Discussion in 'Links' started by Dave, Nov 25, 2002.
hey are the apple os any good for gaming
No, Because you need PowerPC cpu and that just is not for gaming.
Ok, I take issue with this statement. First off I do have linux installed on my personal box. I do not call my self a linux junkie, heck I have problems just finding my way around linux. I'm still very much a linux n00b. With that said, I have some games that I play under linux, some of them are even windows games that I've had to use some, fairly simple, workarounds to run, but I'll go ahead and tell you, the performance is better on those games than it is in windows. Higher framerates, less stuttering, better image quality. It's crazy, linux can do a windows game better than windows can. Now before everyone goes nuts over this statement, I will admit that not all windows games can be made to run in linux. Hell, most of them can't, and this is why right now windows is a better gaming OS. Not for performance reasons, but for the simple fact that there are not alot of games out there for linux right now. But just you wait, when everyone is running linux you will wonder to your self why you ever wasted your time with windows.
I'm suprised about that, since DirectX is embedded into the Kernal, in comparison to XFree86 which runs on the software level. DirectX than has complete access to drivers/hardware, where as XFree86 does not. XFree86 in that manner is lovely for stability, because if your GUI goes to hell on you, you don't get a system wide crash.
I'm also a Linux n00b, so if I'm incorrect on this, than by all means correct me.
Personally I have used both XP PRO and HOME and while both work fairly well with gaming I have to say that if you have as much hardware connected as I do such as network, printer and scanner and such that Pro is much more stable with drivers and updates and such. My XP Home would get trashy about every 3 months and have to be dumped and reloaded where as Pro is about every 6 months to a year most time.
Alas I ordered a free set of ubuntu cd's today because after looking there is alot of support for the games I play availible and everywhere I read says the linux platforms are near load it and forget it as far as stability is concerned once you get past the initial headaches of getting everything working in the first place.
As far as the post that microsoft has the monopoly and just to live with it----That attitude will only allow microsoft to control the computing world for a longer period of time. I agree that linux will be no walk in the park but hey I personally am getting tired of padding microsofts pockets for broken software.
Just the view from here.
Is there any noticeable difference between xp32 and xp64 in gaming?
Well first of all it's definately going to be a Windows based OS, this is backed up by the fact that if you look at all the major 'profsesional' gaming tournaments they will be running a version of Windows, and more often than not Windows XP.
As for what OS gives the best gaming performance; this will vary somewhat from computer to computer, on my last PC windows 2000 ran very well and XP ran a lot more sluggish, and there was a definate drop in frame rate in the games I play. On my PC before that, windows 2000 (and windows XP) performed badly, Windows ME was most responsive and gave me the best in game frame rate. With my current PC, XP is easily the operating system of choice, I used to be 100% for Windows 2000 because on my previous PC it was amazingly stable, it never randomly crashed for me at all, but now Windows 2000 is lacking support for some games and general support for other utilities/applications. Another side of it for me, being a games developer, is the later DirectX SDK's do not even install if a Windows 2000 OS is detected, this was reason enough to make me upgrade to XP.
Linux isn't really a contender for a serious gaming OS, many games simply aren't supported under linux, and personally I've never seen a Linux OS running a game at a higher frame rate than the Windows counterpart. Personally I don't think Linux is particularly well suited for a desktop environment at all, 'X' really isn't too great. If people insist on looking at alternative OS's to mess around in, they should at least check out NextStep which offered an amazingly smooth, snappy GUI OS environment while Windows was struggling to allow the user to drag a window around the scren at more than 2 FPS (10 odd years ago, although on the PC I'm using right now at work, any alpha transparencies, like on the start menu, make the screen update at about 5 fps, impressive!)
maybe someone already wrote this (i didnt have the energy to read all the post), but dont forget that HT, 64 Bit and Dual core CPU will only work on XP, and these have huge impact on games
That may be true for your HT Intel processor but by 64 bit meaning usage of Windows XP x64 Edition right? :bigsmile:
Can someone please ellaborate on why I should/should not use Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4 over XP again? :tomcat:
Short answer is: So you can pay Microsoft again.
Long answer is: There are slight under the hood advances in XP and the kernel is more recent (compiled version) SP2 than Win2K SP4 which means it will be more effecient on more recent hardware.
Personally I prefer to run XP for the more updated drivers and easier administration, that's if I have to run Windows. If I don't have to run Windows then I don't.