Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 185

Thread: Valve's L4D2 Is Faster On Linux Than Windows

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fenixkane View Post
    FUD is the reason. When Vista was announced Microsoft said that OpenGL would not be supported at all, this made many devs switch over to DX, then right around when Vista came out they said "Just kidding ", but by then it was already too late. The damage was done.
    Here's a nice read:
    http://programmers.stackexchange.com...prefer-windows

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    As a side question. Why are people still programming for directx? It works only on windows. Program for opengl and you make your engine more portable from the start for if (actually when) you'll port it to linux. It's not like directx is so much easier than opengl.... brainwashed devs..
    Microsoft makes it pretty easy to develop for Windows, and most game developers only focus on Windows and Xbox. PS3 is the only OpenGL game and even then, not worth the effort for developers.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default

    IMHO Linux was out of the question until nvidia drivers came up with his blob. Or, may I dare, until ubuntu was in the scene.

    Linux was more a server/geek thing than a gaming platform at that time.
    It was pretty much how do we see BSD guys today.

    Let's talk about debian potato/woody as a gaming platform, compared to windows 98/XP.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostwarrior View Post
    IMHO Linux was out of the question until nvidia drivers came up with his blob. Or, may I dare, until ubuntu was in the scene.

    Linux was more a server/geek thing than a gaming platform at that time.
    It was pretty much how do we see BSD guys today.

    Let's talk about debian potato/woody as a gaming platform, compared to windows 98/XP.
    Seriously?

    Anything linux at (almost) any period in time was/is better than anything windows, really. Windows 98 was utter crap, and when launched so was XP.
    Only after many years was XP really usable...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiori View Post
    Seriously?

    Anything linux at (almost) any period in time was/is better than anything windows, really. Windows 98 was utter crap, and when launched so was XP.
    Only after many years was XP really usable...
    But I'm not talking about "anything". I'm being specific, talking about graphic drivers and API's.
    How was gaming on debian woody?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostwarrior View Post
    A very nice read. Thanks for this, was enjoyable and informative.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    59

    Unhappy Poor Elanthis!

    I wonder if he will ever reply...
    You know, that Phoronix forum member who thinks he is a graphics API god but is really nothing more than a Microsoft fanboy.
    Always saying how much better and faster Direct3D is compared to OpenGL; saying that you can't really have multi-threading with OpenGL...
    Probably too embarrassed now to see why he just isn't competent enough to work for ValvE.
    Have fun convincing yourself that OpenGL isn't worth it, while real programmers use it just fine instead of whining on the Phoronix forums!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostwarrior View Post
    But I'm not talking about "anything". I'm being specific, talking about graphic drivers and API's.
    How was gaming on debian woody?
    I don't recall it being bad.. I remember playing Enemy Territory on Woody with no problems... I'm pretty sure I was using blob graphics drivers though.
    Linux really isn't bad for gaming, it's just that the open graphics drivers are lagging too far behind current generation games.. I think that's just a matter of manpower.. As somebody else said, if Linux can get a solid 5 FPS advantage over Windows on the latest games, then a *LOT* of people will switch from Windows.

    I want to buy an AMD Trinity ultrabook, but the AMD 7000 series GPU support in Linux is scary bad..

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostwarrior View Post
    But I'm not talking about "anything". I'm being specific, talking about graphic drivers and API's.
    How was gaming on debian woody?
    I sunk many hours into UT and Q3A on Linux with my G400Max and the DRI drivers. This was from 2000-2004. For those games, which were ported well, there was no appreciable speed difference.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    I would actually argue that Linux was in a better state when it came to graphics drivers way back in the day when we still had Loki. We had solid support and FOSS drivers from companies such as 3DFX and Matrox, and ATI was a more competitive option than it was for all the years it stagnated after going like Nvidia and being proprietary only before AMD bought them and revived their free efforts.

    Don't believe me? Read this article from the time:
    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4152

    We are only now approaching a similar state as we had then with high-performance blobs but also decent supported FOSS drivers (only in this case from Intel and AMD).
    Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 08-01-2012 at 11:21 PM.

Posting Permissions

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