Different ways of gaming with linux

[Terzo]

For reason I can no longer remember I recently decided to try gaming whlie running linux...again. I fiddled a little bit with WINE and vmplayer, but in both cases couldn't get Team Fortress 2 running without a ton of lag. However, it got me thinking; what are the ways to combine linux and gaming.

Option 1: Wine.
Advantages:
-Linux "host"
-no need for a Windows license
Disadvantages:
-may have to tweek settings to get a game to run
-different hardware may run games differently, you may have unique problems

Option 2: Virtual (virtualbox/vmware/?) session of Windows
Advantages:
-Linux "host"
-in theory, games should run without problems
Disadvantages
-3d performance is poor or non-existent (probably not as much an issue with older games)
-need a Windows license

Option 3: Virtual session of Linux (i.e. use Windows as base system)
Advantages:
-games should run with zero issues (in theory)
-games should run at "100% performance" (when compared to WINE, for example)
Disadvantages:
-Windows "host"
-need a Windows license

Option 4: Dual boot
Advantages:
-games should run with zero issues (in theory)
-games should run at "100% performance"
Disadvantages:
-need to reboot to play games
-need a Windows license

So far I've tried 1,2, and 4. None of them really worked for me.
Running WINE proved to be too difficult for me. I tried installing Baldur's Gate 2 and TF2 but gave up on each after running into issues that I couldn't fix. While I'm sure I could have found some workarounds, the hassle didn't seem worth it.
Most recently, I install vmplayer 3.0.1 and ran a session of windows 7 in that. While I was able to start up two games, the performance was lackluster. My Sims was playable, but still felt sluggish. TF2, on the other hand, would generally crash before I could get to the server list. It was cool that I was able to do that, but it's certainly not a substitute for windows, at least in the case of newer games.
The best solution has been dual booting. I didn't have to mess around just to install or run a game, and performance was up to par. In practice, I found I still wasn't playing games because I decided it was too bothersome to reboot twice (once to play a game, and a second time to switch back to linux). Thinking about it, I bet this would be more realistic (at least for me) with a solid state drive. Maybe if booting only took 15 seconds I wouldn't mind it so much.

My recent bout with vmware has me wondering about option 3. Right now, it seems like the best solution. I could still use linux for day to day tasks, and if I want to play a game I simply can save my vm session and quit into windows. I could probably leave it open too, if running an older game. The only downsides are needing the Windows license (although I reckon that's not an issue for many people) and having a Windows "base". The latter part bothers me a little bit (it doesn't feel "proper") but is there any significant difference to linux in a vm and linux as a base system? I can't really think of any, and while it wouldn't be my first choice I can't think of a better alternative...well, maybe a dedicated gaming pc and dedicated linux box but that seems a bit excessive.

 

[PCTC2]

Just get it out of your system. Windows is not bad. It is not the enemy.
Seriously. It's not the days of Windows ME. It's stable. It's not a horrible memory hog. And unless you're doing something crazy with linux that requires immense IO, VMware server for Windows is free (and doesn't have an issue with the kernel like the linux version and kernels 2.6.30+). Go with option 3. Shell a little money out for an OEM license of Windows and play your games.

 

[Jodell88]

Just get it out of your system. Windows is not bad. It is not the enemy.
Seriously. It's not the days of Windows ME. It's stable. It's not a horrible memory hog. And unless you're doing something crazy with linux that requires immense IO, VMware server for Windows is free (and doesn't have an issue with the kernel like the linux version and kernels 2.6.30+). Go with option 3. Shell a little money out for an OEM license of Windows and play your games.

LOL!

Windows is the most memory intensive OS there is to my knowledge. At startup it uses around one gigabyte of memory. Linux varies depending on if you are using a desktop environment or window manager, but on average linux with a desktop environment uses 250 megs max at startup. It can also dip below 100 megs if you use a window manager. I want to see you get windows 7 or vista to do that.

I'm not bashing windows, I use it everyday and it is installed on all the computers in my house except for one.

 

[Terzo]

Just get it out of your system. Windows is not bad. It is not the enemy.
Seriously. It's not the days of Windows ME. It's stable. It's not a horrible memory hog. And unless you're doing something crazy with linux that requires immense IO, VMware server for Windows is free (and doesn't have an issue with the kernel like the linux version and kernels 2.6.30+). Go with option 3. Shell a little money out for an OEM license of Windows and play your games.

I don't have anything against Windows; even right now I have it installed so I can dual boot. I'm just tossing out my ideas to see if I missed something, or if someone else has thought of something I haven't.

 

[Jodell88]

I don't have anything against Windows; even right now I have it installed so I can dual boot. I'm just tossing out my ideas to see if I missed something, or if someone else has thought of something I haven't.

you can try Crossover Games. It's not free but it tries to work with the popular games. There is a free version, but it does not have a gui IIRC.

 

[Paperlantern]

LOL!

Windows is the most memory intensive OS there is to my knowledge. At startup it uses around one gigabyte of memory. Linux varies depending on if you are using a desktop environment or window manager, but on average linux with a desktop environment uses 250 megs max at startup. It can also dip below 100 megs if you use a window manager. I want to see you get windows 7 or vista to do that.

I'm not bashing windows, I use it everyday and it is installed on all the computers in my house except for one.

I understand youre not trying to bash windows, so I am not trying to bash you or come down on you for saying what you said, windows IS one of the more memory intensive OS's, however, you are saying this kind of as a contradiction to what PCTC2 said about it not being the enemy and that it's not bad. Your reaction with the big "LOL" says to me you think he's way off base. So with that:

First of all, he didn't say anything about memory, and yet your whole argument about him being wrong was just based on memory. Second of all, memory is not the commodity it once was, Windows 7 comes with a host of services running in the background to make your OS experience more pleasant and visually enjoyable, those services require memory. But with 90% of machines these days with a MINIMUM of 3GB, who cares if 1GB is used when it boots! Unused memory is WASTED memory. Use it up, give me a sweet looking environment to do my work!

Thirdly, now while it's not 100MB, but my wife's 4 year old laptop runs a copy of Win 7 that i installed for her. It boots to about 230MB used of her 768MB available, leaving plenty of room for her to run Firefox and e mail. So not only is it capable OF using 1GB of ram to provide a very sweet experience, but it can also be stripped down to basics and be very efficient even on some of the older machines of today.

Just as an aside, i'm not a windows "fanboy" by any stretch, though i have liked Win7 thus far, I also run Ubuntu 9.10 at home on a laptop, as well as Linux Mint Helena here at the office on a third monitor for virus research and other things. My point was simply that Win7 does bite into memory if you want it to, but it doesn't have to. Making your argument less valid.

 

[lxskllr]

I use the most appropriate O/S for my given task. What that means right now, is Vista on my primary desktop, and Ubuntu on my secondary machines. I don't like dual booting, so that's out, and I don't feel like hacking around games to get them to work in some reduced capacity, so Linux is out. Using Linux for gaming is like using a Corolla as a cargo truck. You can do it after a fashion, but the results are ugly.

 

[Nothinman]

-different hardware may run games differently, you may have unique problems

This is just as true on Windows. Driver versions, patches, etc all probably have even more of an affect on games on Windows, at least IME. WINE is more hit or miss, but getting games running on Windows can be just as frustrating.

-3d performance is poor or non-existent (probably not as much an issue with older games)

I know VirtualBox has put a good amount of effort into 3D support and VMware Workstation as well, but the latter isn't cheap and I'd still be surprised if both performed well enough to play TF2 well.

Essentially, if you want to game in Linux right now you find a way to make WINE work.

 

[Paperlantern]

Or you could play games that actually have Linux counterparts. I'm old school, the only game i ever play anymore is Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and that has a linux version as well, so i'm set.

 

[pcslookout]

Terzo interesting take. Have you ever thought about option 5 ? One windows/gaming and the other for linux/programs/surfing the web ?

 

[konakona]

I just tried some of my lesser demanding games and vbox doesn't run any of them at all. vmware was ok with one of them, though didn't get to try others (will be working on it). WINE only worked with one of the many games I have tried and that was with some major visual effects and sound missing altogether. Tried cedega and crossover - these were even worse, didn't run any of the games I had. Spend a good bit of time on that too, ironically vmware seems to be best among the pack.

That being said, my games are modern but very low req and can run very well on modest windows hardware. For more demanding FPS genre or any 3d heavy stuff, I just wouldn't bother. There was a relatively recent article on it on AT and the results were horrendous as expected.

I was fine with no ability to game on this laptop as it is meant for work only and I got two windows 7 machines at home for all the entertainment needs I may have. Let's face it, linux does certain things better than windows does, but gaming is definitely not one of them, far from it. There is no shame in admitting there is a known weakness, nothing can be best everything. Let's not try to be defensive and argue it is not linux's fault; the moement you start pointing finger at someone, you are already acknowledging there is some problem at hand. For those that are just curious if things work well enough, the simple answer is NO. Doesn't really matter how and why it is like that, that's just the current state of gaming in linux.

 

[konakona]

Terzo interesting take. Have you ever thought about option 5 ? One windows/gaming and the other for linux/programs/surfing the web ?

That's basically what I do:
desktops at home (95% entertainment role) - windows 7
a laptop at work (pretty much all productivity role) - ubuntu 9.10

Well the real reason I went with linux was I needed to free up the windows 7 key bound to the laptop 🙂 It works well enough for the intended role, no complaints here. A bit of searching and fiddling to get simple things working but I was expecting that.