Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsWindows VistaWindows XPWindows MeWindows 98Windows 95Virtual PCInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressWindows MediaSecurity
Related Topics
MS Server ProductsMS OfficePC HardwareMore Topics ...

Windows Forum / Windows Vista / General Topics / April 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Linux is NOT for Everyone!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Doris Day - MFB - 26 Apr 2007 18:11 GMT
OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source developers.
It is NOT ready for every desktop out there, nor for those people that lack
some basic computer skill levels or are afraid to learn new computer
skills. Linux is simply an alternative desktop operating system for those
who have computer needs that can be fulfilled by the software applications
that run on Linux or can be made to run on Linux.

What has been a hoot is watching the Windows Fanboys who look upon anyone
suggesting there's a viable alternative to Windows as trolls and idiots and
who have spread so much FUD about Linux. When they do that, I've challenged
them.

But really, yes, really, I don't care how many within the Windows community
gravitate over to using Linux. What you choose to use is YOUR choice and
you should be happy with that choice. But when users come on here and talk
about the difficulties they are experiencing with things like viruses and
trojans, or older hardware that can't run Vista, or who have relatively
simple computer needs, or are fed up with deactivations, and the need to
shovel more moeny at the problem, etc., etc. and Linux can offer an
alternative that is worth investigating, I've spoken up.

Will Linux replace Windows as the predominant operating system on the
desktop in the forseeable future? Probably not. Microsoft is the world's
largest software company, with billions of dollars at its disposal to
market Windows in a way that no open source outfit could compete with.
Microsoft, through its years of dominance and in some ways ruthless
business practises has been successful in getting its operating systems
preloaded on millions upon millions of computers. Users have generally had
little choice. When they purchase a computer it comes with Windows and for
the new computer user, their computer and Windows is the only thing they
know about and the only way they can see running a computer.

Microsoft and the Windows Fanboys have nothing to worry about that somehow
Linux is going to put them out of business. But in saying that, there can
be no argument that Linux has come a long long way to being more
user-friendly and for very many people, a real alternative on their desktop
to the proprietary offerings from Microsoft.

Switching over from Windows to Linux is not easy for many people who have
never known any other way than the Windows-way of operating their
computers. Using Linux, especially by those who have used Windows for a
long time, can be a confusing experience, as they expect Linux to behave
and operate like what they are so familiar with. Linux, does not. But for a
typical new users, who can get Linux installed on their computers, either
preloaded or with the help of a friend or the Linux community, the GUI
desktop in Linux is no harder for them to learn than Windows. In fact,
things like software installations is far easier to do under Linux than
Windows.

If there is software that one must run and it is only available in the
Windows world, then your choice is already determined - use Windows. But to
suggest that for the vast majority of typical computer users, Linux cannot
supply apps for them that will do what they need to do, is simple FUD.

I have used Windows for many years. In fact the first version of Windows I
ever installed on one of my computers was Windows version 2. I'm very
familiar with Windows up to XP and have spent years supporting Windows
users. I have also used Linux for many years also and can say emphatically
that for MY NEEDS Linux is so superior to Windows that there is no room to
argue otherwise. My familiarity with Linux allows me to do things with my
computers that bring power and stability that Windows just cannot provide.
Linux is a fast evolving beast that due to its innovation and ability to be
configured to do so many things, much of which can be very complex, is an
operating system that one must always be studying and learning more about
if one wants to extend it beyond the default installation. So, Linux, for
the inquisitive computer user, is an exciting and challenging computing
experience. It has the inherent ability to be scaled up to some pretty
fantastic uses. For example, making use of a number of Linux boxes on my
LAN to work as a cluster for transcoding video. It's not an easy thing to
configure and get running, but when it's done, there's nothing in the
Windows world that can compare. With a Linux cluster, one has essentially
taken a group of local computers and turned them into what is starting to
approach a super computer. The neat thing about all this is that it costs
NOTHING, as all the tools are there and free to use.

So in conclusion, Linux can be a viable alternative to Windows for those
who ...

* are running older hardware but want the advantages of running an
innovative and modern operating system on that hardware because Linux is so
tweaked to make the most use of computer resources without the bloatware.
Linux can be run on a simple router all the way up to the world's fastest
super computer and all systems in between.

* are constantly battling with viruses, trojans and other malware, not only
because they don't know how to protect their computers from the over
200,000 malware apps targeting Windows, but also because they just don't
want to spend so much energy trying to keep ahead of these attacks and
realize that the Windows security model is very deficient.

* are up to a bit of a challenge learning how to use their computers be free
from the restraints imposed by proprietary software.

* who are ideologically opposed to having a large corporation control how
they can use their computers using crap like DRM (Digital Rights
Management), phone-home activations, etc.

* can appreciate the power that Linux offers if one is prepared to put out
the effort to learn its power and to extend it.

* don't have the bank accounts to spend on Windows upgrades and other
proprietary software upgrades.

* believe that intellectual property rights and corporate control of your
computer experience is not your cup of tea.

* want a relationship between you the user and the developer of the software
you use as a true partnership and not just a commercial partnership where
you are nothing more that a "customer". The Linux community is based on a
growing number of computer users and software developers who believe in the
community of computer users free to choose and in that choice be free to
work towards the common good over the profits of the few.

* think it is neat and exciting to take on new and challenging skills and
see a future in the Open Source movement.

* want the ability to run a GUI application from your desktop on another
computer, either across your LAN or across the Internet.

Linux is not for everyone, but it may be for you.

Love and Kisses,
Doris

Signature

My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
Title Says It All ... http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl

kevpan815@hotmail.com - 26 Apr 2007 18:13 GMT
I Agree With You 100%, Just FYI.  Windows Vista Server Beta 3 Escrow Is The
Best Operating System Available Right Now, Just FYI.

> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
xfile - 26 Apr 2007 19:09 GMT
>I Agree With You 100%, Just FYI.  Windows Vista Server Beta 3 Escrow Is The
>Best Operating System Available Right Now, Just FYI.

I admire your spirit and you don't forget to promote MS.  :)

>I Agree With You 100%, Just FYI.  Windows Vista Server Beta 3 Escrow Is The
>Best Operating System Available Right Now, Just FYI.
[quoted text clipped - 148 lines]
>> Love and Kisses,
>> Doris
kevpan815@hotmail.com - 26 Apr 2007 21:20 GMT
Correction:  I Just Noticed That The Public Beta Is The Real Beta 3 and Not
The Beta 3 Escrow That Is Posted on MSDN and Microsoft Tech Net Plus (In
Other Words: The Public Beta Is Newer Than What Is Currently Posted On MSDN
and Microsoft Tech Net Plus), Just FYI.

> >I Agree With You 100%, Just FYI.  Windows Vista Server Beta 3 Escrow Is
> >The Best Operating System Available Right Now, Just FYI.
[quoted text clipped - 174 lines]
>>> Love and Kisses,
>>> Doris
Tom Porterfield - 26 Apr 2007 18:23 GMT
> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source developers.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> who have computer needs that can be fulfilled by the software applications
> that run on Linux or can be made to run on Linux.

... <snipped lots of well stated facts about Linux, read the original>

> Linux is not for everyone, but it may be for you.

Thank you Doris.  This is a very well stated set of facts on Linux being
an alternative to Windows.  It is refreshing compared to the several
here who seem to be arguing that Linux is not only an alternative for
some, but is the superior option for all.  That is obviously not true.
I appreciate your well balanced review.
Signature

Tom Porterfield

Neil Harley - 26 Apr 2007 18:33 GMT
> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone.

At last!! Someone comes up with an intelligent set of points and not a rant
or fanboy-style post.
Frank - 26 Apr 2007 18:49 GMT
>> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone.

So what's new? That very old news!
Frank
Former captain of the Enterprise - 26 Apr 2007 19:36 GMT
this is the most boring post I have ever seen on this newsgroup...

gesh.. I was yawning with the first 3 lines!

>>> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone.
>>
> So what's new? That very old news!
> Frank
xfile - 26 Apr 2007 19:07 GMT
Hi Doris,

I am deeply touched.  Very nice article and maybe you could blog it too.

Just to share with you:

(1) According to a study conducted by Gartner, 90% of computer users don't
know the difference between Office XP and Windows XP and they just know that
they are using XP.  The reason for Intel to come up the "Intel Inside"
campaign many years ago is that most regular users care less to find out
what's inside of the box.  So think about that, maybe there will be some
ideas come to light.

(2) Other than hardware/software compatibility, most business users care
about document formats that they need to exchange with business partners.
Actually, that part plays a critical role because applications are the key
and the platform is just to support applications.

I personally and no one around me have had used Linux, but I always believe
constructive competition is good for everyone including product providers.

Thanks again for your kind sharing.

> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
Neil Harley - 26 Apr 2007 19:35 GMT
> Hi Doris,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> product providers.
> Thanks again for your kind sharing.

There are bootable versions of Linux that can be run from CDs. Give it a go.

http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
Daron Brewood - 26 Apr 2007 19:50 GMT
>There are bootable versions of Linux that can be run from CDs. Give it a go.
>
>http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php

Nick can these run with out affecting the host OS? Asking as I'm dual
booting Vista / MCE and I'd love to give Linux a try but can't risk
screwing up the current installs.
Tom Porterfield - 26 Apr 2007 20:14 GMT
>> There are bootable versions of Linux that can be run from CDs. Give it a go.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> booting Vista / MCE and I'd love to give Linux a try but can't risk
> screwing up the current installs.

Yes, the Live CD's run without modifying the host OS.  You can touch
files on the hard drive if you want, or you can just run off the CD.
Signature

Tom Porterfield

Neil Harley - 26 Apr 2007 20:17 GMT
>> There are bootable versions of Linux that can be run from CDs. Give
>> it a go.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> booting Vista / MCE and I'd love to give Linux a try but can't risk
> screwing up the current installs.

I've run Knoppix on machines with XP and Server 2003 installed with no
problems but not as dual boot. I can't see why that would be a problem
though
Former captain of the Enterprise - 26 Apr 2007 19:35 GMT
You are not a girl.. yet you use a girls nick

You should have added (OT) to your stupid rambling largely uninteresting and
uninspiring
endless post....

> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
Sharon - 26 Apr 2007 20:44 GMT
I have used RedHat and Suse. To be honest, while it's fun to explore around
in Linux as it's something different from Windows...I actually will say,
that using Linux is like going back to the dark ages. I find Windows Vista
to be a very advanced and sleek OS. Very satisfied and happy with using
Windows Vista.

> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
Dana Cline - MVP - 26 Apr 2007 20:57 GMT
I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of the
art"...They must have forgotten it's a clone of Unix, which debuted in 1969.
So at the core, it's a clone of a 38-year old operating system.

I have to admire Linux, because it's proven that a random collection of
programmers can turn out usable software. Sadly, Linux will never be able to
match the research dollars that Microsoft puts into their software, so it
will forever be catching up to Windows.

Dana Cline - MCE MVP

>I have used RedHat and Suse. To be honest, while it's fun to explore around
>in Linux as it's something different from Windows...I actually will say,
[quoted text clipped - 151 lines]
>> Love and Kisses,
>> Doris
norm - 26 Apr 2007 22:11 GMT
> I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of the
> art"...They must have forgotten it's a clone of Unix, which debuted in 1969.
> So at the core, it's a clone of a 38-year old operating system.

Actually, most of the distros can take advantage of state of the art
hardware, but also run just as well on less capable hardware. And there
are distros available to take great advantage of minimally capable
systems. There is a wide variety of choice. The following article might
provide a bit more understanding as to the relationship between unix and
linux. You seem to suggest that they are one and the same. You might be
surprised: http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Linux-UNIX

> I have to admire Linux, because it's proven that a random collection of
> programmers can turn out usable software. Sadly, Linux will never be able to
> match the research dollars that Microsoft puts into their software, so it
> will forever be catching up to Windows.

And if the software is usable, then it can be of value to many. And
quite possibly, it is not the research dollars but the marketing dollars
that has been the larger factor for the success of ms. This is not meant
to take anything away from the success that ms has had, but there are
varied views as to what actually brought them their success. ymmv.

> Dana Cline - MCE MVP
>
[quoted text clipped - 153 lines]
>>> Love and Kisses,
>>> Doris

Signature

norm

Stephan Rose - 27 Apr 2007 01:17 GMT
> I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of the
> art"...They must have forgotten it's a clone of Unix, which debuted in
> 1969. So at the core, it's a clone of a 38-year old operating system.

Hey that wheel on your car debuted thousands of years ago. It is so old it
must suck! Maybe MS should invent something new and sleeker...like..a
square?

Just because something is based on something older does not mean it is good
or bad. In this particular case, Unix simply got it right 38 years ago
already.

> I have to admire Linux, because it's proven that a random collection of
> programmers can turn out usable software. Sadly, Linux will never be able
> to match the research dollars that Microsoft puts into their software, so
> it will forever be catching up to Windows.

I have to disagree with that. If you look at the history and advancements in
OS then the advancement has levelled off over the years. As far as windows
is concerned, I view XP as the last real advancement.

Vista may offer a few new features but it is not as large as a jump as XP
was over Win98. Just about any of the things available for vista are just
as readily available for XP or Linux. That puts either one on an even
playing field.

As far as I am concerned, Windows is, maybe already even has, very quickly
reaching a plateau where it simply can't really advance much further. I
mean ok, it has that new hardware accelerated UI now. If that UI is good or
not is largely up to what the user likes. I personally find it hideous.
Some people actually like it. Besides, Beryl can kick Aero's butt any day
and I don't even bother using Beryl on Linux because I simply have no need
for the eye candy.

They improved some kernel level features such as memory allocation, load
balancing for multiple cores, etc. Fine. But I can tell you being a
programmer myself, code can only be optimized so much until you reach a
point of diminishing return or a point where there simply is nothing left
to optimize. Been there, done that.

DX10, while neat, due to its design introduces so many compatibility
problems that I dout that we will see much use of it anytime in the near
future. Not until cards like the 8800 GTX are mainstream and XP is history.
I am more likely expecting a return of OpenGL as it can bridge the
technology gap between DX9 and DX10 level features without all the
compatibility mess.

The new search feature may be neat to someone that actually has need for it.
How many people search their HD on a daily basis though? Talking home users
here please, not some professional that due to whatever they do has
thousands of files to deal with. I think home users are in the majority
here and I doubt they see much of a productivity gain if a search they do
once a week (if that often) takes 10 seconds or 1 second.

Ready boost I honestly consider beyond useless. If anyone has need for THAT
they need to be investing money in ram, not USB sticks. Paging memory to
phsyical media is bad. Period. I don't care if its HD or flash. Even though
flash is faster than a HD, it is still beyond slow compared to ram. Not to
mention flash memory only has so many write cycles.

What I am trying to get at is, nothing in vista is particularly
revolutionary. It's new features already existed in the past either in
other operating systems or via 3rd party solution and none of it is
particularly new. Hell even I could do the equivalent Vista's ready boost
in linux by mounting a memory swap file system on a usb stick...

If Linux is behind windows or not is honestly not a very simple answer
either. There are things I would never consider using windows for as
windows is just no match in that department. Servers come to mind. There
are also things I can't use linux for right now. So they both have their
uses, advantages and disadvantages.

But even if Linux lacks features that windows has, it is only matter of time
until it gets them. I honestly can't think of one it does not have though.
The only advantage in my mind that Windows has over Linux is 3rd party
developer support. That is it.

Windows on the other hand, is running out of features to add to it which
accelerates the rate at which everthing else can catch up.

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

PowerUser - 27 Apr 2007 03:25 GMT
>> I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Vista may offer a few new features but it is not as large as a jump as XP
> was over Win98.

The largest jump actually was the introduction of Win 2K.  XP is 2K with a
fancy GUI.  With Vista, I think they took almost all the time developing
Aero.  No other feature is really 'all new'.  Read further below....

Just about any of the things available for vista are just
> as readily available for XP or Linux. That puts either one on an even
> playing field.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> The new search feature may be neat to someone that actually has need for
> it.

Actually XP already does this stuff.  Turn on the Indexing service.  To
search within a file in advanced features, use "a word or phrase in the
document".  Desktop search software does search a wider format of files
though, but I'm not sure.  Windows search isn't revolutionary- It's a pretty
GUI that uses existing functionality.  The indexing service is used by
Windows Desktop Search for XP too.

> How many people search their HD on a daily basis though? Talking home
> users
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> flash is faster than a HD, it is still beyond slow compared to ram. Not to
> mention flash memory only has so many write cycles.

Readyboost isn't comparable to RAM performance.  However it's useful if
you've utilized all the upgrade slots and don't want to spend the $$$ on
changing all the modules.

> What I am trying to get at is, nothing in vista is particularly
> revolutionary. It's new features already existed in the past either in
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> The only advantage in my mind that Windows has over Linux is 3rd party
> developer support. That is it.

I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are concerned.
Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider that there are
certain things businesses and home users use- To make money.  If there was a
good Linux at the time of Win 95 we would probably be writing a different
history now.

> Windows on the other hand, is running out of features to add to it which
> accelerates the rate at which everthing else can catch up.

I think they need to think about hardening security without throwing UAC at
us.  I also think they shouldn't mess with the XP GUI- The Vista GUI has
taken a plunge from the super productive Win XP.  They shpuld probably have
bolted Aero to that GUI and people would be much happier.
Stephan Rose - 27 Apr 2007 09:19 GMT
>>> I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> fancy GUI.  With Vista, I think they took almost all the time developing
> Aero.  No other feature is really 'all new'.  Read further below....

Very true. I used WinXP though simply because W2K never really hit the home
users all that much. For many it was Win98 to XP.

<snip>

> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are concerned.
> Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider that there are
> certain things businesses and home users use- To make money.  If there was
> a good Linux at the time of Win 95 we would probably be writing a
> different history now.

As far as OS capabilities go, I honestly can't find Linux at any
disadvanatage. There's just nothing it doesn't do.

Ok, configuring a few things can occasionally be a pain. But at least as far
as Ubuntu is concerned, that is rapdily changing and going into the right
direction. A few things still need to improve, but that is it.

Other than that? If it wasn't for gaming I would not need windows on this
machine. Everything other than gaming I can use Linux for, my work
included.

>> Windows on the other hand, is running out of features to add to it which
>> accelerates the rate at which everthing else can catch up.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> taken a plunge from the super productive Win XP.  They shpuld probably
> have bolted Aero to that GUI and people would be much happier.

Very true, security is about the one and only thing they have really got
left to work on as far as I am concerned.

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Justin - 27 Apr 2007 17:03 GMT
>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are concerned.
>> Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider that there are
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> As far as OS capabilities go, I honestly can't find Linux at any
> disadvanatage. There's just nothing it doesn't do.

It doesn't run.  How about that one?  ;p

I downloaded this twice:

Standard personal computer (x86 architecture, PentiumTM, CeleronTM,
AthlonTM, SempronTM)

It wont install on an older P4 I have.  When you boot from the CD and select
install it tells me to get the 32bit version as my CPU doesn't support
"long".

> Other than that? If it wasn't for gaming I would not need windows on this
> machine.

You mean the second largest computer industry?  I guess that's a good reason
why Windows will remain #1.  At least linux supports the #1 industry :)
Doris Day - MFB - 27 Apr 2007 19:30 GMT
>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are concerned.
>>> Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider that there are
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> select install it tells me to get the 32bit version as my CPU doesn't
> support "long".

What distro and what version were you trying to install? It looks like you
tried to install a 64bit version.

Love and Kisses,
Doris

Signature

My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
Title Says It All ... http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl

Justin - 27 Apr 2007 19:47 GMT
>>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are concerned.
>>>> Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider that there
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> What distro and what version were you trying to install? It looks like you
> tried to install a 64bit version.

As Stephan probably already understands, we discussed Ubuntu 7.04.

What's confusing about:
Standard personal computer (x86 architecture, PentiumTM, CeleronTM,
AthlonTM, SempronTM)

See the "x86" in there?
Peter Foldes - 27 Apr 2007 21:46 GMT
Justin

>> What distro and what version were you trying to install? It looks like you
>> tried to install a 64bit version.

> What's confusing about:
> Standard personal computer (x86 architecture, PentiumTM, CeleronTM,
> AthlonTM, SempronTM)
>
> See the "x86" in there?

I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try and continue a personal flame in these posts. Adults do not tend to do that. Let us put an end to this un-needed game   Please

Signature

Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

> "Doris Day - MFB" <snort@nospam.com> wrote in message
Justin - 27 Apr 2007 22:07 GMT
"I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as did
Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try and continue
a personal flame in these posts. Adults do not tend to do that. Let us put
an end to this un-needed game   Please"

1. I don't care what you understood.  I'm waiting for Stephan's reply.
He'll give REAL insight to the issue and not the dribble that came from
Doris' keyboard.  Doris is a worthless troll and was responded to as such.
If you have a problem with that then I can direct you to a brick wall to
address the issue.

2. My comment still stands.  I made it VERY CLEAR that I downloaded the x86
ISO (TWICE) so please explain to us all how that equals a 64bit OS?  Please
explain to us again how Doris was right.
Alias - 27 Apr 2007 22:23 GMT
> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as did
> Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> x86 ISO (TWICE) so please explain to us all how that equals a 64bit OS?  
> Please explain to us again how Doris was right.

What's risible is that you can't install Ubuntu when an eight year old
has no problem doing it. I suspect you're either in denial about 64bit
or you have some dorked hardware. Or you're stupid. Take your choice.

Alias
Justin - 27 Apr 2007 22:33 GMT
>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as did
>> Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try and
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Alias

Hum...so many choices!!!  Since you're the self proclaimed expert how about
you pick one.
Alias - 29 Apr 2007 12:05 GMT
>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as
>>> did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Hum...so many choices!!!  Since you're the self proclaimed expert how
> about you pick one.

I have never claimed to be a computer expert. I am a computer user,
albeit with many years experience. It's inconceivable to me that you
can't install Ubuntu when it's so easy to do.

Alias
Justin - 29 Apr 2007 12:29 GMT
>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as did
>>>> Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try and
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Alias

Not really.  It's a realistic fault on their part.  The fact you can't
conceive that thought only proves how much of a troll you are.
Alias - 29 Apr 2007 12:56 GMT
>>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as
>>>>> did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> Not really.  It's a realistic fault on their part.  The fact you can't
> conceive that thought only proves how much of a troll you are.

I have seen many people install Ubuntu. Easy as pie. I'm beginning to
think you've never even tried.

Alias
Justin - 29 Apr 2007 20:14 GMT
>>>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as
>>>>>> did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> I have seen many people install Ubuntu. Easy as pie. I'm beginning to
> think you've never even tried.

Are you serious?  Is that your pathetic argument?  Well alias I've seen
countless people install Windows without any problem (easy as pie) so I
guess all these people in this NG are full of crap and never really tried?
Your ego is in the clouds.
Alias - 30 Apr 2007 00:09 GMT
>>>>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same
>>>>>>> as did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> guess all these people in this NG are full of crap and never really
> tried? Your ego is in the clouds.

You've never tried. You're lying.

Alias
Justin - 30 Apr 2007 01:46 GMT
>>>>>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as
>>>>>>>> did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> Alias

That's pretty much your response to anything you do not want to hear.
Julian - 29 Apr 2007 12:33 GMT
>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as did
>>>> Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try and
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> I have never claimed to be a computer expert...

And yet you'll pontificate until the cows come home.
Alias - 29 Apr 2007 12:57 GMT
>>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as
>>>>> did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> And yet you'll pontificate until the cows come home.

If you have a comment regarding the content I have posted, please feel
free. If all you want to do is be insulting, I am not interested.

Alias
Julian - 29 Apr 2007 13:01 GMT
>>>>>> "I also by reading the posts in this thread  understood the same as
>>>>>> did Doris. His answer was correctly put and there is no need to try
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> If you have a comment regarding the content I have posted, please feel
> free. I

I did.

>If all you want to do is be insulting, I am not interested.

Physician... heal thyself.
Doris Day - MFB - 28 Apr 2007 14:52 GMT
>>>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are
>>>>> concerned. Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> Standard personal computer (x86 architecture, PentiumTM, CeleronTM,
> AthlonTM, SempronTM)

Justin,

Sorry, but I was just trying to help. What is confusing to me is the error
you reported ... "it tells me to get the 32bit version as my CPU doesn't
support "long"." It would indicate to me that somehow the install is
confused about the CPU that you have in that box. Why, I don't know?

As to asking what installation version did you download, I asked because you
didn't state the version. Typically Ubuntu is available in the following
versions:

Desktop CD
Server install CD
Alternate install CD

Within each of these versions there are 3 different images available:

PC (Intel x86)
Mac (PowerPC)
64-bit PC (AMD64)
SPARC server install - only in the Server install CD

> See the "x86" in there?

Yes, I did see that, but that is available in a number of different
installation CDs, hence my question.

But really Justin, I have to wonder if you really are that interested in
installing it anyways. I've seen you slam Linux so much, it could well be
that your claim to have tried to install Ubuntu, was just another attempt
to slam it and that the "error" you reported, you just found somewhere on
the Net and have quoted, not realizing it doesn't really make sense.

Love and Kisses,
Doris

Signature

My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
Title Says It All ... http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl

Justin - 28 Apr 2007 17:41 GMT
>>>>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are
>>>>>> concerned. Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Sorry, but I was just trying to help.

That's funny.  You'll help a wounded linux bunny but instead of helping a
wounded windows bunny you just blow it away with a shotgun.  Gee, thanks.

> But really Justin, I have to wonder if you really are that interested in
> installing it anyways. I've seen you slam Linux so much, it could well be
> that your claim to have tried to install Ubuntu, was just another attempt
> to slam it and that the "error" you reported, you just found somewhere on
> the Net and have quoted, not realizing it doesn't really make sense.

Oh really?  What "about" linux have you seen me slam?  I use and like linux
very much.  Figure that one out.
Nina DiBoy - 30 Apr 2007 04:25 GMT
>>>>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are
>>>>>> concerned. Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> to slam it and that the "error" you reported, you just found somewhere on
> the Net and have quoted, not realizing it doesn't really make sense.

No doubts about it here.

> Love and Kisses,
> Doris

Signature

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"It would be nice if there was a check to see if you were running an
activated/validated version of Windows before you were allowed to post
in any of these news groups. If you're not activated/validated your post
automatically gets deleted.
That would get rid of the Linsux Luzzzzzzzzers once and for all."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

Stephan Rose - 27 Apr 2007 22:25 GMT
>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are concerned.
>>> Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider that there are
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> select install it tells me to get the 32bit version as my CPU doesn't
> support "long".

Honestly, I really wish I could help you there but...I can't. Never
encountered that error so far so I have no experience dealing with it. You
might wanna give it another shot now that Feisty is out of beta to see if
anything has changed. But beyond that, you'd have to ask for help in the
ubuntu NG or forums as that particular problem is beyond my knowledge.

>> Other than that? If it wasn't for gaming I would not need windows on this
>> machine.
>
> You mean the second largest computer industry?  I guess that's a good
> reason
> why Windows will remain #1.  At least linux supports the #1 industry :)

Maybe, maybe not. MS has dug quite a nice hole for themselves with DX10
opening up a wide door for OpenGL. All it takes is one major developer to
release a significant title with OpenGL on par with what DX10 can do and
plenty more will follow. It's not a question if OpenGL can do it or not,
it's a question if someone will use it to do it. MS literally handed the
edge to OpenGL on a silver platter with DX10.

If that does happen, which I kind of hope it will, it automatically opens up
the gaming market to Linux as OpenGL is 100% compatible with linux.

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Justin - 27 Apr 2007 22:39 GMT
>>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are concerned.
>>>> Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider that there
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> anything has changed. But beyond that, you'd have to ask for help in the
> ubuntu NG or forums as that particular problem is beyond my knowledge.

Well, I downloaded it on the day it was released.  Maybe the files/links got
crossed or something.

>>> Other than that? If it wasn't for gaming I would not need windows on
>>> this
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> up
> the gaming market to Linux as OpenGL is 100% compatible with linux.

Well, we've all heard the promises.  Wasn't OpenGL supposed to open the Mac
to the gaming arena?  That hasn't happened yet.  I've got nothing against
OpenGL.  Hell I used to use it frequently with 3DStudioMax.  I want whatever
looks best.

Knowing MS they'll figure out ways to tightly integrate DX in other areas to
make sure that game studios need to keep DX on their docket regardless of
using OpenGL thus making the issue moot.  They're sneaky like that :)
Stephan Rose - 27 Apr 2007 23:44 GMT
>>>>> I would disagree- Linux is really far as far as desktops are
>>>>> concerned. Even $400 per person is really not much when you consider
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
> OpenGL.  Hell I used to use it frequently with 3DStudioMax.  I want
> whatever looks best.

It hasn't happened yet because the gaming market is DirectX and therefore
Windows. Mac is in the same boat as linux gaming-wise.

The second Mac has games linux has them and vice versa.

> Knowing MS they'll figure out ways to tightly integrate DX in other areas
> to make sure that game studios need to keep DX on their docket regardless
> of
> using OpenGL thus making the issue moot.  They're sneaky like that :)

They might be sneaky like that but one can only be so sneaky. They can
integrate DX10 as tightly as they want, a few facts remain:

- Vista is needed to use it
- DX10 Hardware is needed to use it
- Requiring either Vista or DX10 currently annihilates the majority of the
potential userbase.

Currently only the 8800 line of cards from nVidia has any DX 10 support, and
I suppose whatever equivalent from nVidia.

The average desktop does not have a 8800 series video card and XP is still
the majority OS. Nor is the average desktop being sold with a 8800 series
video card. Usually only high end desktops are sold with that kind of
hardware.

I doubt that any developer is going to be willing to annihilate their XP
customers for a least a year if not more. Not until Vista is so widespread
that the XP usage is an insignificant minority.

At this point in time, this only solves the OS problem. Even if a user has
Vista, it still does not mean they have DX10 hardware. There are countless
cards that support DX9. DX9 has been supported for I don't know how many
years now! Even Win98 friggin supports it. So there is many many years
worth of hardware capable of using DX9.

There are less than a handful of cards capable of using DX10 and most of
them are rather expensive.

The way I see it, both in terms of OS spread and hardware spread, I think it
will easily take 1-2 years before DX10 is a feasible API for anyone to use.

No single version of DX that I can think of in the past has been as grossly
incompatible with existing hardware and operating systems as DX10 has.

Another factor that isn't helping is that many people have no compelling
reason for DX10 level hardware. In the 90's people upgraded their video
hardware like water because they had compelling reason to do so,
performance! For the average person though, there is no difference between
a couple year old 6XXX series card or a brand new 8800 GTX. Most people
wouldn't even be able to push a 6XXX series card to its limits with their
usage.

High end gamers and people who use 3D Modeling or visualization software
need hardware like the 8800 GTX. The average user usually does not. That
only slows the spread of DX10 capable hardware because the average person
just does not need it and the casual gamer with a bone stock off the shelf
system is not likely to have it. No gaming company can afford to target
only the high-end gamers unless they want to charge over 100 bucks a copy
for their game.

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Justin - 28 Apr 2007 01:09 GMT
> It hasn't happened yet because the gaming market is DirectX and therefore
> Windows. Mac is in the same boat as linux gaming-wise.

OpenGL's been around for a LONG time.  They should have been somewhere by
now.

> They might be sneaky like that but one can only be so sneaky. They can
> integrate DX10 as tightly as they want, a few facts remain:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> and
> I suppose whatever equivalent from nVidia.

Not 8800.  Series 8.  More series 8 cards are coming out or ARE out that
support DX10  8500, 8600.  Cheaper as well.  DX10 is now completely
affordable for those that can afford new games to being with.

> I doubt that any developer is going to be willing to annihilate their XP
> customers for a least a year if not more.

Annihilate?  Not required.  Take Crysis for example.  When released it will
support both DX10 and DX9.  The DX10 flavor will be a full blown
implementation.  IOW, the DX10 version will not be lacking because they
needed to also spend time on a DX9 version.

> There are less than a handful of cards capable of using DX10 and most of
> them are rather expensive.

Not any more.

> The way I see it, both in terms of OS spread and hardware spread, I think
> it
> will easily take 1-2 years before DX10 is a feasible API for anyone to
> use.

Nope.  It already is.  As I already said there is no reason to ditch DX9
just because you also want to dev DX10.

> No single version of DX that I can think of in the past has been as
> grossly
> incompatible with existing hardware and operating systems as DX10 has.

???

Every version of DX didn’t work with old hardware.  In order to use DX9 when
it was released you needed a DX9 card.  Otherwise DX9 just gave you DX8
features.

> Another factor that isn't helping is that many people have no compelling
> reason for DX10 level hardware.

Have you seen DX10 versus DX9 screen shots?  If you're a gamer then DX10
alone is reason enough.  It looks AMAZING in comparison.

> In the 90's people upgraded their video
> hardware like water because they had compelling reason to do so,
> performance!

You'll change your tune when you see Crysis playing in full spec on an 8800
SLI rig.  Unless of course this stuff isn't your cup of tea.  Even 2/3's
spec with a 8500 or 8600 will look incredible.

> For the average person though, there is no difference between
> a couple year old 6XXX series card or a brand new 8800 GTX.

The average person doesn't play bleeding edge games.  The average person is
not in question in this thread.  The average person doesn't need DX10 or DX9
or DX8 or DX7.....   7?  8?  Did we skip a couple numbers or go through them
quickly?  I seem to remember 6 then 9.

> High end gamers and people who use 3D Modeling or visualization software
> need hardware like the 8800 GTX.

The extra memory alone made a MAJOR difference.  Plus the speed change in
memory.  The upgrade from a 7800 512MB to 8800 was money well spent in my
eyes!  The 7800 however was not.  That hurt my wallet!

> No gaming company can afford to target
> only the high-end gamers unless they want to charge over 100 bucks a copy
> for their game.

It wont be high end for long.  It's already getting cheaper.  Plus remember,
a game can be DX9 and DX10.
Stephan Rose - 28 Apr 2007 19:00 GMT
>> It hasn't happened yet because the gaming market is DirectX and therefore
>> Windows. Mac is in the same boat as linux gaming-wise.
>
> OpenGL's been around for a LONG time.  They should have been somewhere by
> now.

Open is somewhere just not in gaming. But the problem is there are only a
handful of game developers left. The diversity of developers and content
that existed in the early to mid 90's is gone. All you have now are a few
monolithic studios who all target Windows only.

>> They might be sneaky like that but one can only be so sneaky. They can
>> integrate DX10 as tightly as they want, a few facts remain:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> support DX10  8500, 8600.  Cheaper as well.  DX10 is now completely
> affordable for those that can afford new games to being with.

Series 8 is what I meant. Good to hear some cheaper alternatives coming out.

>> I doubt that any developer is going to be willing to annihilate their XP
>> customers for a least a year if not more.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> implementation.  IOW, the DX10 version will not be lacking because they
> needed to also spend time on a DX9 version.

Of course not "required". But implementing both DX9 and DX10 is
significantly more work VS using simply one API that can do it both. It
means implementing, debugging and testing 2 seperate render pipelines
instead of one.

>> There are less than a handful of cards capable of using DX10 and most of
>> them are rather expensive.
>
> Not any more.

Fair enough.

>> The way I see it, both in terms of OS spread and hardware spread, I think
>> it
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Nope.  It already is.  As I already said there is no reason to ditch DX9
> just because you also want to dev DX10.

Go try to write an engine that supports both APIs and then get back to me if
there is a reason. ;)

>> No single version of DX that I can think of in the past has been as
>> grossly
>> incompatible with existing hardware and operating systems as DX10 has.
>
> ???

As far back as I can remember most previous versions of DX would still work
with older hardware. Such as DX9 still working with a DX8 card. Some
features would be missing, of course...but the game would still at least
RUN!

I distinctly remember this because whenever MS released a new version of DX
I would try it the new sample apps and see what would work on my hardware
and what not.

> Every version of DX didn’t work with old hardware.  In order to use DX9
> when
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Have you seen DX10 versus DX9 screen shots?  If you're a gamer then DX10
> alone is reason enough.  It looks AMAZING in comparison.

Of course the latest hardware is amazing. I like my 8800 GTX =)

>> In the 90's people upgraded their video
>> hardware like water because they had compelling reason to do so,
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> them
> quickly?  I seem to remember 6 then 9.

Funny then how I know plenty of average people with average hardware that
play bleeding edge games just not with all the bleeding edge eye candy
enabled.

>> High end gamers and people who use 3D Modeling or visualization software
>> need hardware like the 8800 GTX.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> It wont be high end for long.  It's already getting cheaper.  Plus
> remember, a game can be DX9 and DX10.

Like I said, sure it can be. I am very well aware of that having written
software using DirectX. I am also very well aware therefore of how much of
a pain it would be to implement both. =)

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Justin - 29 Apr 2007 02:07 GMT
> Open is somewhere just not in gaming. But the problem is there are only a
> handful of game developers left. The diversity of developers and content
> that existed in the early to mid 90's is gone. All you have now are a few
> monolithic studios who all target Windows only.

Few?

There is also console.  Maybe had OpenGL entered the console market?

> Series 8 is what I meant. Good to hear some cheaper alternatives coming
> out.

The 256MB GeForce 8600 GTS is set to be around $229, 8600 GT will be $149 to
$159 and the 128MB GeForce 8500 GT will sell as low as $89.

GeForce 8600 GTS — 256 MB GDDR3, 675 MHz core clock, 1000 MHz memory clock
GeForce 8600 GT — 256 MB GDDR3, 540 MHz core clock, 700 MHz memory clock
GeForce 8500 GT — 128 to 256 MB DDR2 or GDDR3, 450 MHz core clock, 700 MHz
memory clock

$90 for DX10, expect most new machines to be DX10 ready very soon.

>>> I doubt that any developer is going to be willing to annihilate their XP
>>> customers for a least a year if not more.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> means implementing, debugging and testing 2 seperate render pipelines
> instead of one.

Perfectly normal.  Cross platform is more intensive then this.  This should
be just be another days work for them.  Figure of speech ;p

>>> The way I see it, both in terms of OS spread and hardware spread, I
>>> think
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> if
> there is a reason. ;)

Devs are already doing it.  As with anything new it will take time but as
far as they are concerned the API is "feasible".

>>> No single version of DX that I can think of in the past has been as
>>> grossly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> features would be missing, of course...but the game would still at least
> RUN!

Wait, are you saying if I have a DX9 card and a DX10 (only) game in Vista
the game wont run?  I've not heard any such thing.  Google gives me nothing
on the subject.  Where have you seen that info?  That would certainly be a
major issue.

>>> Another factor that isn't helping is that many people have no compelling
>>> reason for DX10 level hardware.

Well seeing as how there is no full featured software product out yet,
that's a given.  As I mentioned about the screenshots, THOSE are compelling
reasons and they'll plastered everywhere once marketing has a reason to
start spending money.

>>> For the average person though, there is no difference between
>>> a couple year old 6XXX series card or a brand new 8800 GTX.

As I already said, the average person does not play games.  We're not
talking about the average person.  If you mean the average gamer then I
disagree.

> Funny then how I know plenty of average people with average hardware that
> play bleeding edge games just not with all the bleeding edge eye candy
> enabled.

How many people do you know?  It would have to be at least 100,000 to put a
very small ding in the gaming industry alone :)

So, if you asked these people you know if they would spend $90 to make their
games leaps and bounds better they would, on average, say no?  What did that
last game cost?  $50?

>> It wont be high end for long.  It's already getting cheaper.  Plus
>> remember, a game can be DX9 and DX10.
>
> Like I said, sure it can be. I am very well aware of that having written
> software using DirectX. I am also very well aware therefore of how much of
> a pain it would be to implement both. =)

I go back to my cross platform comment ;p
Stephan Rose - 29 Apr 2007 10:53 GMT
>> Open is somewhere just not in gaming. But the problem is there are only a
>> handful of game developers left. The diversity of developers and content
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> There is also console.  Maybe had OpenGL entered the console market?

OpenGL *is* in the console market. Both Wii and the PS3 use it.

>> Of course not "required". But implementing both DX9 and DX10 is
>> significantly more work VS using simply one API that can do it both. It
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> should
> be just be another days work for them.  Figure of speech ;p

Actually no Cross platform is LESS intensive than this. Cross platfrom
simply requires someone to use OpenGL. =) One API, one rendering pipeline.
And it can do anything both DX9 and DX10 can.

Remember, I write cross platform code =)



>>>> The way I see it, both in terms of OS spread and hardware spread, I
>>>> think
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Devs are already doing it.  As with anything new it will take time but as
> far as they are concerned the API is "feasible".

Well I also know Devs in the actual gaming industry who don't exactly share
your views. They think more along my lines. =)

>>>> No single version of DX that I can think of in the past has been as
>>>> grossly
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> on the subject.  Where have you seen that info?  That would certainly be a
> major issue.

Come to think of it, that one particular bit I mighta been wrong one. Even I
make mistakes sometimes. You got me on that one. =)

>>>> Another factor that isn't helping is that many people have no
>>>> compelling reason for DX10 level hardware.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> talking about the average person.  If you mean the average gamer then I
> disagree.

I'd personally say there are more casual gamers than hard core gamers with
high-end hardware. The casual gamers STILL buy games, just don't play them
as much. =)

>> Funny then how I know plenty of average people with average hardware that
>> play bleeding edge games just not with all the bleeding edge eye candy
>> enabled.
>
> How many people do you know?  It would have to be at least 100,000 to put
> a very small ding in the gaming industry alone :)

Doesn't matter how many I know in total. What matters is out of the very
varied pool of people I know across multiple totally different games what
percentages are running what type of hardware.

> So, if you asked these people you know if they would spend $90 to make
> their
> games leaps and bounds better they would, on average, say no?  What did
> that
> last game cost?  $50?

It's not done with $90 though.
They need to spend $200+ more on Vista to use DX10.
Then is the PC sufficient to run that sloth of an OS? Likely not at any
reasonable speed...so then the other PC upgrades start...

>>> It wont be high end for long.  It's already getting cheaper.  Plus
>>> remember, a game can be DX9 and DX10.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I go back to my cross platform comment ;p

I'll go back to my OpenGL comment and experience implementing cross platform
code. ;)

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Justin - 29 Apr 2007 11:44 GMT
>>> Open is somewhere just not in gaming. But the problem is there are only
>>> a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> OpenGL *is* in the console market. Both Wii and the PS3 use it.

Ah, I did not know that.  So what you are saying is a game made for the PS3
and the PC by the same game studio is DX for the PC and OpenGL for the PS3?
Hum...Since they can't choose on the PS3 then why not just keep OpenGL only?
Unless DX offers clear advantages over OpenGL.

I'd have to say that making the same game from DX and OpenGL would be harder
then DX9 and DX10.

This doesn't add up.

>>> Of course not "required". But implementing both DX9 and DX10 is
>>> significantly more work VS using simply one API that can do it both. It
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Remember, I write cross platform code =)

That's all great and fine but that's not the case.  Why not?  Why are my Wii
and PS3 games for the my PC rehashed in DX?

If it’s so easy to keep OpenGL then why don’t they?  Especially when it
comes down to time=money.

>>>>> The way I see it, both in terms of OS spread and hardware spread, I
>>>>> think
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> share
> your views. They think more along my lines. =)

My views on the subject are narrow.  I only know of the handful of VERY
SUCCESSFUL game studios that are currently dev'ing DX10.....when it comes to
DX10.

>>>>> No single version of DX that I can think of in the past has been as
>>>>> grossly
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> I
> make mistakes sometimes. You got me on that one. =)

You scared me!  Knock it off!  :)

>>> Funny then how I know plenty of average people with average hardware
>>> that
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> varied pool of people I know across multiple totally different games what
> percentages are running what type of hardware.

Well, I as well know people that will get Vista alone just for DX10.  In
fact that's what they're waiting for.  Now that these new cards are out one
of them is even more excited as he didn’t know how he going to swing a DX10.
Another guy is going to get Vista and NO DX10 just to run Halo2.  Unless
they hack it for XP.

>> So, if you asked these people you know if they would spend $90 to make
>> their
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> It's not done with $90 though.

Oh yes it will!  Not full spec but like I said, even 2/3 spec will look
great.

> They need to spend $200+ more on Vista to use DX10.

Ok.

1. Some will already have Vista.
2. Some will get Vista via a new PC purchase.
3. Some will crack Vista :)
4. Some will flat out buy Vista.

However, seeing as how Vista will do more then run a single game then that
purchase needs to be spread out ;p

> Then is the PC sufficient to run that sloth of an OS? Likely not at any
> reasonable speed...so then the other PC upgrades start...

What PC?  Now we're getting into speculation. ;p

>> I go back to my cross platform comment ;p
>
> I'll go back to my OpenGL comment and experience implementing cross
> platform
> code. ;)

Well, now I again go back on, why don't people actually do that?  All these
top game devs can’t possibly be stupid.
Stephan Rose - 29 Apr 2007 13:27 GMT
>>>> Open is somewhere just not in gaming. But the problem is there are only
>>>> a
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> This doesn't add up.

But it is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3

Scroll down to game development.

> That's all great and fine but that's not the case.  Why not?  Why are my
> Wii and PS3 games for the my PC rehashed in DX?
>
> If it’s so easy to keep OpenGL then why don’t they?  Especially when it
> comes down to time=money.

Honestly, I wish I knew. I have used both APIs more than enough. I see no
reason not to use OpenGL. Why so many developers run after DirectX is
something I honestly do not get.

>>> Devs are already doing it.  As with anything new it will take time but
>>> as far as they are concerned the API is "feasible".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> SUCCESSFUL game studios that are currently dev'ing DX10.....when it comes
> to DX10.

Well the problem always comes down to this. Who is in control? The managers
& bean coders or the actual programmers? I think we both know the answer to
that one. Even if the actual programmers want to use one API over another,
they still need to get this into the brains of management which might NOT
be so particularly easy if even possible...management does not like to go
away from what they perceive as the proven path that works and try
something new.
.

>> Come to think of it, that one particular bit I mighta been wrong one.
>> Even I
>> make mistakes sometimes. You got me on that one. =)
>
> You scared me!  Knock it off!  :)

Hahaha!

Actually I just remembered why I said DX10 does not support DX9 hardware. I
was never able to run DX10 samples on my DX9 hardware. The samples would
complain that I did not have DX10 hardware and refuse to run, something
that never happened in the past with most samples unless my card was
missing that specific feature. In this case though, not even the most
simplistic samples that did nothing more than put a triangle on the screen,
would refuse to run. This was also way before Vista was ever released. MS
put DX10 into the same SDK as DX9 and I had considered using it for my new
project until I smacked into that wall and used OpenGL instead.

> Well, I as well know people that will get Vista alone just for DX10.  In
> fact that's what they're waiting for.  Now that these new cards are out
> one of them is even more excited as he didn’t know how he going to swing a
> DX10.
> Another guy is going to get Vista and NO DX10 just to run Halo2.  Unless
> they hack it for XP.

Of course there are nutjobs like that. I would never say there are not. But
come on, they are not the majority!

>>> So, if you asked these people you know if they would spend $90 to make
>>> their
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> 2. Some will get Vista via a new PC purchase.
> 3. Some will crack Vista :)

I absolutely cannot imagine WHY anyone would want to do that!!

> 4. Some will flat out buy Vista.

Poor poor money...I rather go spend it on a speeding ticket or something. ;)

> However, seeing as how Vista will do more then run a single game then that
> purchase needs to be spread out ;p
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> What PC?  Now we're getting into speculation. ;p

Sooo? I speculate that I am at least somewhat right! ;)

>>> I go back to my cross platform comment ;p
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Well, now I again go back on, why don't people actually do that?  All
> these top game devs can’t possibly be stupid.

Ya know what, this is something I need to talk to my game dev buddies about
and find out.

The one and only case where I know why a developer used DirectX over OpenGL
is John Carmack for Quake 4. If I remember correctly, at the time of
development OpenGL did not yet implement Frame Buffer Objects which is
something he needed.

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Justin - 29 Apr 2007 20:31 GMT
>>> OpenGL *is* in the console market. Both Wii and the PS3 use it.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Scroll down to game development.

I didn't say it doesn't or can't happen.  However the other happens as well
and for no seemingly good reason.  Yet, I'm sure there is one.

>> That's all great and fine but that's not the case.  Why not?  Why are my
>> Wii and PS3 games for the my PC rehashed in DX?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> reason not to use OpenGL. Why so many developers run after DirectX is
> something I honestly do not get.

Xbox 360?  I'm assuming is not OpenGL.  So you have PC = DX or OpenGL, 360 =
DX, PS3 = OpenGL.

If that assumption is correct then it seems both are required and the choice
for the PC might just add up to personal experience of the team.

>>>> Devs are already doing it.  As with anything new it will take time but
>>>> as far as they are concerned the API is "feasible".
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> something new.
> .

Well, if the managers want to stick with DX then they already hired DX
strong personnel.

>>> Come to think of it, that one particular bit I mighta been wrong one.
>>> Even I
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> put DX10 into the same SDK as DX9 and I had considered using it for my new
> project until I smacked into that wall and used OpenGL instead.

Hum, I'll have to take my DX10 demo to work and check it out.

>> Well, I as well know people that will get Vista alone just for DX10.  In
>> fact that's what they're waiting for.  Now that these new cards are out
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> But
> come on, they are not the majority!

They are the majority of the people buying these high end games. I'm not a
fan but don’t underestimate the power of Halo.  Remember that "sneakiness" I
talked about?

>>>> So, if you asked these people you know if they would spend $90 to make
>>>> their
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> I absolutely cannot imagine WHY anyone would want to do that!!

What?  Crack it?  Why not!  Even if you BUY Vista I recommend you crack it.
It'll keep these BS de-activation issues from popping up.  :) j/k....or am
I????

>> 4. Some will flat out buy Vista.
>
> Poor poor money...I rather go spend it on a speeding ticket or something.
> ;)

I'd spend it on both!  Plus the extra $80 for tinted windows ;p

>> However, seeing as how Vista will do more then run a single game then
>> that
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Sooo? I speculate that I am at least somewhat right! ;)

Somewhat?  Ok ;p

>>>> I go back to my cross platform comment ;p
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> development OpenGL did not yet implement Frame Buffer Objects which is
> something he needed.
Stephan Rose - 30 Apr 2007 01:29 GMT
>>>> OpenGL *is* in the console market. Both Wii and the PS3 use it.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> well
> and for no seemingly good reason.  Yet, I'm sure there is one.

Well developing a game for a console VS the PC is significantly enough
different that you can't just write one set of code and compile it for both
targets. Never going to happen. The environments are too different.

So I suppose that everything except most of the game logic has to be
rewritten anyways for a PC version.

>>> That's all great and fine but that's not the case.  Why not?  Why are my
>>> Wii and PS3 games for the my PC rehashed in DX?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Xbox 360?  I'm assuming is not OpenGL.  So you have PC = DX or OpenGL, 360
> = DX, PS3 = OpenGL.

That's about right.

> If that assumption is correct then it seems both are required and the
> choice for the PC might just add up to personal experience of the team.

More than likely so. Then again, if the same team has experience doing work
both for the PC and the PS3 then they also have experience in both APIs.

>>>>> Devs are already doing it.  As with anything new it will take time but
>>>>> as far as they are concerned the API is "feasible".
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Well, if the managers want to stick with DX then they already hired DX
> strong personnel.

Very true.

>>>> Come to think of it, that one particular bit I mighta been wrong one.
>>>> Even I
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Hum, I'll have to take my DX10 demo to work and check it out.

Let me know the results. I'd be most interested. =)

>>> Well, I as well know people that will get Vista alone just for DX10.  In
>>> fact that's what they're waiting for.  Now that these new cards are out
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> fan but don’t underestimate the power of Halo.  Remember that "sneakiness"
> I talked about?

Quite possibly I suppose. I know I wouldn't spend a dime on Halo. =)

>>>>> So, if you asked these people you know if they would spend $90 to make
>>>>> their
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> It'll keep these BS de-activation issues from popping up.  :) j/k....or am
> I????

Hmm I will have to remember that for when some reason beyond my control
makes me install Vista kicking and screaming and cursing.

>>> 4. Some will flat out buy Vista.
>>
>> Poor poor money...I rather go spend it on a speeding ticket or something.
>> ;)
>
> I'd spend it on both!  Plus the extra $80 for tinted windows ;p

http://www.somrek.net/MyR6.jpg

What windows? =)

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Justin - 30 Apr 2007 20:28 GMT
>> Hum, I'll have to take my DX10 demo to work and check it out.
>
> Let me know the results. I'd be most interested. =)

d3d10.dll was not found.  :(

I think the biggest problem we'll face here is that on a WinXP system which
has a DX8 only video card, at least DX9 was installable.

This test needs to be run again with some who has a DX9 video card on a
Vista machine.

> http://www.somrek.net/MyR6.jpg
>
> What windows? =)

Nice!
Justin - 27 Apr 2007 05:37 GMT
>> I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> or bad. In this particular case, Unix simply got it right 38 years ago
> already.

There's one major problem problem with that.  The WHEEL is used for all
major forms of transportation.  It has a major active role in today's
society.  Obviously Unix DIDN'T get something right 38 years ago  ;p
BobM - 27 Apr 2007 13:01 GMT
>>> I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> major forms of transportation.  It has a major active role in today's
> society.  Obviously Unix DIDN'T get something right 38 years ago  ;p

Apparently MS has "it's" reasons for licensing Unix code.

>http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1007528.html

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300922
Justin - 27 Apr 2007 16:51 GMT
>>>> I think it's kind of funny how people rave about Linux being "state of
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300922

Absolutely!  After all, even with the wheel having been invented we still
need a "square" from time to time.

IOW, no one said Unix was worthless.
Plato - 26 Apr 2007 21:27 GMT
> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly

True, but for me, my webpages depend on it. Others may differ.

Signature

http://www.bootdisk.com/

Lang Murphy - 26 Apr 2007 22:42 GMT
<Snip>

> What has been a hoot is watching the Windows Fanboys who look upon anyone
> suggesting there's a viable alternative to Windows as trolls and idiots
> and
> who have spread so much FUD about Linux. When they do that, I've
> challenged
> them.

<Snip>

So... is that your justification for posting nasty flames here on a daily,
if not hourly, basis? Hmm... I mean, this is the most rational post I can
remember reading from you. All your other posts have been nasty troll-like
"Vista Sucks, Linus Rules" screeds that have less to do with "challenging"
people, much less -helping- them, than being a mean spirited, distruptive
influence.

That said, nice post. For real.

Lang
Justin - 26 Apr 2007 22:53 GMT
Wow!  More linux propaganda in a Microsoft Vista NG.

Who would have ever thought this would be posted YET AGAIN?

I wish linux would hurry up and gain more market share so it'll get hacked,
slashed and busted wide open just like Windows and OSX.  Then, all the linux
freaks "might" shut up about it.

> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
Peter Foldes - 27 Apr 2007 00:26 GMT
Justin

Sometimes it is best to take a deep breath and clear your thoughts. Some posts do not deserve previous beliefs of people.
Signature

Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

> Wow!  More linux propaganda in a Microsoft Vista NG.
>
[quoted text clipped - 142 lines]
>> Love and Kisses,
>> Doris
Justin - 27 Apr 2007 00:30 GMT
> Sometimes it is best to take a deep breath and clear your thoughts.

Nope, still there.  Who would have ever thought this would be posted YET
AGAIN?

> Some posts do not deserve previous beliefs of people.

Que?
Julian - 27 Apr 2007 00:53 GMT
>> Sometimes it is best to take a deep breath and clear your thoughts.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Que?

Selected narratives of "Communication Problems," the first episode of the
second series, is analyzed, applying the General Theory of Verbal Humor,
Professor Salvatore Attardo's expansion of Victor Raskin's Semantic Script
Theory of Humor. The primary incongruity generating humor in the series is
clearly Basil's rude treatment of guests contrasted with what is expected in
such a situation. The script opposition, in the words of Raskins's original
SSTH, would be "normal versus abnormal"--perhaps here more accurately worded
"appropriate versus inappropriate" --treatment of hotel guests by the
owner/manager. The polite graciousness, the conciliatory words and gestures
about any difficulties should be offered by the owner/manager to the guests,
not the reverse. However, "Communication Problems," is unified by more than
Basil's irrascible, driven, compulsive personality. Two plot lines are used
to develop the theme announced by the title: Basil surreptitiously bets (and
wins and loses and wins and loses!) on a horse race , and Mrs. Richards, a
rude guest, loses money which she believes to have been stolen. The two
merge neatly through Basil's machinations to keep Sybil from learning about
the betting and the won money and Sybil's efforts to locate and return the
"stolen" money. Meanwhile, numerous incidents demonstrate the failure and
even the impossibility of communication. Mrs. Richards and Basil encounter
problems communicating with Manuel because of the English/Spanish language
barrier. Manuel, Polly, and Basil cannot communicate with Mrs. Richards
because of her headstrong self-centeredness and because of her deafness and
her ridiculous refusal to turn on her hearing aid. Basil cannot communicate
with the Major because of the Major's inability to remember, presumably
induced by senility. Basil cannot communicate with Polly (who is helping him
keep the betting secret from Sybil) and with others because of Sybil's
presence. Basil and Sybil do not communicate apparently because of the
failure of love in their marriage. The audience might well empathize with
Basil's disappointment expressed in a brief monologue, not--as usual in the
series--in some silly scheme that has failed, but in life, brief and
unfulfilled. However, his aggressive humor which becomes nearly violent at
times, makes it difficult to sympathize. Failed marriage, deafness and
senility as sources of humor? These misfortunes should be met with sorrow.
Why, then, do we laugh so hard ?
http://cc.ysu.edu/~sattardo/tv/perantoni.htm
Peter Foldes - 27 Apr 2007 01:05 GMT
> Que?

Nope. FL.

Signature

Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

>> Sometimes it is best to take a deep breath and clear your thoughts.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Que?
Peter Foldes - 26 Apr 2007 23:02 GMT
NS

Very well put and written

Signature

Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source developers.
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
Bill MacDonald - 27 Apr 2007 00:44 GMT
Actually Linsux is for almost nobody in the real world. Its is so bad for
most people that they can not even give it away for free. Even in the third
world countries, where governments encourage Linsux, 85% of all users remove
linsux and install windows.

> OK, I'll say it ...  Linux is not for everyone. It is a complex highly
> evolved operating system that is being developed by Open Source
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
Stephan Rose - 27 Apr 2007 01:20 GMT
> Actually Linsux is for almost nobody in the real world. Its is so bad for
> most people that they can not even give it away for free. Even in the
> third world countries, where governments encourage Linsux, 85% of all
> users remove linsux and install windows.

And you have used which distributions for how long?

Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Bill MacDonald - 27 Apr 2007 02:12 GMT
I never claimed to have used it or wanted to use it.
In fact I would dipose of any computer before I would install any distro of
Linsux on it.

Just telling the the truth about Linsux in the real world.
The world that the Lisux fanboys are not familiar with as the spend all
their time in their mommy's basement.

>> Actually Linsux is for almost nobody in the real world. Its is so bad for
>> most people that they can not even give it away for free. Even in the
>> third world countries, where governments encourage Linsux, 85% of all
>> users remove linsux and install windows.
>
> And you have used which distributions for how long?
Stephan Rose - 27 Apr 2007 09:11 GMT
> I never claimed to have used it or wanted to use it.
> In fact I would dipose of any computer before I would install any distro
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The world that the Lisux fanboys are not familiar with as the spend all
> their time in their mommy's basement.

Ahhh and so your so called truth is based on what experience then?
Signature

Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Retired - 27 Apr 2007 01:57 GMT
Really, a long post here promoting Vista or a long post here promoting Linux
(or any other OS) is a waste of bandwidth and accomplishes nothing. Yes,
I've been guilty of such posts.

What I had hoped this forum would be is a TECHNICAL discussion of the
characteristics, good or bad, of Vista - and a TECHNICAL discussion of
suggested ways to overcome problems encountered while using Vista.

After all, isn't this a Vista forum? The name of the forum indicates that it
is.
Thor - 27 Apr 2007 07:06 GMT
> Really, a long post here promoting Vista or a long post here promoting Linux
> (or any other OS) is a waste of bandwidth and accomplishes nothing. Yes,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> After all, isn't this a Vista forum? The name of the forum indicates that it
> is.

Amen to Retired's comments!!!
Bill - 27 Apr 2007 19:32 GMT
Linux is not for everyone.  With Linux, I can
Browse Websites Safely
Receive and send Email
Chat on Xchat
Use Pan for newsgroups
Burn cd and dvd
Watch movies
Listen to music
Play pogo
Run a Windows XP virtual machine..Which I use for:
Xnews
Bank
I dont play graphics intensive games, but more are now ported to Linux
Second Life is still in the alpha stage and I havent been able to use it
either in the virtual machine or linux
Windows specific programs may or may not work in the virtual machine.
I do not think that Linux is doing a bad job, figuring that most of the
world revolves around Windows...
Linux has more programs than Mac which are free.
I very seldom have a need for a dual boot of Windows and Linux.

Just for the sake of secure browsing Linux might be worthwhile for a dual
boot.
See:
www.stopbadware.org
Tom Scott - 27 Apr 2007 19:46 GMT
Well with Windows Vista Ultimate, I can also:

Brower Websites Safely
Receive and send email
chat on loats of different chat clients
Use thunderbird for newsgroups
Burn CD and DVDs
Watch movies
Listen to music in 5.1 surround sound
Play every game i own
run every program i own... unlike linux

etc etc

You have just told me below what i can do with Windows Vista!

STOP TROLLING... if people want to use Linux then there are most likly
going to know that it is there... in which case a quick google will
bring lots of guides on how to!

> Linux is not for everyone.  With Linux, I can
> Browse Websites Safely
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Alias - 27 Apr 2007 22:25 GMT
> Well with Windows Vista Ultimate, I can:
>
> Brower Websites Safely

Now, that's funny! I bet you use IE7 to do it!

Alias
Bill - 28 Apr 2007 05:44 GMT
> Well with Windows Vista Ultimate, I can also:
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
>> Total Privacy via Encryption =----

The main difference is:
Vista Ultimate.....$189 to $378 at NewEgg
Linux..............Free (with a donation of $20 to help them out)
I doubt that you can browse websites safely..there are now over 70,000
websites that have been identified as deliverers of viruses, spyware, and
malware that are Windows specific. www.stopbadware.org
This list is constantly growing and Microsoft is slow in patching.
As I stated currently Windows is better for playing games and running
various professional programs.  But for the average user, Linux might
provide ample programming and the programs are mostly free.
Xandax - 29 Apr 2007 11:26 GMT
For every "MS fanboy" there is an equal and just as fanatic *nix fanboy.
Pot, meet kettle, and boy is it black.

Sure, Linux is a viable alternative to some/many - but we are also many
who chooses MS products deliberately for various reasons, and as such I
could care less about Linux when I go to a MS forum. (If I wanted to
learn about Linux I'd find a Linux forum where I then would care less
about MS stuff.)

So take the Linux somewhere appropiate - this is not it. It's like
pushing Hockey when discussing Football.

Signature

Xandax

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.