Linux vs. Windows

by Necrolin on 12/19/2006 13:19, 42 messages, last message: 12/21/2006 21:39, 12530 views, last view: 05/05/2024 13:17, closed on 12/22/2006 00:55

I\'ve got the strangest little problem. I\'ve got a dual boot machine with Ubuntu Linux and Windows XP SP2 running on it. If I boot into Windows, the default config on a fresh install of Sauerbraten gives me 9 fps. The default config on Linux gives me 140 fps!!!! What gives?

   Board Index   

#23: Re: ..

by Passa on 12/20/2006 22:35, refers to #22

Well said, and one more thing:

"The difference here is that Linux wont get fucked up no matter how stupid the user is."

Wrong, stupid people can't use Linux because it just isn't user friendly enough yet. Tell me, whats the difference between installing drivers for graphics cards on Windows and Linux? Windows is WAAY easier, but computer newbies can't even do that anyway, let alone on Linux. Stuff isn't quite like 'double click and it works' like on Windows.

Boggel, I'll stress this again, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN WINDOWS AND LINUX. This thread is not a Windows VS Linux thread and I shouldn't have said what I just said in the above paragraph, but I cbf deleting it. There was an OS wars thread long ago, resurrect that if you want to argue.

reply to this message

#24: Re: ..

by SanHolo on 12/21/2006 00:39, refers to #22

Of course "things just work on Windows"; Windows is what 90% of all CEOs believe drives all computers in the world, they don't probably even know that there are other OS'es out there which don't have access to all the MS-proprietary-bullshit.

I hate Microsoft for locking all others out.

reply to this message

#25: Re: ..

by kurtis84 on 12/21/2006 00:55, refers to #24

Just for the record here, I have run the Vista beta. It does use a bit more power than winxp does, but it does NOT kill gaming performance. I ran it on a starved for ram system ( 512mb ), and got about the same performance from games...and YES, you can have opengl games in vista...you just have to install the drivers just like any other OS before this one.

Also, I have run linux and windows side by side. 2 hd's, one for each OS. I saw nothing to sway me either direction as far as performance with an nvidia video card. It's pointless to argue about this one. Finally, I've went back to just winxp, because I can run anything I want. I think the "what OS is best" is up to the individual, and what he/she wants to do on a pc. I refuse to side with linux, just on the basis that we have to pay for MS software, and I refuse to side with MS, just because they are on every damn PC on the market. Both OS'es are great.

reply to this message

#26: Re: ..

by Passa on 12/21/2006 01:42, refers to #24

MS doesn't lock others out, Apple lock others out.

Thanks to the PC (which runs Windows and Linux by the way) there is a WHOLE new industry of people manufacturing PCs. The number of small PC building businesses is amazing.

Apple on the other hand has made their system extremely proprietary and made sure that only THEY can build systems.

I hate Apple for locking all others out.

reply to this message

#27: Re: ..

by shadow,516 on 12/21/2006 03:36, refers to #13

ummm... I dual boot with XP and Vista Ultimate, and there is like a 20% increase in framerate for sauer...

reply to this message

#28: Re: ..

by Greywhind on 12/21/2006 05:12, refers to #26

No. Windows locks people out. See the .docx format for an extremely annoying example.

And Apple has the right to lock people out - they have < 5% market share. Microsoft does not.

reply to this message

#29: Re: ..

by Passa on 12/21/2006 08:21, refers to #28

Mac users.. so blind to their criticisms of Microsoft.. your slight criticisms of Microsoft are nothing compared to what Apple does.

Take the plank out of your eye before you take the splinter out of someone elses ;) (even if you have <5% of the market share)

reply to this message

#30: the reason why linux is so much faster..

by Aardappel_ on 12/21/2006 10:03

in games, and everything else, is neatly explained this article, with benchmarks, comparisons of various linux distros, graphics cards, and an analysis of all that sucks in windows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

reply to this message

#31: It's not the graphics

by rancor on 12/21/2006 10:40

Any cases where Linux outperforms Windows tend to be due to Linux's superior VM, networking, and IO subsystems, with lower application memory useage in typical desktop configurations as a side factor. Although, it may just be me, but it feels like Linux tends to remain more responsive under heavy load, which would help.

reply to this message

#32: Re: ..

by Passa on 12/21/2006 12:48, refers to #32

Umm, are you forgetting that practically everything else on Linux requires a command line to install?

reply to this message

#33: What did you learnt from this is...

by D-TurboKiller (LT) on 12/21/2006 13:15

...that linux (and mac) sucks and Windows rocks :)
I'm serious. Linux isn't even interesting to try, it's just awful, I tried it and it was really bad. That's why most of us use Windows.

reply to this message

#34: Re: ..

by Drakas on 12/21/2006 13:22, refers to #21

Hm, in two years that I've used Windows, it never "got a virus". Viruses don't just come to your PC - you invite them :)

reply to this message

#35: Re: ..

by Passa on 12/21/2006 14:39, refers to #34

Yes.. I tried Ubuntu, and yes it was impressive for a free OS, but Windows has tiny tweaks that make it just better for the average user! For example, for some reason Ubuntu had problems controlling my CPU fan speed properly, so it always sat at 4000 RPM. I leave my PC on at night, and my first night with Linux was one of my most restless :/ thats no joke btw

In Windows my CPU fan will slow down and stop completely if my PC is idle, so I can sleep with it on.

@ viruses and stuff, I have got nothing on my system. Maintain Windows and it works fine.

I should say though, Windows does need a format every year to work optimally. I would assume Linux does not (as I have never kept an install of Linux for over a year ;)

reply to this message

#36: Re: ..

by SanHolo on 12/21/2006 14:48, refers to #26

Hahaha, Passa, you must be VERY blind if you believe what you write

"Thanks to the PC (which runs Windows and Linux by the way) there is a WHOLE new industry of people manufacturing PCs. The number of small PC building businesses is amazing."
It was Apple who brought the PC to your homes. Never forget this.

"Apple on the other hand has made their system extremely proprietary and made sure that only THEY can build systems."
You don't know what 'proprietary' means, do you? OS X does only run on Apple hardware because they want it that way. They don't want a driver-hell like Windows is, they want to be sure their system works without having to grab updated drivers for every single hardware component, they can provide them with the OS. I think it's a good approach, and hell, no, they don't lock others out, or do you think Apple uses their own displays, harddrives, RAMs, loudspeakers or DVD-Drives? No, they don't.

What I am talking about locking others out is THE REASON why everyone runs Windows today, because they don't even provide documentation for their proprietary shit. (They just got fined by the EU for that).

Know Samba? All reverse-engineered.
OpenOffices .DOC support? Reverse-engineering.
Porting DirectX games to other platforms? Rewrite everything using OpenGL.
Making websites W3C compliant? Avoid proprietary IE shit
Watching WMVs without MediaPlayer? Use VLCs/MPlayers reverse-engineered WMV support.
Use hardware which only comes with Windows-Drivers? Use third-party drivers or hope it works anyway.
Receiving RTF mails from Outlook-users? Convert that damn "winmail.dat" file yourself.

You cannot even use some standardized formats with Windows!
iCalendar-files in Outlook? Special treatment of dates.
JavaScript/DOM in IE? Google for workarounds.
PNGs in IE? Nevermind.

Now I'm eager to see if anyone can pull out a similiar list bashing Apple.

reply to this message

#37: Re: ..

by D-TurboKiller (LT) on 12/21/2006 15:41, refers to #37

See post #37 to see why Windows is so cool, you dumb troll xD

reply to this message

#38: Re: ..

by D-TurboKiller (LT) on 12/21/2006 15:47, refers to #37

By the way, the reason why I hate linux (besides the lack of USEFUL stuff) is that even the simplest games run slow on my computer, and on Windows they run very very fast!
Weird, given the fact that some of you say the opposite :S

reply to this message

#39: Re: ..

by Pxtl on 12/21/2006 16:02, refers to #38

Probably drivers. Getting good drivers set up on Linux requires some serious voodoo dead-chicken-waving.

Damn it, I think I'm getting a voodoo fixation from my driver hell on my Xubuntu box.

reply to this message

#40: Re: ..

by rancor on 12/21/2006 20:19, refers to #32

OK, I call bullshit on this one. It's true that Nvidia's Linux installer blows, but the ATI installer is incredibly easy, and has a GUI for everything but the last step, which is running one command(aticonfig --initial). And that's assuming you haven't previously used ATI's drivers, you needn't even do that if that isn't the case. Besides, I never end up using the Nvidia installer, since all I have to do is install the drivers using my package manager.
@SanHolo: QFT, I never much cared if Apple wanted to restrict their OS to their hardware, but I do care that they tend to follow open standards, such as POSIX and X11.

reply to this message

#41: Re: ..

by Greywhind on 12/21/2006 21:37, refers to #37

D-TurboKiller (LT):

So... by saying that the things Microsoft did as outlined in #37 are what makes it better, essentially what you're saying is that what's good about Microsoft is that it prevents other people from innovating or using computers that don't run its crap - and I mean crap, just look at its favorite web browser, internet explorer (really, internet exploder) - by locking them out with its monopoly power, thus enriching Bill Gates, the one man in the world who doesn't need more money.

That's like saying that Hitler was good because he killed all the jews to make things better for himself and supposedly all the other Germans (except that he didn't - they were ruined for the next 40 years by occupation.)

Nice argument, troll.

reply to this message

#42: Re: ..

by Pxtl on 12/21/2006 21:39, refers to #41

Godwin'd. Alright, everybody out of the thread.

reply to this message

   Board Index