I would probably switch, though I would keep my dual boot option. Right now I dual boot but mainly go to XP (Vista 64 was so insanely buggy that I couldn't even browse the web for 5 minutes) since Chessbase (AFAIK) doesn't have a good linux equivalent and I work at a MS shop so I need Visual Studio 2k8 regularly.
Even without gaming, I would be running Linux if it had actual support for most hardware. If it was sold and not free, and had a technical support staff that I could call when I have a problem.
I strongly dislike Windows, and would love a more streamlined OS, but Linux has been to difficult to even set-up when I have tried it a few years back.
I still remember how much time my roommate spent trying to get simple things like his CD drive to work everytime he tried a new distribution. I just don't want that hasle.
I've been a long time reader of the forums but this thread has compelled me to make an account. There is quite a bit of misinformation being thrown about here as well as positives of Linux that are being looked at as negatives.
Gaming right now is ruled by Direct3D and of course Microsoft isn't going to let that API go. That a problem, while quite a few games can be emulated under Crossover/Cedega/Wine for the most part it is a hassle and may or may not run as good as the native client if it runs at all. I'll concede that point, but that's the topic of this thread. If games were made with a native Linux client would I play them, I'll have to cast my ballot in the yes category. Especially since I use Linux as my main desktop now.
The desktop choices are one of the great things about Linux, while I can agree that the Linux community could benefit from consolidation on just a few different windows managers would probably give even a greater product, the rate at which the windows managers are growing -- I wouldn't call that stale in the least bit. IMO the latest screenies of Windows 7 looks a whole lot like KDE4 to me but maybe I'm biased.
Windows is the King and with good reason, it does do what it does very well. If you are okay with that then there is really not a reason to switch.
Linux does what it does very well. It is very stable open source platform. Let me take a sidestep here for a second and say with all the types of software that I have installed on my Linux boxes to get the equivalent on Windows would leave me with one of four options (1. Look for the open source equivalent or run with cgywin. 2. pay out of the nose 3. get a crappy/buggy/malware-infested piece of junk software or 4. pirate the real deal). All viable options I suppose except for 4, I'm getting too old for that crap. So basically, try the software, if you don't like it just remove it, doesn't take a lot of time and you are most likely not worried about some residual malware that may have possibly been left.
sidebar: Linux does offer some pretty easy ways to install software: from bundle packages that resolve dependencies (deb, rpm, pbi), to apt-get, yum to one-click installs (SUSE) and some i'm forgetting.
In short, Linux is as ready now as it ever will be for people who are technically inclined to try out as a desktop replacement. It will require some commitment because it is different. There are alternatives for most everything someone would want to do. I know I know - MS Office and the Adobe Suite as well as some others are really powerful applications and there is no direct one-to-one replacement for them. I agree, but I also think a lot of the people who use them, also don't use all those functions that really make the product so superior. I am technically inclined, but the secretary down the hall can probably run circles around me when it comes to the Office Suite; so for me Open Office is every bit as powerful as MS Office, may not be the same case for her as she probably uses more advanced functions.
Gaming right now is ruled by Direct3D and of course Microsoft isn't going to let that API go. That a problem, while quite a few games can be emulated under Crossover/Cedega/Wine for the most part it is a hassle and may or may not run as good as the native client if it runs at all. I'll concede that point, but that's the topic of this thread. If games were made with a native Linux client would I play them, I'll have to cast my ballot in the yes category. Especially since I use Linux as my main desktop now.
The desktop choices are one of the great things about Linux, while I can agree that the Linux community could benefit from consolidation on just a few different windows managers would probably give even a greater product, the rate at which the windows managers are growing -- I wouldn't call that stale in the least bit. IMO the latest screenies of Windows 7 looks a whole lot like KDE4 to me but maybe I'm biased.
Windows is the King and with good reason, it does do what it does very well. If you are okay with that then there is really not a reason to switch.
Linux does what it does very well. It is very stable open source platform. Let me take a sidestep here for a second and say with all the types of software that I have installed on my Linux boxes to get the equivalent on Windows would leave me with one of four options (1. Look for the open source equivalent or run with cgywin. 2. pay out of the nose 3. get a crappy/buggy/malware-infested piece of junk software or 4. pirate the real deal). All viable options I suppose except for 4, I'm getting too old for that crap. So basically, try the software, if you don't like it just remove it, doesn't take a lot of time and you are most likely not worried about some residual malware that may have possibly been left.
sidebar: Linux does offer some pretty easy ways to install software: from bundle packages that resolve dependencies (deb, rpm, pbi), to apt-get, yum to one-click installs (SUSE) and some i'm forgetting.
In short, Linux is as ready now as it ever will be for people who are technically inclined to try out as a desktop replacement. It will require some commitment because it is different. There are alternatives for most everything someone would want to do. I know I know - MS Office and the Adobe Suite as well as some others are really powerful applications and there is no direct one-to-one replacement for them. I agree, but I also think a lot of the people who use them, also don't use all those functions that really make the product so superior. I am technically inclined, but the secretary down the hall can probably run circles around me when it comes to the Office Suite; so for me Open Office is every bit as powerful as MS Office, may not be the same case for her as she probably uses more advanced functions.
Linux hasn't even been around 20 years.:disgust: It's certainly way beyond the "hobbyist" phase. Most supercomputers run Linux. It's very popular with businesses and has a fair piece of the server market. Ever hear of Google? They use Linux. It's also popular in embedded devices. And now it's gaining popularity in the home due to the netbook market. Vietnam is switching to Linux, and China is headed that way. With the current world economy, you'll see its popularity rise especially in capital strapped countries.
Bateluer
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2001
- 27,730
- 8
- 0
Germany and a lot of European nations are using it in their governments as well.
Honestly, the main things holding Linux back on the desktop are three things.
1) Gaming Support
2) Driver support for current high end hardware. For example, ATI and Nvidia have great Linux drivers, they are no where near as polished as their windows drivers. Nvidia releases their *nix drivers even less frequently than their Windows drivers. ATI has released documentation to open source their drivers, albeit tardily. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
3) Software installation. Synaptic is great, incredibly easy. But its beyond the ken of the average user. They want to stick in a CD and click 'Next' on an autorun until its then, then click the shortcut on the desktop. While some linux apps offer this, 99.99% of windows apps have done this for years.
If you accomplish these things, then other draw backs will be shored up. It doesn't help when UT3 is released, and then a year later, they're still talking about the release of the Linux client. Linux clients should be released at the same time as the Windows client. Its a catch 22 situation. Gamers won't switch to Linux until they can get the latest games on release day, developers & publishers won't release games with Linux clients because 1)they perceive a very tiny market, and 2)implementing DRM like SecuRom would be MUCH harder.
Reading through this thread, i was struck by how consistent the direct comparison between vista and ubuntu was despite the fact that one costs between $200-$400 and the other is free. Perhaps the ops should have rephrased the poll questions to something like:
"If ubuntu could play the majority of the games you play, would you adopt it or buy the next version of windows?"
I'm of the opinion that MS wants people to pirate it's OS to an extent because pirating users are still users that aren't getting used to competitors software. Not saying that the naysayers on this board or pirating their OS, but it does surprise me that $200-$400 is such a non-issue.
"If ubuntu could play the majority of the games you play, would you adopt it or buy the next version of windows?"
I'm of the opinion that MS wants people to pirate it's OS to an extent because pirating users are still users that aren't getting used to competitors software. Not saying that the naysayers on this board or pirating their OS, but it does surprise me that $200-$400 is such a non-issue.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Hold on now. OpenGL is a 3D graphics library, DirectX contains libraries for 3D graphics, 2D graphics, sound, input and more. DirectX is far more complete and robust than OpenGL. Not to mention Microsoft's excellent new XNA game studio which makes cross-platform game development a relative breeze. To claim that OpenGL is "just as good" as DirectX displays a profound lack of understanding of what either of these products are.
Linux is the OS for people who want to do serious work. Or at least, its percentage among workstations and servers say so.
Linux isn't going to replace windows on the desktop. Linux is going to take over emerging market segments and the desktop is going to die out. Ultimately, you'll probably end up with a bunch of proprietary Linuxes anyway kind of defeating the point, but at least there will be some actual competition (without killing compatibility) in the OS landscape.
OpenGL is not just as good as DirectX. It doesn't offer half the things that DirectX does, and while most things can be added in through extensions...why? The point of an API is to standardize, and OpenGL only standardizes at the most basic level. This is how you get silly things like commonly used OpenGL extensions being named "NV_xxx".
OpenGL does have lower performance overhead, which is good for simpler apps (say...desktop window management), but directx is so much more, for better or worse.
And with the introduction of geometry shaders, OpenGL is even lacking in a low level primitive that Direct3D provides. OpenGL is so far stuck in the past that it can't even do everything Direct3D can (let alone DirectX) without some major reworking.
SDL would more so be the open source competitor to DirectX. It's gaining popularity and I like the idea, but it isn't on the level of DirectX.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter