If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Most of the Steam titles I own and have played have been pretty solid and fun (roughly half of what is currently available for Linux). Desura has a lot more crap I couldn't be bothered with, and USC even more so, but each have a good selection of worthy titles for those willing to dig around a bit.
look the windows one is on sale so it costs pretty much the same as the linux one
The real fail would be buying from Dell in the first place.
r u sure u should be betting on games to hype linux to the people
how about 'hey no longer needing to run shit like eset or symantec or having to deal with trojans/virus/malware and be able to go online and feel relatively safe' ?
Who's hyping? Listing game availability numbers to a primarily Linux using readership hardly counts as Linux evangelism.
Surfing the web on Linux can still offer plenty of opportunities for the stupid and gullable to have their system compromised; just using Linux isn't enough to make your system bulletproof, though it is an easy first step towards that goal.
You'd think, but you'd be surprised how many people are so conditioned to the idea that "a computer MUST have antivirus or horrible things happen"... even on some Linux forums there are people asking about which antivirus they should install, even though those programs only catch windows viruses. Try telling them that the antivirus isn't needed and they'll just stare at you blankly, or whatever the equivalent is in the online world...
Well, everyone that I told about Linux not needing anti-virus software were amazed at the idea.
Then why did you point to energy needed for the idle and low load to counter the average power consumption ? Cause it make no sense considering you latest argument.
And remember that at the start start of all this I was speaking of power efficiency, not performance, has I was comparing a 55W TDP 2.7Ghz celeron, which to be about the intel product you can get for about $50 (since he was suggesting a pentium, but they start around $65), to a $75 35W TDP 2.6Ghz Pentium, which I think was more worth it if you were trying to save money, for a lowest end gaming PC, has it would more then likely consume both less energy while idle and under load.
The best really depend on whatever you spend most of system spend most of it time in idle/low load or in heavy load, which most home computer don't, including a gaming PC, has it most likely see it fair share internet, video and lot of game that are mostly GPU load not CPU. So I am mostly always gonna suggest the higher priced lower TPD CPU over the lower price higher TPD CPU of somewhat close performance, and if the guy got real money to invest, suggest undervolting the best cpu he can buy instead, if want to save power. (but that last case don't really apply when speaking of Celeron and Pentium =p)
Correct graph with comparison of power consumption has to be done in way that you can deduce total power consumption in Watt-hours during constant time e.g. 8 hours while doing same tasks.
You can compare total consumption if you know that machine is idle 3 hours and 5 hours is used for video watching.
Average power consumption graph at silent PC is assuming 50% of time on heavy load. If fast CPU encodes videos 4 hours it will encode more videos than slow CPU.
If same tasks are done slow CPU spend more % of time on heavy load than fast CPU which means constant split 50:50 is wrong.
$75 35W 2.6Ghz Pentium G2100T and G2020T are tray/OEM only which means limited availability and warranty.
You can get 35W CPU by underclocking and undervolting of 55W CPU, but it will mean 1W / 2W / 3W lower power in idle / low load / full load in average.
2W lower power means about $2 lower bill per year.