Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: NVIDIA GT 425M: Windows 7 Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 10.10

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Crap... I bought a Nintendo DS thinking it was a gaming platform but it has none of those games!!
    I also have a Super Nintendo which has about 1000 games and I also thought it was a gaming platform, but it doesn't have any of those games either?? What the hell??!!
    Even DOS which I always thought of as a gaming platform doesn't have any game in that list... It seems to be really dificult to find a gaming platform these days.
    What part of "top titles" don't you get? What part of gamespot.com don't you get? What part of common sense don't you get?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    What part of "top titles" don't you get? What part of gamespot.com don't you get? What part of common sense don't you get?
    What part of a sarcastic point about everyone not wanting to play the same games don't you get? Now calm down before you give yourself a coronary and kindly point out the linux ports of peggle and bejeweled.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Heh... Hate to disillusion you there- but we're already at that threshold according to something Ballmer showed people this year. You can actually do the math yourself- but someone else has done it for you:

    http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09...he-1-myth.html

    If you accept the figures that the industry pundits give on Netbooks, just for starters, the floor for shipped units using Linux (nobody will typically go out of their way to buy a Linux netbook and put Windows on it, sorry...) if you go off of the official shipped Netbook figures, is 6% of the total estimated market. That's the minimum and only using netbooks for a figure. The figure is quite a bit higher than that, obviously, because there's more than just netbooks out there.
    Yeah, you could've actually done the math yourself, but someone else has done it for you:

    debunking-the-myth-of-the-debunking-myth.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf
    there's some changes going on in the background that might change the story you're talking to.
    OK. Back to where we were some months ago. I'd like you to be right, though.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    What part of "top titles" don't you get? What part of gamespot.com don't you get? What part of common sense don't you get?
    Ok... guess I need to be more clear and use sarcasm tags like everybody else. There's no need to be offended. Here's what I meant:

    Just because a game YOU like or YOU want to play doesn't exist on a gaming platform that doesn't make it less of a gaming platform. It may not be a gaming platform YOU will want to game on, but that is it. Also, your argument of using gamespot as a reference to determine if something is a gaming platform doesn't make much sense. Why not use mobygames instead as it's a much bigger database and not commercially orientated? Oh wait, I know why! Because mobygames actually lists linux as a gaming platform, so that wouldn't be too beneficial to your argument.

    If I got your argument correct, only the systems that show up on the main gamespot navigation bar are eligible as gaming platforms. And, of those only the ones that have the more popular and best selling titles (and long running franchises), like the ones you listed, so that leaves us with windows, PS3 and XBOX360 as the only gaming platforms that exist. That makes sense? The point is you can't use a commercial/promotional games site to figure out what is a gaming platform and what is not, because these sites benefit from promoting always the more recent (and profitable) games and game systems.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    Yeah, you could've actually done the math yourself, but someone else has done it for you:

    debunking-the-myth-of-the-debunking-myth.html


    OK. Back to where we were some months ago. I'd like you to be right, though.
    Hmmm... Essentially there is no way of telling how much of Desktop/Laptop/Netbook systems are Linux... It seems it can be anything from 2% to 15%

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Michael, are you still benchmarking games with Compiz on? If you really want default settings, at least add results with Compiz off.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    121

    Default Quake 3 is the best FPS network game ever

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Nothing new. Drivers are optimized for specific resolutions. In the past this was 1024x768. I suppose today it's higher.

    Btw, no, gamers don't use low resolutions. You're still stuck in the MS-DOS days.

    Also, Quake is hardly a reason for anyone to switch to Linux. Gamers want Fallout 3, F1 2010, the upcomming Dragon Age, etc, etc, not Quake Live that's just the ancient Quake 3 Arena but in a browser.

    Quake 3 and Quake Live is the best FPS to play network battles ever made, there are also who like more the Half Live Counter Strike.

    One thing is to prove new games, or play solo, but for battle Quakers there are a lot, see the growinng user numbers of Quake Live. i have been in Quake contests, and in ciberparties and still is the main battle game, no succes fir q4 in this field.

    Obviously people do not change in one day, but this quake champions play with minimal configs and minimal resolution because is faster, even in network. The best IP stack in Linux and if it is, the best results at lower resolutions I assure you would make this guys to put a minimal Linux with firefox and Quakelive if they can make a littel more frags because this advantage, In competition every little advantege is a lot.

    And they are liders of a big community, where some thousends would change to a dual configuration if it is worth,

    Of course nobody would migrate or dual config for MS WOX 7 specific games,

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unimatrix View Post
    Thank you Phoronix for posting some actual numbers unlike most Linux fans who will just blatantly claim that Linux is faster.
    We have to face the truth. Windows has an advantage in 3D acceleration.
    1. For the 100,000'th time. Ubuntu != Linux. You can see major performance different between distributions even if you're using the nVidia binary blob (E.g: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...buntu910&num=2).

    2. Given the fact that Phoronix is using Ubuntu in its stock configuration, it's entirely possible that Ubuntu's default configuration is ill-suited to run games.

    Just to put things in perspective, on my Fedora 13 workstation I use a hand-written script to start games. Among other things, this script disables BOINC and kwin composition. Last time I bothered to check, using this script both UT2K4 and Doom3 showed a 10-30% performance increase at -very- high resolutions (Dell U2711).
    Now, you may claim that kwin should have automatically disabled composition once I start a full-screen OpenGL application (Much like Windows Vista/7), but given the fact that a composing window manager is not a prerequisite for playing games (Windows XP anyone?), a well-optimized distribution should be able to give Windows a run for its money if not suppress it (But given Phoronix' reluctance to pit any other distribution besides Ubuntu against MAC/W7, we will never know...)

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unimatrix View Post
    Thank you Phoronix for posting some actual numbers unlike most Linux fans who will just blatantly claim that Linux is faster.
    We have to face the truth. Windows has an advantage in 3D acceleration.
    /me rollseyes and rofl's

    Linux kernel overall boots faster, uses less resources, much more mod-friendly, requires less time to fuzz around, whole less trouble about security(including server case), its opensource, open license, no one forces to upgrade, you can choose to pay projects you want if you want, its constantly on a move, has everything to build projects of any scale including heavy games.

    And when it slows down, its usually cause of lack of developer attention (way better than text editor capable of burning CDs) or/and closed sources.

    Nvidia driver which does the majority of work, apart from loading levels, capturing keystrokes and playing sounds, is closed source. Maybe except well known case of low-res q3a benchmarks showing pure CPU efficiency. If you look up the test, linux is faster than windows there in terms of CPU.

    AMD opensource driver is very feature/performance lacking, still AMD supports linux much more than nvidia. Strangely AMD refuses to create an option for people to tell they have bought their card to use with opensource drivers.

    And then, microsoft can always steal from opensource. They did it, they do it, they will always do it. And throw mines in form of patents. They think they hinder linux. No, they arise hatred and hurt themself. At least there is GPL and not much BSD. And as for the code - the more attention it gets, the more polished it comes out.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Ok... guess I need to be more clear and use sarcasm tags like everybody else. There's no need to be offended. Here's what I meant:

    Just because a game YOU like or YOU want to play doesn't exist on a gaming platform that doesn't make it less of a gaming platform. It may not be a gaming platform YOU will want to game on, but that is it. Also, your argument of using gamespot as a reference to determine if something is a gaming platform doesn't make much sense. Why not use mobygames instead as it's a much bigger database and not commercially orientated? Oh wait, I know why! Because mobygames actually lists linux as a gaming platform, so that wouldn't be too beneficial to your argument.

    If I got your argument correct, only the systems that show up on the main gamespot navigation bar are eligible as gaming platforms. And, of those only the ones that have the more popular and best selling titles (and long running franchises), like the ones you listed, so that leaves us with windows, PS3 and XBOX360 as the only gaming platforms that exist. That makes sense? The point is you can't use a commercial/promotional games site to figure out what is a gaming platform and what is not, because these sites benefit from promoting always the more recent (and profitable) games and game systems.
    These sites exist to make money. And money is made by covering popular games (those that sell best). In other words, games the majority of "gamers" want.

    Yes, 10-year old A-titles, games by smaller indie studios or individuals do qualify as games. But most gamers want the new, big, expensive productions. Those who cost millions of dollars to produce. That doesn't mean they don't play smaller titles; it just means they can live without the small titles, but not without the A-titles. And not vice versa.

    With all that in mind, what is a "gaming platform" and what is not is defined by the gaming industry: a gaming platform is whatever platform the gaming industry chooses to port their titles to now, or did so in the past. Old gaming platforms would include MS-DOS, Sega Mega Drive, etc. Current gaming platforms would include Windows, PS3, XBOX 360.

    Even the Mac, with its bigger market share compared to Linux, is not a gaming platform; only a tiny fraction of A-titles get ported.

    If you want to tell yourself that being able to play Quake, HoN and Tux Racer makes Linux a gaming platform, then that's your right. Me, I go with the views of those who actually matter (since they have the money for big productions; writers, actors, etc.)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •