I've heard linux is horrible for gaming and will give you bad fps, why?
Linux is a system that is not conducive to gaming because it was simply never built for that purpose.
Linux was designed to be a cheap, x86 compatible UNIX-like system.
No critical thought went into it's design; there was no purposeful "well, Unix does it this way, can we possibly improve on that method?" The entire point was to simply recreate it. Linux liked the Unix way, so that was the way it was going to be.
As a result, Linux, even though it's not based on Unix at all, and shares 0 code with Unix, has manages to also have every single problem that Unix has had going back to the 70's. Many Unix design decisions were made because of hardware constraints and performance considerations- for example, the idea that every single thing that can connect to the system is just a stream of bytes, and the computer is basically just a giant sed machine for parsing those bytes.
And that doesn't even cover X.org, PulseAudio, or the innumerable desktop environments which all present their own hooks- few of which are well documented- to provide features such as changing the wallpaper or creating menus.
Additionally, with a GPU you will need to use either the proprietary graphics drivers, the Open Source graphics drivers- or, if you aren't awre of either, you'll use neither and end up using MESA, which is software rendered OpenGL. If you install Linux and run Minecraft (for example) your GPU is not being used unless you install your graphics drivers.
Graphics card companies aren't really plussed to create those proprietary drivers. They are universally panned by die-hard software freedomites, who between sips of their coke will tip their fedora as their mother yells down to the basement that dinner is ready. NVidia's driver software is actually usable- unlike ATI's, and yet you have people like Linux giving them, in public, the middle finger for having the audacity to not provide free, detailed hardware specifications on their graphics cards.
I would say Linux is not so compatible for gaming software than saying it is bad. Many controls of gaming usually run slow on Linux. They are more supportable with Windows.
Additionally, with a GPU you will need to use either the proprietary graphics drivers, the Open Source graphics drivers- or, if you aren't awre of either, you'll use neither and end up using MESA, which is software rendered OpenGL. If you install Linux and run Minecraft (for example) your GPU is not being used unless you install your graphics drivers.
Graphics card companies aren't really plussed to create those proprietary drivers. They are universally panned by die-hard software freedomites, who between sips of their coke will tip their fedora as their mother yells down to the basement that dinner is ready. NVidia's driver software is actually usable- unlike ATI's, and yet you have people like Linux giving them, in public, the middle finger for having the audacity to not provide free, detailed hardware specifications on their graphics cards.
Mesa has an implementation for software rendering but it is just an implementation of OpenGL api. Open Source drivers that use Mesa as their OpenGL implementation are using hardware rendering.
On the second part AMD provides a closer to spec OpenGL solution on Linux compared to Nvidia. Though does not excuse some of the many other problems. AMD actually provides assistance to the FOSS driver and provides documentation. This is why AMD is liked more by Torvalds and others.
I don't think everyone should be going around installing Linux for any reason. That is no excuse to post misinformation due to ignorance or malice.
I don't think everyone should be going around installing Linux for any reason.
Clearly, you are on the wrong board.
Haven't you heard? DX10 & 11 games under WINE run 300% faster than on windows! And minecraft was coded with special binary code for linux machines, notch always used a linux rig to code!
On the second part AMD provides a closer to spec OpenGL solution on Linux compared to Nvidia. Though does not excuse some of the many other problems. AMD actually provides assistance to the FOSS driver and provides documentation. This is why AMD is liked more by Torvalds and others.
The suggestion that Nvidia or any other company should play nicely with Open Source is based on nothing more than a feeling of entitlement.
Or from the massive desperation for something other than Windows to become viable for anything requiring acceleration.
The reason for Linux' middle finger to NVidia is because Nvidia had refused to provide detailed hardware specifications and hardware API documentation- stuff like what each GPU register does, what running the first PCI bus line low does, that sort of thing.
Effectively the complaint is that NVidia is not doing "it's part" for Open Source. The implication is that NVidia actually has some part that they should be doing.
What should have happened is the hardware should have been reverse engineered by people in the Open Source community. Instead Linux threw something of a public tantrum against Nvidia, and he got what he wanted because NVidia started to give them detailed hardware documentation.
NVidia's proprietary drivers are actually reasonably good on Linux. but, you know, proprietary=evil or whatever. Instead of improving Nouveau (the Open Source Driver) themselves from within the Open Source community through a spirit of collaboration by Open Source contributors, somehow Nouveau was decided to be Nvidia's problem, because Nvidia wasn't releasing documentation.
That is what reverse engineering is. ZSNES/SNES9x developers did not get detailed technical documentation about the chips in an SNES from Nintendo. They figured it out themselves through devotion of their own time, effort, and skill. If Linux/Open Source Developers aren't willing to put in that time, I question the quality of the product they intend to create; and at this point the 'result' is more or less a hodgepodge of whatever was the coolest thing to produce as easily as possible. Why create a stable Driver ABI, or a sane sound system when we can create yet another whizbang desktop environment.
unfotunately I have passed my quota of upvotes for the day
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2kUq0
the average script-follower/lack of common sense: http://www.techtales.com/tftechs.php?m=200504#8418
windoge 8 has the saddest excuse for a BSOD, it just tells you the type of error, no stop code, no nothing, just "something went wrong, all your unsaved work has now been lost to the void that is volatile memory"
The suggestion that Nvidia or any other company should play nicely with Open Source is based on nothing more than a feeling of entitlement.
Well or based on the idea that companies have a social responsibility and because they can benefit from society as a whole they should put software back into society. GNUs opinion of software is really no different then any of the far left liberals. Would not cal it an entitlement feeling just different views on society. Even if you disagree with that no reason the community can't dislike a company for not providing software in a way they want. They as consumers can pick a company that does such as Intel or AMD.
smh tbh fam
I'm fairly certain that the rumor about it having bad FPS is false, but people say it's bad for gaming simply because very few games support it.
When you emulate a windows game on linux, it will run slowly because it is emulating. Simple.
Though even linux ports of games run like garbage, this is a problem of linux and linux drivers themselves.
Linux is not a replacement for windows. If windows were a socket wrench, linux would be a screwdriver. It's not. Games generally run like garbage under linux. WINE sucks, period, and even native linux games/linux ports of windows games run like garbage.
Performance is all over the place for no reason.
Linux is a system that is not conducive to gaming because it was simply never built for that purpose.
Linux was designed to be a cheap, x86 compatible UNIX-like system.
No critical thought went into it's design; there was no purposeful "well, Unix does it this way, can we possibly improve on that method?" The entire point was to simply recreate it. Linux liked the Unix way, so that was the way it was going to be.
As a result, Linux, even though it's not based on Unix at all, and shares 0 code with Unix, has manages to also have every single problem that Unix has had going back to the 70's. Many Unix design decisions were made because of hardware constraints and performance considerations- for example, the idea that every single thing that can connect to the system is just a stream of bytes, and the computer is basically just a giant sed machine for parsing those bytes.
And that doesn't even cover X.org, PulseAudio, or the innumerable desktop environments which all present their own hooks- few of which are well documented- to provide features such as changing the wallpaper or creating menus.
Additionally, with a GPU you will need to use either the proprietary graphics drivers, the Open Source graphics drivers- or, if you aren't awre of either, you'll use neither and end up using MESA, which is software rendered OpenGL. If you install Linux and run Minecraft (for example) your GPU is not being used unless you install your graphics drivers.
Graphics card companies aren't really plussed to create those proprietary drivers. They are universally panned by die-hard software freedomites, who between sips of their coke will tip their fedora as their mother yells down to the basement that dinner is ready. NVidia's driver software is actually usable- unlike ATI's, and yet you have people like Linux giving them, in public, the middle finger for having the audacity to not provide free, detailed hardware specifications on their graphics cards.
Mesa has an implementation for software rendering but it is just an implementation of OpenGL api. Open Source drivers that use Mesa as their OpenGL implementation are using hardware rendering.
On the second part AMD provides a closer to spec OpenGL solution on Linux compared to Nvidia. Though does not excuse some of the many other problems. AMD actually provides assistance to the FOSS driver and provides documentation. This is why AMD is liked more by Torvalds and others.
I don't think everyone should be going around installing Linux for any reason. That is no excuse to post misinformation due to ignorance or malice.
Haven't you heard? DX10 & 11 games under WINE run 300% faster than on windows! And minecraft was coded with special binary code for linux machines, notch always used a linux rig to code!
It's just science, man, don't hate.
The suggestion that Nvidia or any other company should play nicely with Open Source is based on nothing more than a feeling of entitlement.
Or from the massive desperation for something other than Windows to become viable for anything requiring acceleration.
Something something Linus Torvalds something something "raising thumbs up for nvidia" something something.
The reason for Linux' middle finger to NVidia is because Nvidia had refused to provide detailed hardware specifications and hardware API documentation- stuff like what each GPU register does, what running the first PCI bus line low does, that sort of thing.
Effectively the complaint is that NVidia is not doing "it's part" for Open Source. The implication is that NVidia actually has some part that they should be doing.
What should have happened is the hardware should have been reverse engineered by people in the Open Source community. Instead Linux threw something of a public tantrum against Nvidia, and he got what he wanted because NVidia started to give them detailed hardware documentation.
NVidia's proprietary drivers are actually reasonably good on Linux. but, you know, proprietary=evil or whatever. Instead of improving Nouveau (the Open Source Driver) themselves from within the Open Source community through a spirit of collaboration by Open Source contributors, somehow Nouveau was decided to be Nvidia's problem, because Nvidia wasn't releasing documentation.
That is what reverse engineering is. ZSNES/SNES9x developers did not get detailed technical documentation about the chips in an SNES from Nintendo. They figured it out themselves through devotion of their own time, effort, and skill. If Linux/Open Source Developers aren't willing to put in that time, I question the quality of the product they intend to create; and at this point the 'result' is more or less a hodgepodge of whatever was the coolest thing to produce as easily as possible. Why create a stable Driver ABI, or a sane sound system when we can create yet another whizbang desktop environment.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2kUq0
the average script-follower/lack of common sense: http://www.techtales.com/tftechs.php?m=200504#8418
windoge 8 has the saddest excuse for a BSOD, it just tells you the type of error, no stop code, no nothing, just "something went wrong, all your unsaved work has now been lost to the void that is volatile memory"
Not finished yet, but it will make Linux gaming actually a thing.
fm87!........
No.
Well or based on the idea that companies have a social responsibility and because they can benefit from society as a whole they should put software back into society. GNUs opinion of software is really no different then any of the far left liberals. Would not cal it an entitlement feeling just different views on society. Even if you disagree with that no reason the community can't dislike a company for not providing software in a way they want. They as consumers can pick a company that does such as Intel or AMD.
I don't care ahout steamOS but if steam machines are cheaper than building i might buy one
smh tbh fam
They're definitely not cheaper.
Wrong. Some of them have been compared price wise to the hardware they have to as if you built it yourself, only to find they closely match.
There was a online chart of this, but I will still rather wait for actual marketing releases for public consumption before saying.