Vista sucks for games

[w00t]

anyone here could of told you that Vista sucks for gaming IMO sucks for anything

 

[Nothinman]

If you think your experience with gaming on Windows is typical gaming developers would never touch the platform and no gamer would use it.

I'm not saying my experience was typical but neither is your "everything works just fine all of the time" experience.

Clearly that isn't the case because Windows is the most popular gaming platform; it does not suck for gaming and your experience is neither typical nor the norm.

Windows is only the most popular gaming platform because it's the most popular PC OS, technical merit has pretty much nothing to do with it.

So download them before or use the motherboard driver CD. Failing that you can sometimes force a generic NIC driver to get basic functionality and then download something better later.

Yea, hindsight 20/20 and all that so I have them on a USB stick now. And I didn't have the motherboard disc because the box is a hand-me-down. I just find it ludicrous that a 2-3 year old board doesn't even have it's NIC supported out of the box.

So what do you do with Linux if it doesn't have NIC drivers and you need to download them?

Doesn't happen. Ethernet and hard disks are one thing that Linux supports virtually ubiquitously.

 

[Smilin]

Look, hater...

Your non WHQL graphics driver is from December of last year. Hint: the latest drivers were released 9 days before your original post.

More specifically that file you mention in your problems is:
nvlddmkm.sys, 7.15.0010.9746 (English), 12/7/2006


I would say you're lucky that's the least of your problems. Checkit:

You're using audio drivers from 3/19/2003 so they weren't even designed for Vista!
Your wireless adapter is from 9/19/2003 ...they rewrote the wireless stack in Vista btw that driver doesn't really fly anymore.

Your mass storage controller is using drivers from 5/6/2003 and 1/27/2003 (hell, that one pre-dates XP!). That would be one ticking time bomb for your data. Here is the other..

Your largest hard drive is formatted with FAT so unless you're dual booting to *nix or somthing (Windows 98 maybe?) you're putting your media/backups or whatever else you've got on there at risk.

Basically it looks like you're running an nForce 2 motherboard (that afaik nVidia doesn't support for Vista) and not using any inbox drivers from Microsoft as a workaround.



I love your signature though...
"Certified does not equal qualified."

 

[BFG10K]

I'm not saying my experience was typical

Huh? Let's take a look at your original claim:

Windows in general sucks for games, the last time I tried playing a few games I had nothing but problems.

So in other words you're making a blanket comment about the OS based on your experiences yet at the same time trying to state that my experience is somehow invalid.

Your original comment is false. Windows in general does not suck for games and your anecdotal experience doesn't change that fact. There are millions of users out there gaming on Windows without issue.

but neither is your "everything works just fine all of the time" experience.

But I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that Windows does not suck for gaming unlike your claims to the contrary.

Windows is only the most popular gaming platform because it's the most popular PC OS, technical merit has pretty much nothing to do with it.

It has plenty of technical merit, especially the likes of DirectX. Vista also adds new features to the table like virtualized VRAM and a more robust driver model.

I just find it ludicrous that a 2-3 year old board doesn't even have it's NIC supported out of the box.

How can it have out of the box support if the build of Windows you're using pre-dates the hardware?

Doesn't happen. Ethernet and hard disks are one thing that Linux supports virtually ubiquitously.

So if the NIC comes out after your distro was built what happens then? If I use a distro from 2004 will it support a Killer NIC for example?

And along those same lines are you saying all distros that pre-date the likes of SATA can automatically use it too?

If so where are the drivers coming from if the OS was compiled before such technology even existed?

 

[Shawn]

Try using some drivers that aren't over 6 months old.

 

[Nothinman]

So in other words you're making a blanket comment about the OS based on your experiences yet at the same time trying to state that my experience is somehow invalid.

People do the same thing about Linux all of the time and hardly anyone complains so I don't see the problem. I see "Linux sucks for games" all of the time when the reality is that Linux is fine for games, I was just playing one a minute ago even.

Your original comment is false. Windows in general does not suck for games and your anecdotal experience doesn't change that fact. There are millions of users out there gaming on Windows without issue.

I don't think I'd go that far, I think that just about all of them have issues but they're used to working around them.

But I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that Windows does not suck for gaming unlike your claims to the contrary.

Sure it does, having to find the right combination of drivers, having to download countless patches for each game, having to deal with copy protected discs because piracy is so easy, etc. Do most people get by? Sure, but I'd bet that everyone can name at least a dozen things they'd rather behave differently.

It has plenty of technical merit, especially the likes of DirectX. Vista also adds new features to the table like virtualized VRAM and a more robust driver model.

MS only created DirectX because they couldn't own OpenGL. If they had instead chosen to support standards like OpenGL and SDL gaming wouldn't be such a lock-in business right now and that's DirectX's real merit.

How can it have out of the box support if the build of Windows you're using pre-dates the hardware?

That's not my problem, there's nothing stopping MS from releasing periodic updates for the client like they do for server. Debian gets berated for a 2-3 year release cycle and no one even blinks when it takes MS 5 years to put out an update, I find that kind of funny too.

So if the NIC comes out after your distro was built what happens then? If I use a distro from 2004 will it support a Killer NIC for example?

No one in their right mind uses a 3yr old distro, it would take you longer to update it than it would to install it. Well, I guess you might do that if you like to emulate the Windows install eXPerience.

And along those same lines are you saying all distros that pre-date the likes of SATA can automatically use it too?

SATA is a bad example because most of the onboard chipsets support PATA emulation for legacy support, so via that method, yes it would be fine.

If so where are the drivers coming from if the OS was compiled before such technology even existed?

It's not about that, it's about frequent releases in order to keep up with new hardware. Obviously there will be some delay between the hardware release and distro's supporting it but with distros like Ubuntu putting out a new release every 6 months the delay is extremely small.

 

[coloumb]

If beta testing Microsoft's OS's has taught me anything:

Dual boot [tons of free dual boot options available]

-or-

Use a removable drive solution with an internal fixed drive to share files, programs, etc [email files, "my document files", etc].

 

[Mem]

Hardest thing you need to do with Vista is keeps drivers updated,so nothing hard about that.

Gaming as I have already stated is fine in Vista,sure you might need to update the odd driver depending on the game and your video card,but in general its robust enough to be a very good gaming OS and more then good enough for general use.

Those that say otherwise about gaming and Vista must be doing something wrong ,because gaming is so simple to do in Vista,really not hard at all to run games in Vista with XP stability.

 

[BFG10K]

People do the same thing about Linux all of the time and hardly anyone complains so I don't see the problem.

Err, so now you're claiming Linux is somehow on par with Windows for gaming? If not what relevance does Linux have to your original false claim?

I see "Linux sucks for games" all of the time when the reality is that Linux is fine for games, I was just playing one a minute ago even.

So how is Loki games doing these days in that booming Linux gaming environment? :roll:

All I see Linux gaming doing is trying to catch up to Windows through Wine.

We have evidence that Linux sucks for games - lacking native titles, lacking developer support, lacking sales, lacking driver support, lacking options, hoping Wine is updated and will work as well as DirectX. This evidence is all documented and real.

I don't think I'd go that far, I think that just about all of them have issues but they're used to working around them.

Your original claim Windows in general sucks for games is false. You need to retract that comment because it has absolutely no merit. Furthermore to then turn around and claim Linux is fine for games while bashing Windows only demonstrates your blatant bias.

Sure it does, having to find the right combination of drivers, having to download countless patches for each game, having to deal with copy protected discs because piracy is so easy, etc.

How is that any different to Linux? Oh wait, in most cases the games aren't even available on Linux. That's how.

Do most people get by? Sure, but I'd bet that everyone can name at least a dozen things they'd rather behave differently.

You mean like Linux?

MS only created DirectX because they couldn't own OpenGL. If they had instead chosen to support standards like OpenGL and SDL gaming wouldn't be such a lock-in business right now and that's DirectX's real merit.

This has what to do with your false claim that Windows has no technical merit? Stop discussing irrelevant tangents. Either put up evidence of your claims or retract them.

Debian gets berated for a 2-3 year release cycle and no one even blinks when it takes MS 5 years to put out an update, I find that kind of funny too.

So when you use a 2-3 year old Debian distro what happens if your NIC is too new to be supported? I'm still not getting a straight answer from you, just rhetoric.

No one in their right mind uses a 3yr old distro, it would take you longer to update it than it would to install it. Well, I guess you might do that if you like to emulate the Windows install eXPerience.

Likewise no one in the their right mind expects an OS pre-dating hardware to support it out of the box. You don't expect it with Linux so why do you expect it with Windows?

Obviously there will be some delay between the hardware release and distro's supporting it but with distros like Ubuntu putting out a new release every 6 months the delay is extremely small.

So what happens when I install a five month old Ubunto distro onto a system with a brand new NIC just released today?

 

[oldsystem]

Get an Intel Mac

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: oldsystem
Get an Intel Mac

so he can run windows via bootcamp or parallels? either way, MS still gets their OS onto his computer. and in the case of parallels, it's likely performance will suffer due to the virtualization.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Look, hater...

Your non WHQL graphics driver is from December of last year. Hint: the latest drivers were released 9 days before your original post.

More specifically that file you mention in your problems is:
nvlddmkm.sys, 7.15.0010.9746 (English), 12/7/2006


I would say you're lucky that's the least of your problems. Checkit:

You're using audio drivers from 3/19/2003 so they weren't even designed for Vista!
Your wireless adapter is from 9/19/2003 ...they rewrote the wireless stack in Vista btw that driver doesn't really fly anymore.

Your mass storage controller is using drivers from 5/6/2003 and 1/27/2003 (hell, that one pre-dates XP!). That would be one ticking time bomb for your data. Here is the other..

Your largest hard drive is formatted with FAT so unless you're dual booting to *nix or somthing (Windows 98 maybe?) you're putting your media/backups or whatever else you've got on there at risk.

Basically it looks like you're running an nForce 2 motherboard (that afaik nVidia doesn't support for Vista) and not using any inbox drivers from Microsoft as a workaround.



I love your signature though...
"Certified does not equal qualified."

geeze, i haven't agreed with you in a long time

about time ... right now!

i would say updated drivers are the key ... and not running old HW

i am just getting into the 'Vista experience' this weekend .. i realized that my HD2900xt drivers probably wouldn't run properly on Win2K ... so i will find out what AMD drivers on Vista are like ... and of course realized that i needed a new Gigabyte x-fire MB and RAID SATA HDs ... so at least i can be as up-to-date as possible with HW

i got the 32-bit Home Premium and guess it doesn't quite address the full 4GB of RAM that i probably will need ... but for now, i will try to squeek by on 2x1GB and the 1GB USB flash 'booster'

or just bite the bullet and get the 'extra' 2x1 GB now?

i am talking only gaming performance

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

geeze, i haven't agreed with you in a long time

about time ... right now!

i would say updated drivers are the key ... and not running old HW

i am just getting into the 'Vista experience' this weekend .. i realized that my HD2900xt drivers probably wouldn't run properly on Win2K ... so i will find out what AMD drivers on Vista are like ... and of course realized that i needed a new Gigabyte x-fire MB and RAID SATA HDs ... so at least i can be as up-to-date as possible with HW

i got the 32-bit Home Premium and guess it doesn't quite address the full 4GB of RAM that i probably will need ... but for now, i will try to squeek by on 2x1GB and the 1GB USB flash 'booster'

or just bite the bullet and get the 'extra' 2x1 GB now?

i am talking only gaming performance

I'm running 2GB (on the gaming rig) and doing fine. The next gen of games might make use of memory beyond that (ETQW, London, Crysis) but no problems with anything that's out today. I wouldn't jump to 4 right now unless you do video editing or something. By that time the price on it will be lower. Buy it when you need it.

 

[Nothinman]

Err, so now you're claiming Linux is somehow on par with Windows for gaming? If not what relevance does Linux have to your original false claim?

Technologically, yes. And my original claim isn't false, it does suck but it's just that they all suck about equally so it doesn't seem as bad to those that things happen to work for.

So how is Loki games doing these days in that booming Linux gaming environment?

Irrelevant. Once company's business success or failure is no indication of how good or bad the software they sold is. There are tons of examples of superior technology losing out to an inferior competitor because the latter was cheaper, more well known, better marketed or whatever.

All I see Linux gaming doing is trying to catch up to Windows through Wine.

In most cases what other option is there? No one can force those idiotic game developers to switch platforms and it's not like they're dying to give us the source so we can port it for them.

We have evidence that Linux sucks for games - lacking native titles, lacking developer support, lacking sales, lacking driver support, lacking options, hoping Wine is updated and will work as well as DirectX. This evidence is all documented and real.

The only thing lacking is native titles, the rest of your "evidence" is a side effect of that.

Your original claim Windows in general sucks for games is false. You need to retract that comment because it has absolutely no merit. Furthermore to then turn around and claim Linux is fine for games while bashing Windows only demonstrates your blatant bias.

I never claimed to not be bias but my original claim is still true. There is nothing inherently better about Windows that makes it a a great gaming platform, Windows, Linux and OS X all suck pretty much equally for games.

How is that any different to Linux? Oh wait, in most cases the games aren't even available on Linux. That's how.

Where did I say it was different for Linux?

You mean like Linux?

Why are you so focused on anything besides the main topic?

This has what to do with your false claim that Windows has no technical merit? Stop discussing irrelevant tangents. Either put up evidence of your claims or retract them.

The point is that DirectX isn't really any better than OpenGL and SDL and that MS only created it to give them control and lock-in to stifle competition.

So when you use a 2-3 year old Debian distro what happens if your NIC is too new to be supported? I'm still not getting a straight answer from you, just rhetoric.

How hard is it to understand that I'll never be installing a 2-3 yr old distro?

Likewise no one in the their right mind expects an OS pre-dating hardware to support it out of the box. You don't expect it with Linux so why do you expect it with Windows?

Because Windows is supposed to be the easy OS and every time I try to do something with it all I get is frustrated because of the amount of idiotic hoops I have to jump through. And again, MS doesn't have any problems putting out updated releases of Server, they're already on R2 of 2003, so why not do the same for the client?

So what happens when I install a five month old Ubunto distro onto a system with a brand new NIC just released today?

Sure you can concoct scenarios where there will be issues, but you have to stretch pretty far to get there unlike Windows where you just have to own hardware worth using. And if you really are only 1 month away from a new Ubuntu release then it would likely be safe to use the beta or RC installers they'd surely be putting out at that point to get your NIC supported out of the box.

 

[RedBeard]

You think Windows "sucks" for games?
Wah, buy a console.
Don't use it. Good luck with that.
/thread

 

[Mandin62]

nothinman for a guy who does not have problems getting linux to work how can you possibly have a problem getting windows to work. try downloading drivers onto a flashdrive and installing them from there. it takes me about and 3 hours to get a xp install up and running with all updates and drivers intalled. its not hard. and as for gaming on vista I have had no problems at all. its easy install, update, (crack in most cases, i hate cds) and play. Doesn?t get much easier then that. If anyone has a problem gaming in windows they should really consider therapy or a console. I have run so many games on my Vista x64 ultimate setup I cant count them all. Its not slower or anything as far as I can tell maybe a frame or to but I cant notice really. And trust me I am very picky about how many fps I get in game. Windows is the best and only gaming platform worth my time and money.

 

[BFG10K]

And my original claim isn't false,

Yes it is; your original claim is nothing more than a troll. Windows is an extremely viable gaming platform and the Windows gaming market backs that up. In some utopian fantasy Linux may be equal but in the real world it isn't.

Irrelevant. Once company's business success or failure is no indication of how good or bad the software they sold is.

Perhaps not but it does add to the general indication of the viability of the platform as a whole. The fact is Loki games couldn't be sustained because there weren't enough sales of their products.

In most cases what other option is there? No one can force those idiotic game developers to switch platforms and it's not like they're dying to give us the source so we can port it for them.

Then you would agree that Windows is better than Linux for gaming because it offers better options and support?

The only thing lacking is native titles, the rest of your "evidence" is a side effect of that.

Your response is nothing more than semantics. You can pretend that Linux is somehow just as viable as Windows for gaming but reality (i.e the gaming market) disagrees. The fact is if I pick up any given PC title from the shelf I have more chance of running it on Windows than I do on Linux.

For you to then turn around and claim Windows in general sucks for gaming while claiming Linux works fine is quite frankly ludicrous.

There is nothing inherently better about Windows that makes it a a great gaming platform,

DirectX10 for one - there are technical reasons why it's superior to previous versions of DirectX.

Windows, Linux and OS X all suck pretty much equally for games.

But you told us Linux works fine for games. Another flip-flop?

Where did I say it was different for Linux?

When you said it works fine for games while blasting Windows as generally sucking.

Why are you so focused on anything besides the main topic?

You started telling us about gaming on Linux and about how it could find your NIC drivers. If you want to talk about Windows only don't bring up Linux.

The point is that DirectX isn't really any better than OpenGL and SDL and that MS only created it to give them control and lock-in to stifle competition.

Actually at the moment it very much is. Do the other APIs have virtualized VRAM for example?

How hard is it to understand that I'll never be installing a 2-3 yr old distro?

How hard is to understand that some people will be installing Windows 2003, Windows x64, Windows XP MCE or even Vista instead of XP?

Because Windows is supposed to be the easy OS and every time I try to do something with it all I get is frustrated because of the amount of idiotic hoops I have to jump through.

You are very much in the minority with that one. Again if you pull the average PC title off the shelf you'll be far more likely to get it working with Windows than you will be with Linux.

Sure you can concoct scenarios where there will be issues, but you have to stretch pretty far to get there unlike Windows where you just have to own hardware worth using.

Downloading the drivers beforehand is concocting issues as well. You make it sound like a big deal and then dismiss the possibility of your distro not having drivers for your product because apparently everyone upgrades their OS whenever they buy new hardware or something.

 

[Maximilian]

Yeah i agree linux sucks for games.

I was gonna say OP that it sounds like you have more serious problems than just vista, if your getting bluescreens etc, but smilins post on the second page confirms that.

Your solution: Move back to XP, stay with it until you get a new computer. Noone needs vista right now to game on anyways, unless you want halo 2..... do you really want halo 2?

 

[Nothinman]

nothinman for a guy who does not have problems getting linux to work how can you possibly have a problem getting windows to work. try downloading drivers onto a flashdrive and installing them from there.

Yea thanks, we covered that like 2 days ago but it's a little hard to when you don't realize that there are no drivers for your NIC until after you've installed Windows.

Yes it is; your original claim is nothing more than a troll. Windows is an extremely viable gaming platform and the Windows gaming market backs that up. In some utopian fantasy Linux may be equal but in the real world it isn't.

Do you even read my posts? Technologically Linux and OS X are just as viable as Windows and marketshare can't prove or disprove that. I think everyone will agree that McDonald's food sucks and yet they still sell billions of burgers a year.

Perhaps not but it does add to the general indication of the viability of the platform as a whole. The fact is Loki games couldn't be sustained because there weren't enough sales of their products.

Which is completely orthogonal to whether or not the platform is technologically capable or not. The Zune is tanking compared to the iPod but does that mean the iPod is a superior device?

Then you would agree that Windows is better than Linux for gaming because it offers better options and support?

If by options you mean titles then there's obviously no debate but the number of titles isn't related to how good or bad a platform is. MS could still be peddling Win95 as their gaming platform and people would write games for it for no other reason beside marketshare.

Your response is nothing more than semantics. You can pretend that Linux is somehow just as viable as Windows for gaming but reality (i.e the gaming market) disagrees. The fact is if I pick up any given PC title from the shelf I have more chance of running it on Windows than I do on Linux.

For you to then turn around and claim Windows in general sucks for gaming while claiming Linux works fine is quite frankly ludicrous.

You're missing the point. If you're asking if I'd recommend Linux to someone who wants to play PC games then my answer is obviously no. But that doesn't change the fact that Windows sucks and Linux is just as capable as Windows for gaming and the only problem is getting developers other than id and Epic to support it.

DirectX10 for one - there are technical reasons why it's superior to previous versions of DirectX.

And yet the number of DirectX 10 games will be probably in the single digits for the next 2-3 years since most people don't have DX10 cards.

But you told us Linux works fine for games. Another flip-flop?

Not at all, my stance has been steady for the entire thread.

When you said it works fine for games while blasting Windows as generally sucking.

Sorry but you seem to have gotten some additional meaning from my text that wasn't there.

You started telling us about gaming on Linux and about how it could find your NIC drivers. If you want to talk about Windows only don't bring up Linux.

No, the only reason Linux came up was because I complained about how much more of a PITA it is to install Windows than Linux. You're the one that started comparing them from a gaming perspective.

Actually at the moment it very much is. Do the other APIs have virtualized VRAM for example?

I can't speak about OpenGL/SDL directly but it seems that OS X has supported virtualized VRAM since Jaguar so it's not something unique to Windows. And I know that video memory can be directly mapped to a process's address space on Linux because that's how X has worked for years, but whether it'll be dynamically moved to/from main memory I can't say.

How hard is to understand that some people will be installing Windows 2003, Windows x64, Windows XP MCE or even Vista instead of XP?

Not at all, but in a year all of those OSes will have the same problem. Well maybe not Server 2003 because MS actually does release updated install discs for that.

You are very much in the minority with that one. Again if you pull the average PC title off the shelf you'll be far more likely to get it working with Windows than you will be with Linux.

I'm not the minority here, I did tech support for a few years and virtually every time I showed someone how to do something on Windows they had to write it down because it was so convoluted or just way too many steps for them to remember. I'm not saying Linux is any better in that respect since it has it's own set of quirks but there's a lot of places that Windows makes you jump through random hoops for no good reason.

Downloading the drivers beforehand is concocting issues as well. You make it sound like a big deal and then dismiss the possibility of your distro not having drivers for your product because apparently everyone upgrades their OS whenever they buy new hardware or something.

My scenario wasn't concocted at all and anyone who (re)installs Windows has like an 80% chance of running into the same thing unless they do a ton of preparation beforehand. Drivers on Windows are infinitely more work than they are on Linux, hell I only have one driver to even think about on this machine and that's only because nVidia can't release the source. There is virtually 0% chance of a distro not having a driver for an onboard NIC.

 

[Narse]

My scenario wasn't concocted at all and anyone who (re)installs Windows has like an 80% chance of running into the same thing unless they do a ton of preparation beforehand. Drivers on Windows are infinitely more work than they are on Linux, hell I only have one driver to even think about on this machine and that's only because nVidia can't release the source. There is virtually 0% chance of a distro not having a driver for an onboard NIC.

In a perfect world and you have hardware this is supported, I did Linux testing for work and getting wireless cards and Cellular cards was downright impossible. Linux far from easier to use than windows.

 

[Nothinman]

In a perfect world and you have hardware this is supported, I did Linux testing for work and getting wireless cards and Cellular cards was downright impossible. Linux far from easier to use than windows.

We were talking about onboard ethernet NICs. I know that some wifi cards are a PITA but even the crappy Broadcom ones should be pretty simple to get going now that the reverse engineered driver is in most distributions. As for Cellular I have no idea since I've never had one. And IMO Linux is very much easier to use than Windows.

 

[BFG10K]

Yea thanks, we covered that like 2 days ago but it's a little hard to when you don't realize that there are no drivers for your NIC until after you've installed Windows.

Same thing if you install Linux and it doesn't support your NIC.

Do you even read my posts?

Yup, your original claim was: Windows in general sucks for games. Once you retract that troll we'll be done.

Technologically Linux and OS X are just as viable as Windows and marketshare can't prove or disprove that. I think everyone will agree that McDonald's food sucks and yet they still sell billions of burgers a year.

Does it suck though? The people buying it certainly don't think so, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. At the very least they must think it tastes good.

Anyway, you refuse to accept market share as evidence of how good something is but are only too happy to create a blanket generalization based on your anecdotal experience?

Again your platform bias is as clear as day.

Which is completely orthogonal to whether or not the platform is technologically capable or not.

We aren't talking about technologically capable, we?re talking about which platform is best for gaming. The fact is Loki's death further erodes the already tiny trickle of native Linux titles.

If by options you mean titles then there's obviously no debate but the number of titles isn't related to how good or bad a platform is. MS could still be peddling Win95 as their gaming platform and people would write games for it for no other reason beside marketshare.

So how exactly does that make Windows suck for gaming when Linux does fine (your quotes)?

If you're asking if I'd recommend Linux to someone who wants to play PC games then my answer is obviously no.

Actually yes, you are. You claimed Windows sucks for gaming while Linux does fine. Do you want me to quote you again?

But that doesn't change the fact that Windows sucks

Why does Windows suck? Because you couldn't get it work? Well again millions can get it to work and dozens of developers manage to program thousands of games.

And yet the number of DirectX 10 games will be probably in the single digits for the next 2-3 years since most people don't have DX10 cards.

You asked for technical reasons why Windows is superior and I listed some of them. Your reply above is irrelevant rhetoric.

Not at all, my stance has been steady for the entire thread.

:roll:

Sorry but you seem to have gotten some additional meaning from my text that wasn't there.

You posted the following:

Windows in general sucks for games

the reality is that Linux is fine for games,

Sorry, what is this "additional meaning" you're referring to? If you?re posting things you don't mean then you need to retract them instead of pretending they never happened.

No, the only reason Linux came up was because I complained about how much more of a PITA it is to install Windows than Linux. You're the one that started comparing them from a gaming perspective.

See the above quotes from you. Are you having difficulty remembering your own arguments?

Not at all, but in a year all of those OSes will have the same problem

As will any Linux distro that doesn't support your hardware out of the box.

I'm not the minority here, I did tech support for a few years and virtually every time I showed someone how to do something on Windows they had to write it down because it was so convoluted or just way too many steps for them to remember

Nobody is claiming Windows doesn't have issues or is perfect. You however are claiming it sucks for games when that is blatantly false.

My scenario wasn't concocted at all and anyone who (re)installs Windows has like an 80% chance of running into the same thing unless they do a ton of preparation beforehand.

Just like if they install a Linux distro that doesn't support their hardware. What's your point?

 

[Nothinman]

Same thing if you install Linux and it doesn't support your NIC.

Which again has like a virtually 0 chance of happening. I dare you to find me an ethernet NIC chipset not supported by Linux.

Yup, your original claim was: Windows in general sucks for games. Once you retract that troll we'll be done.

Which won't happen because it's true. Seriously, how you can think that something that requires so many driver updates and game patches to get most games working acceptably is "good" doesn't suck is beyond me.

Does it suck though? The people buying it certainly don't think so, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. At the very least they must think it tastes good.

Of course it sucks, people also buy and smoke tons of cigarettes a day but are you going to argue that they're good?

Anyway, you refuse to accept market share as evidence of how good something is but are only too happy to create a blanket generalization based on your anecdotal experience?

Again your platform bias is as clear as day.

Marketshare means absolutely f'ing nothing and I never said that I wasn't bias.

We aren't talking about technologically capable, we?re talking about which platform is best for gaming. The fact is Loki's death further erodes the already tiny trickle of native Linux titles.

Sure we are, IMO the best is the most technologically capable and Windows has no real lead there.

Actually yes, you are. You claimed Windows sucks for gaming while Linux does fine. Do you want me to quote you again?

And I also said that all 3 platforms suck equally which aren't conflicting remarks.

You asked for technical reasons why Windows is superior and I listed some of them. Your reply above is irrelevant rhetoric.

You listed 1 for christ's sake and OS X has had virtualized video memory before Windows so it doesn't count.

Sorry, what is this "additional meaning" you're referring to? If you?re posting things you don't mean then you need to retract them instead of pretending they never happened.

I'm not retracting anything and I'm sorry that you can't keep up with the thread.

As will any Linux distro that doesn't support your hardware out of the box.

Which will be none, are you having trouble keeping up with the 6 month release cycle just like MS? Sure you can pull out RH 5.2 if you like but no one will actually give a damn.

Nobody is claiming Windows doesn't have issues or is perfect. You however are claiming it sucks for games when that is blatantly false.

Not at all, whether something sucks or not is subjective and my opinion is that it does indeed suck.

Just like if they install a Linux distro that doesn't support their hardware. What's your point?

Because I have a choice to use a distro that does support my hardware but with Windows you have 1 source to go to so once you're hardware isn't support your'e screwed?

 

[BFG10K]

Which again has like a virtually 0 chance of happening. I dare you to find me an ethernet NIC chipset not supported by Linux.

I dare you to find an ethernet NIC not supported by Windows.

Which won't happen because it's true. Seriously, how you can think that something that requires so many driver updates and game patches to get most games working acceptably is "good" doesn't suck is beyond me.

Linux doesn't require patches or driver updates?

Of course it sucks, people also buy and smoke tons of cigarettes a day but are you going to argue that they're good?

So now you're arguing about health? What, is Windows gaming bad for your health or something?

Marketshare means absolutely f'ing nothing

Market share means a hell of a lot given most of the advantages Windows gamers enjoy over Linux gamers is largely thanks to said market share.

and I never said that I wasn't bias.

At least we agree on something.

Sure we are, IMO the best is the most technologically capable and Windows has no real lead there.

Actually it does through DX10 and other things.

And I also said that all 3 platforms suck equally which aren't conflicting remarks.

Seriously, are you doing this on purpose or can you not help yourself? "All three platforms suck equally" conflicts with "Linux does fine for gaming". What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

You listed 1 for christ's sake and OS X has had virtualized video memory before Windows so it doesn't count.

DX10 (and in fact Vista) has more than one advantage but listing them is a waste of time since you appear to think "suck" and "fine" don't contradict each other.

I'm not retracting anything

That's the problem.

Which will be none, are you having trouble keeping up with the 6 month release cycle just like MS?

To use your own terminology: the version of XP you used is an old distro. To also use your terms: you?re concocting issues.

Sure you can pull out RH 5.2 if you like but no one will actually give a damn.

Just like nobody gives a damn if you have to install drivers on XP if it pre-dates your hardware.

Likewise I don't expect to patch my operating system every time I want to install a piece of hardware that isn't supported out of the box. That's what a simple driver update is for.

Not at all, whether something sucks or not is subjective and my opinion is that it does indeed suck.

But that opinion has no basis of fact so it's a troll. To claim Windows sucks for games while Linux works fine has absolutely no merit.

That you couldn?t get Windows to work doesn?t mean it doesn?t work and ignoring market share because it doesn?t fit into your little view of things is also invalid.

Because I have a choice to use a distro that does support my hardware but with Windows you have 1 source to go to so once you're hardware isn't support your'e screwed?

How are you "screwed"? Just install the driver and it'll work.

Ubuntu 7.04 is the latest isn't it?

To quote the review:

My Nvidia drivers were not installed by default. Initially my desktop resolution was only 1024 x 768. I was able to download the drivers easy from the Add/Remove tool but, given that my video card has been around for ages, Ubuntu should be able to install the drivers automatically for me.

Compare this problem with Ubuntu with Windows Vista which easily detected my video card and installed the Nvidia drivers so I was able to access a higher resolution right away (though I did have to change the resolution myself). I loathe Vista on a number of levels, but in this situation, it beat Ubuntu by a mile

I guess according to your reasoning Ubuntu users with that video card are "screwed"?

 

[dealmaster00]

good fscking god, quit arguing already. it's just an argument over semantics. and its getting downright annoying. so no more arguing after this post? good.