by Microsoft. Evidenced by the fact that you can enable most of the "amazing" DX10 features in the DX9 version of Crysis with a bunch of simple hacks. I don't know why game developers don't really develop for other platforms very much, but I know that Microsoft has a really really important interest in making sure they don't.

So I do think Microsoft has some part in the decision of many game developer houses to choose DirectX over OpenGL. Microsoft spends lots and lots of money in a public known department called the the "Developer Evangelism Group" or something similar... they hire people called "Developer Evangelists" who go to development houses and literally preach Microsoft products. There are A LOT of developer evangelists, they probably number in the thousands and they are all over the world. Microsoft knows the that it is important to make sure developers STAY developing for Windows and Windows only to maintain their business model. This is a coordinated and massive effort in both technology and marketing aimed towards developers of all types.

Mr. Picklesworth
December 19th, 2007, 05:32 PM
OGL is way above DirectX, because its versions have seamless transitions between each-other and major version changes do not strive to make all past releases obsolete. (http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/directx10-a.aspx)

It is just a smarter, safer API to commit to.

Most of the hardware changes brought on by DirectX 10 (that is, "DirectX 10 hardware") are now happily supported by OpenGL, too, I should add. While DX doing this caused a massive turmoil (and conveniently forced people to switch operating systems), OpenGL managed to get more efficient hardware shader systems well supported, without any trouble.
Furthermore, the people doing this work did not waste everyone's time lying about how those changes would magically make it easier for artists to write attractive shaders and to model human faces.

forrestcupp
December 19th, 2007, 07:05 PM
I don't know whether DirectX is better or worse than OpenGL, but I guess that if a lot of companies are prepared to pay the license fees for DirectX, there has to be some sort of advantage? No?
There are no license fees to use DirectX. I had a setup that consisted of Visual Studio Express and the DirectX SDL. I was legally using it to program straight DirectX stuff and it didn't cost me a dime. This is why Ogre3D, a 3D engine, is able to utilize DirectX as well as OpenGL, and you can make a commercial game for free.

It is the commercial game engines that charge a hefty license fee. Last generation Quake engines are open source, but if you want to use the current generation engine, you will pay a lot of money.

sh1v
December 19th, 2007, 08:36 PM
BSOD Roulette...

seriously, when have you last seen BSOD. I have had Xp on my machine for 2 years and No BSOD!

i have been using vista for 6 months now, NO BSOD!

stop playing on stereotypes.

PrimoTurbo
December 19th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Yeah honestly I have only seen a BSOD on Windows XP once, after a DLL file was removed accidentally by me. I've used it since release, how is that possible?

scxtt
December 19th, 2007, 09:06 PM
i've been able to make the PC @ work (running XP, up-to-date SPs) blue screen twice ... they're dells that can make the monitor rotate 0,90,180,270 degrees by holding ctrl+alt and one of the arrow keys ... sometimes i accidentally hit that combo and BAM! BSOD - probably not a Windows-specific problem ... but for the most part windows is very stable for me, i was kinda shocked that happened ... and my vista laptop has been rock-solid ...

i just hate the overhead involved w/ virus/adware programs that the work PC's have ... most of the time "spy sweeper" is sucking up so much CPU cycles the machine almost becomes unusable ...

PrimoTurbo
December 19th, 2007, 09:16 PM
I think it's a lot easier to break X, often happens with a video driver install or if a refresh rate doesn't match. I've done it over a hundred times probably.

todoporron
December 19th, 2007, 10:55 PM
the oldest pc I have at the office has a broken CDrom so I have not installed xubuntu on it.... that's my reason.

macogw
December 20th, 2007, 12:06 AM
seriously, when have you last seen BSOD. I have had Xp on my machine for 2 years and No BSOD!

i have been using vista for 6 months now, NO BSOD!

stop playing on stereotypes.

Does your XP machine ever reboot for no reason you can figure out? They got tired of the BSOD-inspired ridicule and thought it scared users, so now the computer magically reboots instead of showing the BSOD when Windows has a kernel panic.

Gustave
December 20th, 2007, 12:23 AM
Yes it does matter because someone might just know how to get it running, or know how to do a Google search:


http://linux.softpedia.com/get/GAMES-ENTERTAINMENT/RPG/LOTRO-Launcher-32060.shtml
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=386480
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iAppId=4891


Already been there and done that. If you had read any of what I actually wrote you would have seen that and realized 1. It will not run with ATi. Period. 2. Even with Nvidia, you need to have an XP box to get all updates.


So I ask, what's your point? I'm STILL required to run windows which is exactly what I was complaining about from the start!

Oh, and for those couple guys that said 'have the gaming companies release the source for the games', dream on! This will NEVER happen with a company that hopes to make any money from a game at all. I would never even wish for this to happen, quite frankly.

As it stands, PC gaming is becoming very much a niche market (the recent poor sales of PC games Crysis and UT3 help to back this up). Also, since Linux home installs are significantly fewer than windows, gaming companies are just looking at the numbers and saying no way. They would lose more money than they made developing for Linux. They sometimes lose money on PC games. I recall several great games that never sold really well and the companies are now gone because they never made money selling only for PC. Every once in a while, too, I hear 'PC gaming is dead/dying'. With the next gen platforms, it's close, but it's not dead yet. As game developing becomes more consolidated, it's possible one of the big players will kill it if they aren't happy, but I don't think that will happen, either. At least not soon. The Sims (yuck) sell too well for EA, and that's PC only.

I've also heard the Open GL story before. Yes, it would be MUCH better for the companies to develop for it, but they aren't. I'm quite sure they're paid to develop only for it. Only occasionally do you get a game that's open gl. I'm sure this would solve lots of problems, but as long as m$ is involved and has as much influence as they do, it's not going to happen on any significant scale.

Games in the future need to be made platform independent. How will this be done? I have no freaking idea. If I did, I'd do it now and be rich beyond my wildest dreams. Or maybe not. There's money to be made by people that control who does what, where. In other words, companies will always want exclusive games so they can make more money.

I guess ALL of this is really talking about control and power. As long as THEY have the control, there will be no real games for Linux. Thus they have decreed.

Gustave
December 20th, 2007, 12:39 AM
Does your XP machine ever reboot for no reason you can figure out? They got tired of the BSOD-inspired ridicule and thought it scared users, so now the computer magically reboots instead of showing the BSOD when Windows has a kernel panic.

This can EASILY be changed in settings. I had a series of BSODs a year or so ago because of a recent upgrade. Bad Memory.



My XP up time rivals that of my Linux boxes. Exceeds it most of the time because Linux is on a laptop. This is also incredible because I run games on the PC and these were always supposed to cause problems and what not. I routinely go more than a month without bothering to reboot on XP. And more than likely, it's really just a shut down, not a reboot.


Windows as a BSOD machine, if you know what you're doing, is history and not even a concern. If you're machine is rebooting for no reason, it's not the OS. It's what the user has done to it. Bad drivers/hardware are the only real reasons I even hear about BSODs these days and both are repairable.

Incidently, I had Linux crash more often this year than Windows. Most cases I could do a sysreq REISUB, but I had at least one where I couldn't do anything at all. However, I believe this ties in with what I was just talking about. If you know what you're doing. I'm still learning Linux, so it's to be expected that I do stuff that it really doesn't like. I know better in windows because I've been using it for quite a long time.

Xzallion
December 20th, 2007, 01:00 AM
seriously, when have you last seen BSOD. I have had Xp on my machine for 2 years and No BSOD!

i have been using vista for 6 months now, NO BSOD!

stop playing on stereotypes.

I have managed to BSOD windows 95, 98, 98SE, Win ME,2000, XP home, and the basic Vista. 2000 was the most stable, only BSOD'd on me once, while I managed to BSOD XP no less then 13 times in a year while enrolled in a hardware and software repair class. I'm sure a lot of the xp ones where my fault due to my incessant need to tinker, but a few seemed to not have any cause.

Its not people playing on stereotypes, just some users have a different way of working with their computers that seems prone to cause BSOD's, not through misuse but due to them doing unexpected things.

Gustave
December 20th, 2007, 02:03 AM
Its not people playing on stereotypes, just some users have a different way of working with their computers that seems prone to cause BSOD's, not through misuse but due to them doing unexpected things.

I'll agree wholeheartedly with that, which is why my Linux will crash and my Windows won't. I know exactly what I can and cannot tinker with in Windows, while in Linux I'm learning by doing, and sometimes that makes things unstable! Ultimately, I believe that's why I had to finally just format my last install, and start fresh. Boy, am I glad I did that, too! My system runs SOOO much nicer now that I've cleaned out my tinkerings! I never realized Gutsy could reboot so fast until I reinstalled! heh. Formatting in Linux, and recovering, is MUCH quicker than any Windows format/install I've ever done. Just having a /home partition saved me so much time. Coolest thing ever!

Oh, for anyone that may be wondering about my above posts, I didn't post this looking for help. I posted looking for a friendly discussion on the current state of Linux gaming, and it's what I'm getting, so thank you! I'm really just a forum lurker. I've been reading the forums for a while now, and whenever I have a problem with my install, this is the first place I come, and 99% of the time, someone else has already encountered the problem, so there's no reason for me to post, again. I think this will bring me up to 18 total posts in over a year. This time I just wanted to actively participate in a discussion, so I started one, on one of my favorite topics.

I've been gaming on computers since the 80s (computers, not game consoles), and have enjoyed my years playing around with them. I've only ever owned one game console, and that was in the early 90s. A friend of mine convinced me I needed to have it. Oh, well.

jviscosi
December 20th, 2007, 02:09 AM
I bailed on Windows gaming years before I started using Linux. Got tired of issues with games hosing up the machine I used for work (writing) and switched to consoles instead (PS1, then PS2). So, the lack of Linux games hardly affects me at all.

I did get MTG: Online working in WINE, but I don't play that anymore either. The time I spend gaming seems to be tapering off, to the extent that I've been playing "Star Ocean: Till The End Of Time" for like a year and I still haven't finished it.

loudnlownoma
December 20th, 2007, 02:49 AM
Very few new games interest me. Thats probably why I don't feel the game support void so severely. I'd rather like to find some of the good ones and get them running in linux. Games like MDK and Worms 2, the first two Alone in the Darks on PC and games like Full Throttle.

Same boat here. When I found out I could get Diablo II, Dungeon Keeper, and Starcraft all working without having to go through whatever processes some Windows installs required to dumb down hardware enough to make the game playable, I about lost it. I almost forgot how much fun some of these games are.

I do enjoy some newer games though, and have found myself running into the same problems, and having to load a couple of them in Windows due to not enough help found to get it running, or just not being possible at this time, or me being too lazy to look harder. :)

And for the XP/Vista lockup's and BSOD's debate, I can agree that most of these troubles do come from changing or playing around with things, etc. However, I just recently purchased my desktop that Gutsy is installed on, and figured I would give Vista an open-minded chance before even bringing the Linux CD's near it. It was open all of 8 minutes, with no further driver or software installation on my part, before it locked up and had to be power-cycled. That was just from opening various menus to see where things had been moved or changed, not changing or installing anything. Didn't put the nicest taste in my mouth for it. After the third of fourth lockup out of it in that same first day, I decided to go ahead and setup the dual boot, and found that Gutsy happily worked with about 90-95% of my hardware out of the box, including the HP Printer that I have still yet to see work in Vista.

scxtt
December 20th, 2007, 02:58 AM
maybe some "vista certified hardware" tags aren't exactly correct ;) ... my gateway w/ vista has been perfect (knock on wood) - nothing negative @ all ... i'm pleasantly surprised :) ... i do have Fedora 7 waiting on another partition "just in case" :p

gn2
December 20th, 2007, 03:05 AM
So I ask, what's your point?

My point is that it would perhaps have been useful if you had mentioned the game in your original post.

I confess to only having only read "Does it matter" in your second post.

Perhaps I should have taken the time to read it all, but to be honest I just couldn't be arsed.

Gustave
December 20th, 2007, 03:15 AM
Didn't mean to put you off or anything. As I said in a later post, I didn't come here looking for help. I came here looking to discuss. It's why I posted in Community Cafe and not one of the help forums. My leaving the game out of the original post was quite intentional. It wasn't meant to be the topic of discussion.

loudnlownoma
December 20th, 2007, 03:15 AM
maybe some "vista certified hardware" tags aren't exactly correct ;) ... my gateway w/ vista has been perfect (knock on wood) - nothing negative @ all ... i'm pleasantly surprised :) ... i do have Fedora 7 waiting on another partition "just in case" :p

I completely agree with that to a point, but with a Quad core Intel chip, 3GB of RAM, and plenty of power behind it, I was hoping that I would have a fairly easy time of it... I did get a little worried when their memory monitor showed me using just over 1 GB of the RAM at idle, with nothing else open, and before I loaded A/V or Firewall on there even, but still decided to see how it performed. Needless to say, I'm not extermely impressed. Don't get me wrong, a few of the features added were a nice touch, but I didn't see anything exciting enough to really draw me in with an "I must have this feature" feeling.

sh1v
December 20th, 2007, 03:19 AM
I completely agree with that to a point, but with a Quad core Intel chip, 3GB of RAM, and plenty of power behind it, I was hoping that I would have a fairly easy time of it... I did get a little worried when their memory monitor showed me using just over 1 GB of the RAM at idle, with nothing else open, and before I loaded A/V or Firewall on there even, but still decided to see how it performed. Needless to say, I'm not extermely impressed. Don't get me wrong, a few of the features added were a nice touch, but I didn't see anything exciting enough to really draw me in with an "I must have this feature" feeling.

Thats just vista using the memory you bought. I mean if you bought 3gb of ram, why not have the OS use it to make things speed up?

scxtt
December 20th, 2007, 03:23 AM
. . . I did get a little worried when their memory monitor showed me using just over 1 GB of the RAM at idle, with nothing else open . . .after a clean boot, i'm using ~47% of my 2Gb ... doesn't bother me, it's there - might as well be used ...

i can't say i'd buy Vista to put on a box, but since it came w/ the laptop i figured "why not" ... i'm actually pretty happy w/ it - but i wouldn't seek the OS out ... i do get more enjoyment out of it than XP, not sure what that's worth tho :p

loudnlownoma
December 20th, 2007, 03:35 AM
It's not so much having a problem with it using it, just wondering what exactly it needs a GB of RAM for just sitting there, with nothing open besides the desktop and all. I can understand it using some for whatever processes with Windows and all, but if the clock needs that much memory just to keep itself on the right time, there's something wrong...lol.

And that's the only reason I have it myself. It came with the PC I bought it on. Only reason I would own a copy as well.

macogw
December 20th, 2007, 03:35 AM
This can EASILY be changed in settings. I had a series of BSODs a year or so ago because of a recent upgrade. Bad Memory.
I know, but default is to hide it from the user. I wondered why the computer kept rebooting itself.


Bad drivers/hardware are the only real reasons I even hear about BSODs these days and both are repairable.
It's interesting the way each OS handles that. My internet card on my laptop's driver used to be really horrible on Linux and the driver would crash at high throughput. I'd just type "sudo rmmod sky2 && sudo modprobe sky2" and it'd start working again. A Windows computer would BSOD if a driver crashed. The computer that would always reboot has a dying video card. At the time (3 years ago), it was just starting to die. Sometimes it'd let it be known by going to 4-bit color instead of rebooting itself. On Linux, it doesn't crash to 4-bit color or have kernel panics. For a while the screen would just wiggle on the very edges for a second every now and then (maybe once or twice a week). A year later, now that the card has deteriorated even further, it has reached the point where I'm going to replace it because the card now turns itself off when the computer starts getting hot.

DjBones
December 20th, 2007, 03:44 AM
i'm tellin yah,
its all about that 'robots'

starcannon
December 20th, 2007, 03:57 AM
I just don't buy games that I cant make work reasonably well with wine/cedega and I absolutely refuse to allow a game to determine my OS, if I want that determined for me I just turn on my Playstation2.
As time goes by I have found myself buying no windows games at all. Theres a pile of free games, and I'm so tired of the wine/cedega headaches that I now only buy linux native commercial games, I even killed my WoW account this year after having a patch break things again.
If game developers want my money their gonna have to start giving it to me natively.
My current favorite commercial game is Unreal Tournament 2k4.

Gustave
December 20th, 2007, 04:17 AM
I just don't buy games that I cant make work reasonably well with wine/cedega.
As time goes by I have found myself buying no windows games at all. Theres a pile of free games, and I'm so tired of the wine/cedega headaches that I now only buy linux native commercial games, I even killed my WoW account this year after having a patch break things again.
If game developers want my money their gonna have to start giving it to me natively.
My current favorite commercial game is Unreal Tournament 2k4.

This is an interesting point, too. Makes me wonder what other games I CAN get to work in Linux. Someone else mentioned Dungeon Siege working, which I find just a little ironic because it's an m$ game.

I know I've read other areas talking about this, so I might just take this approach as well. See what I can find that I enjoy and play that.

Unfortunately, there's nothing like the unending feeling of a good MMO. The typical single player game I play (I don't do FPS games for the most part) are done for me when I complete them. No sense doing it again, because it'll be exactly the same.

However, there are lots of good exceptions to this. Vampires: The Masquerade I bought discount after the company folded because no one bought their game is fantastic! I played it a dozen times. I think I got it on Steam, where I bought several games. Civ 4 is a nice open ended game that you can play for days. Age of Empires III was fun, too, and fantastic graphics. Dunno if any of them play on Linux, but it's not something I ever really thought about doing.

And if I really wanted to try out another MMO, there a few I've read about that play natively on Linux, but a few of them feel like I'd be settling for something less than what I had. I guess to me it seems like it's a choice of compromise and play on Linux, or go full tilt and play on windows. I guess I'll read more and see what others have to say here.

cprofitt
December 20th, 2007, 04:26 AM
Simple answer:

Computer = Linux
Xbox 360 = games

Gustave
December 20th, 2007, 09:01 AM
Simple answer:

Computer = Linux
Xbox 360 = games



There's never a simple answer, and this one won't work for me. Mostly because I don't play console games. Never have. Mostly, I just do not like them at all. The games I play are made almost exclusively for the PC.

Also, no tv to hook it up to. Don't own one. Just a few computers.

Not to point out that I don't really want yet another m$ product in my home. ps3 is garbage (and sony is suffering for it), and I don't wanna play with a wii. I still laugh at some of the stories about people throwing (quite literally) their controller through their large screen tv while playing the game. I don't feel like becoming a spaz to play a game.

gn2
December 20th, 2007, 11:28 AM
ps3 is garbage

Your reason(s) for thinking this?

forrestcupp
December 20th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Oh, and for those couple guys that said 'have the gaming companies release the source for the games', dream on! This will NEVER happen with a company that hopes to make any money from a game at all. I would never even wish for this to happen, quite frankly.

Not necessarily true. There is a way for a company to have open source code and still make money. ID has open sourced their last gen games, but the content isn't free. The content is made up of the level design, 3D models, texturing, sound effects, music, voice acting, etc. The code is open, but you still have to pay to get the content. Code without content is pretty useless. I'd say most of the work goes into creating the content, not the coding. That's why one man free games can't compare to a commercial quality game that was created by a team with lots of financial backing.

So why not open source your code and let the community deal with porting? The community could probably even port DirectX code to OpenGL. And you would still have to buy the CD to get the game to work. That's how the native Loki installers work.

BigSilly
December 20th, 2007, 03:13 PM
I gave up gaming on the PC in order to move to Linux entirely. It wasn't such a tremendous sacrifice though - I was bloody bored to tears with it all anyway!

I've got a Wii now, and that more than does the job if I get the gaming pangs. Haven't missed PC gaming one bit, though I do like my emulators. Luckily they are mostly great on Linux so I'm happy.

Murrquan
December 20th, 2007, 03:41 PM
I remember one day I decided to install all of my games and see if they'd run in Wine. Several were disappointments. Others ran flawlessly. I didn't know until I tried, although some of them were covered at appdb.winehq.org (http://appdb.winehq.org). And still others are supposed to be able to run in Cedega.

It takes a bit of effort, but to be honest I'm very attached to Linux now. And furthermore, the only game I ever really play nowadays is Final Fantasy XI Online, which I play on my PS2. Of the ones that I loved from my childhood and would actually want to play nowadays, most are DOS games I can play in DOSBox. Like Tyrian and the other old Epic games, and Transport Tycoon Deluxe.

The three biggest games I want to play in Linux are Neverwinter Nights, Civilization (I, II, II:ToT, III and IV), and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. NWN has a native Linux version and Civ IV runs in Cedega, but there's no support for my SiS integrated 3d in Linux so I have to play them in XP. Civ III theoretically works, but it's supposed to be tricky and I haven't really tried yet. Civ II and II:ToT fail, and I haven't gotten them to work even though I have tried. Civ I's DOS version is better, so I can play it in DOSBox. SMAC crashes after a few turns, but I actually spoke with the Wine devs who were looking at bug reports and it sounds like they've got a solution lined up. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. ^.^

I know there's a native Linux version of SMAC, but it doesn't have music (I think) and it's tremendously hard to find. And Tuxgames doesn't have their version in stock last I checked. If only I'd started gaming on Linux back when I saw the native Linux version in stores ...

psionyk
December 20th, 2007, 05:50 PM
... the ones that I loved from my childhood and would actually want to play nowadays, most are DOS games I can play in DOSBox. Like Tyrian and the other old Epic games, and Transport Tycoon Deluxe.

The three biggest games I want to play in Linux are Neverwinter Nights, Civilization (I, II, II:ToT, III and IV), and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. NWN has a native Linux version and Civ IV runs in Cedega, but there's no support for my SiS integrated 3d in Linux so I have to play them in XP. Civ III theoretically works, but it's supposed to be tricky and I haven't really tried yet. Civ II and II:ToT fail, and I haven't gotten them to work even though I have tried. Civ I's DOS version is better, so I can play it in DOSBox. SMAC crashes after a few turns, but I actually spoke with the Wine devs who were looking at bug reports and it sounds like they've got a solution lined up. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. ^.^

I know there's a native Linux version of SMAC, but it doesn't have music (I think) and it's tremendously hard to find. And Tuxgames doesn't have their version in stock last I checked. If only I'd started gaming on Linux back when I saw the native Linux version in stores ...

Always nice to see other "old school" gamers around, like the cliche says, "just because something's old doesn't mean you throw it away"...

Apart from Starcraft 2, which is the only new game I am now waiting to purchase, the games I play are all fairly/much older. The greats, like Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft 2/3, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, C&C, the list goes on. I have a collection of old DOS games myself that I dusted off and played again, and quickly realized why I got hooked on gaming in the first place. Most of the new games now are all flash, no substance (IMHO), and all the fancy graphics you want can't make up for mediocre (or worse) gameplay. Either that, or it's a fantastic game, but over in 10 or 20 hours, in which case, what's the point?

I've tried Civilization games in WINE, with no luck, not to mention I've even had troubles getting titles that are supposed to be platinum rated with WINE to even work properly. In that vein, I've pretty much resorted to keeping a windows install for gaming only, apart from that I don't plan on using it anymore. I would be VERY interested in hearing if SMAC can run successfully in WINE once it's fixed however, as it might tempt me to give it another try, not to mention play it again. (SMAC was an amazing game, lost months worth of my life playing it... :-) )

Don't get me wrong, WINE is a stellar accomplishment, and total credit to the devs for being able to create an environment to run apps from a very closed Microsoft system. However, for me it just doesn't work, and after too many hassles trying to tweak games that were rated flawless in WINE, the failed effort was not worth it IMO. And therein lies the biggest problem.... since they are providing a platform for a closed system, they will always be two steps behind MS, and incompatibilities will always exist in getting native MS code to run properly in a "sandbox-native" MS environment.