Re: Linux' future at the desktop
From: nikoli (nickholum_at_cox.net)
Date: 11/08/03
- Next message: mark: "SuSE 9 boot time"
- Previous message: baskitcaise: "Re: video content is blue with nvtv"
- In reply to: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux' future at the desktop"
- Next in thread: baskitcaise: "Re: Linux' future at the desktop"
- Reply: baskitcaise: "Re: Linux' future at the desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:28:10 -0600
Keith Clark wrote:
>nick holum wrote:
>
>
>
>>pioe[rmv] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BonTemp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Linux is a better desktop than Microsoft Windows because it is more
>>>>stable, faster, and runs on older PCs/Laptops without megagigs of
>>>>diskdrive space or mutli megabytes of memory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Very true. When GIMP gets a better Unsharp Mask filter, support for
>>>16-bit color, LAB and CMYK, even photographers and graphics artists can
>>>go fully Linux.
>>>
>>>Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
>>>http://www.efn.no/free-desktop.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Get more support for GAMES and Linux will be better off. If a Linux
>>distro could get a deal going with EA or another major game maker... it
>>would give a reason for wide adoption on the desktop.
>>
>>BTW, in my experience, Linux isn't more stable than XP and it's not as
>>fast either. It's getting there, but as a desktop, long long long way to go.
>>
>>
>
>Least things first. If you installed to a REiserFS partition, and use kernel
>2.6, Linux blows XP right out of the water. It boots in a small fraction of the
>time that Win2K takes to boot, and desktop responsiveness in Linux with the 2.6
>kernel blows Microsoft away.
>
>What I saw of the Live Eval 9 CD, just blows XP out of the water from a user
>experience too.
>
Win2K is not the OS I was talking about. I know for a fact XP boots way
quicker than Suse Linux (using 8.1)... you can say if you do this and if
you do that to no end... bottom line is both OSes can be optimized.
IMHO, I haven't seen Suse Linux 8.1 do a single thing faster than XP.
I'm sure it does do some things faster, but I haven't seen it.
>
>As for games :
>
>Just get the developers to write games for Linux!
>
Easier said than done my friend. If it was so easy, I'm sure this
would've been done years ago. Seriously, if the developers would agree
to this, Linux's user base would sky rocket. IMHO, it's an absolute must
for desktop /home user Linux to grow with any significance.
>
>If you want to play an excellent cross platform game, go buy Unreal Tournament
>2003 or 2004.
>
>The Linux installer is on one of the CD's and it works beautifully, assuming you
>have a good GL card (that lets out Matrox users). With the Nvidia FX5600 I have
>at home, Unreal Tournament plays extremely well (using the Nvidia accelerated 3D
>driver).
>
>Supposedly Castle Wolfenstein will run on Linux but I can't get their installer
>to work.
>
>Unreal Tournament is a perfect example of how developers should write games in
>my opinion. When UT 2004 hits the shelves I'll buy it because it supports Linux
>(and it's my favorite game ;->).
>
>--Keith
>
>
>
Hope other game makers take note.
- Next message: mark: "SuSE 9 boot time"
- Previous message: baskitcaise: "Re: video content is blue with nvtv"
- In reply to: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux' future at the desktop"
- Next in thread: baskitcaise: "Re: Linux' future at the desktop"
- Reply: baskitcaise: "Re: Linux' future at the desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|