Learning a bit? If you put the average gamer in front of a Wine configuration file it would be like a different language. I like Linux for it's targeted use but I don't pretend that people just need to spend a few hours to become acquainted with it. It took me literally months of time to become intimately familiar with the ins and outs of Linux.

Ubuntu had an interesting bug a few releases ago with a certain Acer 20" widescreen monitor(very popular with gamers, cheap and low response time) that prevented it from displaying any resolution other than 800x600. It was of course an X display problem but fixing it required mucking about in the X conf. They didn't issue a patch at all, it was fixed in Hardy Heron which was delivered months later. Imagine your little brother trying to deal with that.

Linux is an enthusiast operating system for games at best. Let's not play make believe here. Frankly I dread the thought of trying to support some of my users on Linux. I am happy they are stuck with Windows, bloat and all. If Linux had half of the UI functionality that prevents users from running into shitty situations, it would be just as bloated. Even with all of the Windows handholding users still manage to run into trouble on their own quite often.

If you want to run Linux and deal with compatibility issues with games since they are not targeted at you, thats fine. I however question the wisdom of trying to get developers to support a platform with a small installed base and inherent complexity. All I can say is that Valve is brave.

This comment was edited on Dec 2, 2008, 15:46.

The real question is why bother when Windows does all of those things and more?

dades: because some of us are tired of having to swallow the path of overpriced bloat that M$ likes to force on us. linux is somewhat user unfriendly at the moment, but it is improving, and more linux support by game devs will encourage refinements to happen more swiftly. if you're a person who doesn't mind learning a little about the nuances of how your system runs, i think linux could be viable as a gaming platform. if you're averse to that kind of stuff, then migrate to a console.

If you use Ubuntu then you'll be fine with casual use of applications and certain mainstream games. When you go off the beaten path is really where Linux gets into trouble with the mainstream user. If you stick to just playing WoW and using IM/email/etc then you'll have no problems. The real question is why bother when Windows does all of those things and more?

There's nothing inherently wrong with Linux but as someone who struggled with arcane configuration files, recompiling libraries and dealing with dependency hell back in the day, I can safely say that Linux will remain a work related OS for me. It runs my webserver at work and does a good job of it.

As a person who's sorta interested in Linux and never used it, how much of a nightmare am I looking at setting it up and being somewhat 'content' with it, and what all could I do with it?

Keep in mind I'm one of those people who fight to the death to fix a bug or error, not for fun, because it pisses me off to no end and I want it gone.

Viranth, welcome to the Linux world of continuous problems and quirks. Its a fun to play with because its rather flexible, but don't expect to play many or most games on it. Some games do work though.

It's a great web browsing and e-mailing OS. Its not a hardcore gaming OS by a long shot.

hooray for linux games.

I installed ubuntu 8.10 a few days ago, it's a great system, but I don't really know what to do there yet. I've got all my applications in vista, so now I have to go look for those applications for linux.

The most annoying issue is that the ATI drivers for linux isn't very good, I cannot get dual screen to work unless it's cloned.

So my brand new 4870x2 is sort of like a useless brick at the moment, unless I'm back in Vista where I can do whatever I want right now.

I completely agree with what Dr. D. Schreber said. I've Been using PC's for 23 years and gaming for longer than that. John Carmack was right too, Linux doesn't matter (for gaming).

Maybe, just maybe, if we get back to how in the 1980's when we booted our computers off a disk to play a game, then Linux could theoretically shoot to the top for gaming.

But today's hardware is oh so very diverse and we'd need some much more strict hardware standards so that a five year old DVD game would still boot and work with a bleeding edge machine. I'm doubtful that will happen. Hey I'd like it to happen, but the last time things worked like that for PC's was when we used DOS and booted game disks on PC's, besides Amigas, C64's, Atari 8bits, Apple II's etc etc.

Yes, its possible. Is it likely? Not in my opinion. Could a Linux Steam client deliver native Linux and Flash based games? Sure.

This comment was edited on Nov 30, 2008, 01:45.

This is what I think Windows needs to get me back.

# Get a filesystem that doesn't suck. Why is it so slow?

NTFS isn't really at fault here - Windows' default disk swapping behavior is profoundly retarded for desktop or game usage. It can be understandable for a server to try and balance memory usage between physical and virtual memory, but a demanding game or multimedia application really should be allowed to devour a sizable portion of system RAM before swapping to the hard drive. Some system tweaks really improve this, and a bit of Googling should get you on the right path, but that's a good point.

# Reduce the fluff that requires an operating system to use over a gig of ram at Idle.

"But that's not fluff! Those are features!" What would be really ideal is if Windows allowed you to select a performance profile the first time you booted up, and then created a control panel entry to let you tweak that further. Spinning some of the big services into plural smaller services might also be a good idea for performance, RAM consumption, and security - assuming that doesn't somehow threaten to break backward compatibility.

# Create a Registry system that doesn't cause the system to gradually slow over a period of time.

A lot of this is caused by sloppy coding by application developers, but after thirteen years I'd like to think Microsoft could have beaten sense into the coders dependent on its platform by now. That said, I'm with you on wanting something better. There has to be a better solution between the monolithic registry and *nix's cheerful clusterfuck of independent configuration files which frequently follow different syntax and formatting rules from one another.

# Improved security that doesn't impede the user.

Backward compatibility makes this hard, but UAC was pretty mediocre coming from the biggest software company in the world. Vista's first service pack toned down some of its excesses, but deleting something from the Start menu still sometimes results in a "You are about to delete this file --> Are you sure you want to delete this file? --> Please confirm that you want to delete this file" sequence that's just not good interface design on any level.

# Better applications from an OS you have to pay for, for the price of the Ultimate edition you should be able to get a real text editor

Antitrust issues come in like a wet blanket to quash any direct attempt by Microsoft to fix this issue. If they really want to fix this, they need to work hard and fast to create a digital distribution network with a wide variety of software vendors' products available for immediate purchase and direct download, and "nicer" versions of Windows could apply a set level of credit toward the purchase of certain products - word processors, media tools, and so on. They could even play up the ability of the customer to "customize" their install of Windows with that pre-existing pool of money.

I still run Windows on two of my systems, but for tasks other than media capture and gaming I've shifted almost entirely over to Linux.

This comment was edited on Nov 30, 2008, 01:43.

No, there really isn't anything on Linux comparable to Cubase

I believe Cubase works fine with linux with the latest version of Wine. according to Winehq's App database.

No, there really isn't anything on Linux comparable to Cubase

Which is why I said "generally." Sure, there are niche apps and requirements that will keep Microsoft in business for the foreseeable future, but I doubt whether 1% of PC gamers use such software. Anyway, this makes me laugh:

if Linux could be made friendly for your average user (browse internet, watch DVDs / Blu-ray, instant message, email, word processing) then it could start to get somewhere

This has been done. It's called Ubuntu. Look into it.

It's just no use for serious users like myself.

Because, of course, the thousands of people out there running Linux servers and whatnot aren't serious users like yourself. Shit, they've probably never won a Nobel prize, the losers.

For business and productivity apps, there is free software available that is every bit as good as what you're paying out your ass for right now, and if you simply must run a Windows app there's generally a way to get that done.

No, there really isn't anything on Linux comparable to Cubase - not just with software but I need specific hardware interfaces to work. Basically I'd have to jump through an enormous amount of hoops just to get basic functionality working, which is obviously something I have no interest in doing. Now for a laptop it's very different, as there I'd only need word processing, internet and a few other basics - no gaming, no funky software. However, if Linux could be made friendly for your average user (browse internet, watch DVDs / Blu-ray, instant message, email, word processing) then it could start to get somewhere. It's just no use for serious users like myself.

If steam and valve games can be played natively on linux, it will be one step closer for people like me dumping microsoft windows. The only reason I use windows is because of gaming.

All of the Half-life games run perfectly in Wine, as does the Steam client itself. In fact, most games two or more years old will run under Wine with a minimum of fuss. Newer games are more problematic since they use newer features of DirectX that haven't been fully fleshed out in Wine yet, but even then I'd say 50% or more can be made to run. I've already played Fallout 3 in Linux and that's one of the tougher ones to get going. I'm not even going to wait for an official Linux Left 4 Dead client, as I know I can make that one run right now.

The days of Windows are numbered and I think the end is much nearer than most people realize. I've been using Linux exclusively for 6 months now and I see no reason to ever go back. I don't dual boot or anything else. I'm a Linux-only user now. For business and productivity apps, there is free software available that is every bit as good as what you're paying out your ass for right now, and if you simply must run a Windows app there's generally a way to get that done. Sure, there's no official support for such setups, but A) if you call what most companies give you "support" you need your head examined, and B) there's tons and tons of unofficial support, which is what I used 90% of the time anyway when I was using Windows. It's a Google world now.

Think about it this way: if you know enough to be able to pirate software (not that you ever would, of course), then you have enough of a clue to be able to tweak and run Windows software under Linux/Wine. The difficulty level is about the same. Once the masses figure that out, there is going to be mad rush to Ubuntu and the like that is going to make Bill Gates' head spin.

You seem like a Linux Novice that had troubles figuring it all out and just claim Linux sucks because it was frustrating.

I don't think the problem many of us who stick with M$ (lolol do you see what i did there) have isn't that Linux is frustrating, per se. Most of us on this board are, naturally, PC gamers, and PC gaming in and of itself, not even getting into how silly regular tasks for computers can get, is often an exercise in frustration.

It is, however, an exercise in frustration that comes with a hobby, and we who hold true to this hobby accept it, warts and all. The problem with Linux is comparatively few of us, PC gamers or PC users in general, consider the operating system to be a hobby. If the workings of the OS are a fascination to you, go right ahead and have fun, but the rest of us don't want to bother doing more work just to get the OS running the way we want it than we already have to do with Windows.

And yes, Linux has certainly gotten less frustrating over the years, but no matter how much everyone fanboys over it and how much user-friendliness everyone tries to add, it is more work than Windows.

Don't be an idiot. An OS actually "does" very little. All you're talking about is development platforms. Certainly, Windows is the premiere development platform at this moment, but in terms of "doing" anything, it's no better (and in some cases far worse) than the alternatives.

Of course, since it's the premiere platform at this moment, everyone who makes software that "does" stuff makes it for Windows, so this is really just semantics. Linux is stuck in what economists like to call the "vicious cycle of poverty." In order to gain more market saturation and be a serious contender for Windows, Linux needs ten times the amount of developers making stuff people care about available on it, but in order for them to consider it worth the time and money, Linux would need more market share.

if they do make steam available and all the games in their library then i will dump vista for suse. all i need now is for adobe to port creative suite to linux. it shouldnt be difficult since it is already running on os x.

used Linux for a number of years, the best thing I ever done was get out of that Linux induced mentality, get away from the Linux Zealots, get away from Linux, and use an OS that CAN actually do EVERYTHING I want to do, and do it with ease, something which Linux, unfortunately, can not do, and probably never will

Use it on my laptops way better than MS for daily work and email. gaming yes its MS "no Choice" with such great products as Vista or was that just windows ME repackage?

In response to Carver

You seem like a Linux Novice that had troubles figuring it all out and just claim Linux sucks because it was frustrating.

At work Windows annoys the piss out of me how limiting and slow it is, Luckily I finally got approval for a Linux Install on my workstation and it's been great ever since.

At home I have been using Linux for just about a decade. I've dual booted until about 4 years ago.

I've Got CoD4 running alright, currently WoW on Linux with my hardware runs better than the same machine in windows, better frame rate, faster load times.

Granted I'm very familiar with Linux, so I can fix many of the speed bumps that people have. Not saying every thing is nice for example ATI needs to get on the ball with the drivers, for some reason they can't seem to fix graphical glitches and such.

This is what I think Windows needs to get me back.

• Get a filesystem that doesn't suck. Why is it so slow?
• Reduce the fluff that requires an operating system to use over a gig of ram at Idle.
• Create a Registry system that doesn't cause the system to gradually slow over a period of time.
• Improved security that doesn't impede the user.
• Better applications from an OS you have to pay for, for the price of the Ultimate edition you should be able to get a real text editor

I'd sooner see a native Mac version than a Linux version.

It would do little good when Steve Jobs is opposed to / unwilling to support gaming. Apple has to play catchup to DirectX, which has been around for over a decade. If Apple were to open up OSX to all PC hardware and actively support gaming then the situation could very well change quite quickly but there has been no indication that that is likely and plenty to suggest it isn't. You'd think PopCap games would do fine on Mac as well but the selection available is very small in comparison to PC. Developers don't care; Apple don't care; gamers don't care.

I'd sooner see a native Mac version than a Linux version.

an OS that CAN actually do EVERYTHING I want to do

Don't be an idiot. An OS actually "does" very little. All you're talking about is development platforms. Certainly, Windows is the premiere development platform at this moment, but in terms of "doing" anything, it's no better (and in some cases far worse) than the alternatives.