Discussion in 'Tech' started by cured, Oct 21, 2007.
i run XP, and im wondering what linux is like.. tell me your comparison.
What do you actually do?
I'd suggest giving it a go but if you really want to use it either take a class on it or have the will power to not use windows so you can actually use linux.
would it be good for a day to day gaming, internet, media platform?
internet and media sure, gaming not so much. there is a steep learning curve to using linux, without learning it, you will just frustrate yourself
I agree with Dave.
It works great for internet, email, IM, being a dump for camera's and watching videos.
It's pretty hard to get games to work properly(or at all). Though there are a few games that are specifically made for Linux, even they are hard to get working right.
ya gaming is the ONLY reason why I do not use Linux. Dual-booting is a huge waste to me. I've done that several times and just end up staying in windows because it takes too much time to switch back and forth. Heck, if they made WoW, 100% compatible with Linux, I'd switch in a second. WoW is the main game I play so for the rare chance that I play other games, it wouldn't be a big deal to switch over to Windows to play them.
WoW works on Mac, I wonder why it hasn't been ported to Linux (considering mac uses darwin, it's very similar I thought...)
Hey man, I'd say give it a go. Find an old system or hard drive laying around and give it a try. I used to be a pretty big Windows fan boy and then three years ago I tried out Linux. I haven't gone back to Windows since. I still dual boot my main system so I can at least know what's going on in Windows and play the occasional game. Otherwise, Linux does everything I need it to do. I also love being able to install software without paying for it. There are a lot of nifty applications to be explored in Linux.
I'd have to agree and disagree with the above posts.
Games used to have major difficulties running on Linux. But in the past few years, things have gotten better. Wine/Cedega are updated regularly to accommodate new games. ATI has finally gotten their act together after the AMD/ATI merger and are releasing updated Linux drivers almost regularly (or, moreso than in the past). If you run anything non-integrated, you should be able to get games working. It won't be a simple "click and go" like in Windows, in most cases.
My only gripe with the ATI Drivers is the lack of direct desktop acceleration (Compiz, Beryl) without the help of a backend like XGL. But that's for a different discussion.
Yeah, my old system had a Radeon graphics card in it, but I spend so much time in Linux I specifically went for a GeForce card in my new system since their drivers are much more compatible.
Gaming = no. Everything else = sure. And at the moment I wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy with an ATI card either, but it's gotten a lot better from what I've heard.
I believe ATI has opened up it's drivers to the public and if you want to game, check out Cedega.
i'm just too addicted to vista. I gave the ubuntu a go and gave it up....too plain jane.
looks like its too complicated..
ATI/AMD have started releasing specification documents to the public, but the drivers still need to be written. it'll be 2 years before they have a solid 3d driver I imagine, if not longer
I use Ubuntu on my laptop, I have windows on there so when I'm away from my computer I can play games and when I fuck up linux I can fix it. It works great for surfing and watching videos.
I keep hearing that, gaming aside, you can do everything windows can do. Can it do it better though? I can't see switching, just for the sake of switching.
Well it depends how you define better. It can do it for free, and open source. If that is better for you great, if you don't care, then you don't care.
in general, outside of gaming, it comes down to feature comparison. You can safely assume that the different OSes will cover the major grounds as far as major types of software goes, but, the specific feature sets for the software may vary. Also, with open source, you have more freedom in configuring the software, which is an additional factor to consider.
If you want to look at it as simple as possible, list your favorite apps, specific feature sets, compare the lists to the Open Source equivalent list, and then factor in configuration time differences. If the config time is worth it, plus any missing features aren't significant to you, then go with open source.
rule of thumb: the more techie/analitical a person is, the more they favor open source b/c the above trade off is instinctive and worth it to them.
here are my favorite things about linux:
- i can literally never reboot it unless i do an update to the kernel, processes run completely independently of the operating system, very easy to stop, start services without any sort of rebooting. there's nothing similar to a windows "leak" where you just need to reboot after a few days.
- i don't run any anti-spyware, anti-virus
- and despite being able to find copies of windows software for "very cheap" i still like the idea of not having a license/having to pay for software
Well, looks like I won't be installing Ubuntu 7.10
After nearly 3 years, my wireless card still isn't supported (Linksys WMP11 v4), and if I do hack it under ndiswrapper, I can only connect to any non-WEP/WPA network.
I don't know about tech savyness entering the equation for me. I'm just lazy and haven't had too many nightmares with any of the winders OS's. I like the glitz/eyecandy of the windows, I support MS, because I like the product. A
person can argue against MS all they want, they have done great things for the PC industry. as for security, you can bet your bottom dollar, that if OSX or Linux was the #one OS, those would be the subject of the same degree of attacks that windows has seen.
so with avalibilty of applications for linux, is there alot of range? like normal stuff that runs on XP
I like it for the security and free applications, and would deploy it for my Mom or kids. But for my uses I generally prefer Windows. It's a neat thing to experiment with though.
Separate names with a comma.