Intel's Linux Driver Continues To Be Most Popular

[nightmarex]

I think Arch is labeled as "Linux" on the graph however it's probably a tainted stat if it's all unnamed Linux's. Gaming on Linux doesn't usually require massive amounts of GPU unless you're using Wine. I have a moderate system but all the "native" type games (HiB and Desura) don't even began to push it. One exception maybe Xonotic but I can still play that max settings 1920x1080 resolution ~200 fps. For what we have now any Intel with HD onboard should suffice and it's cheaper than adding a dedicated video card so the trend doesn't surprise me much. With maybe the exception of AMD's apu's not being more popular. Driver issues aside of course.

[ther]

Not just, and not just personal computers running Linux.

But for graphics workstations and video game software Microsoft Windows is a better choice, or the only choice.

This is not necessarily true for workstations. Our lab has just purchased a workstation with a decent NVIDIA graphics card for GPU computing. Most of time we are using linux on it. One reason is that there are many more scientific computing libraries running on linux, so it is much easier to run our program on linux than on windows. Furthermore, windows 7 seems to have problems on our machine: whenever it wakes up from sleep mode, it goes blue-screen. As a result, we have to disable power management if we want to use windows, which is ridiculous given the fact that there is higher power consumption for workstations than for ordinary PC's.

[Kano]

Well ivy bridge hd 4000 can run doom3 at full hd on linux (at least for single player it is fast enough), many other (simpler) games as well. However the drivers lack support for newer glsl levels so that games like rage do not run via wine. I would not expect that a gamer runs intel gfx on a desktop - but maybe he has got a laptop. It is definitely enough for some games but certainly not for new blockbuster titles which run on win only. But even there it is a bit slower than amd trinity chips. Interestingly speed did not improve much when going from mesa 8.0.4 to 9.0 - opengl 3 was advertised but doom3 for example did not run faster - using lower detail settings than ultra even show a rendering error.

Desktop users can easly buy a dedicated card - preferred nvidia - and play the games they miss, just laptop users have to wait...

[liam]

Not just, and not just personal computers running Linux.

But for graphics workstations and video game software Microsoft Windows is a better choice, or the only choice.

Funnily enough, except for playing games, Linux is fantastic for graphics work.
Go into the biggest animation studios and see what the actual workstations run.
Suprisingly, to me at least, it's not Macs that are used.

[pingufunkybeat]

Trolls are going to troll.

I have recently used two zenbooks. One at work runs Ubuntu with Unity on it. The one at home runs Debian with KDE on it. Ubuntu was easy to set up, Debian needed some tweaking.

The KDE one is a million times slicker, better and more stable. It's not even close. I respect everyone's right to run what they want and celebrate diversity, but people who CHOOSE to run Unity over KDE must be a bunch of masochists. Nothing makes sense on that desktop. I avoid using that computer whenever possible, it takes ages to figure out the simplest things.

[Thaodan]

I remembered back in the debian sid days when kde 4 arrived. everyone was exited, we were all stunned by the de.
now everybody is just "meh" and uses xfce, gnome, lxde.

And know they swtiched back to KDE from Gnome after GNOME 3.x.

in kde 4 they have bugs that are 3 years old no wonder why too few people uses it.

Source?

[Thaodan]

No. KDEs marketshare is low because KDE is crapware. Always has been always wil be. A few very vocal exnokians cant change that. They sure do can flame other desktops but they will eventual find better ways to spend their time. Like getting job at Jolla and redo what Nokia failed: A well patented close source phone.

Never laughed like this.

[Yorgos]

KDEs market share compared to Unity is low cause no distro that has marketing and glory in the media like Ubunto ships KDE by default.
If there will be a distrubtion that does this, there will be much more users.

And what thought was "why no Arch in distro statistics".

I remembered back in the debian sid days when kde 4 arrived. everyone was exited, we were all stunned by the de.
now everybody is just "meh" and uses xfce, gnome, lxde.

in kde 4 they have bugs that are 3 years old no wonder why too few people uses it.

[Yorgos]

In real life only ignorants think that. There are lots of users on these forums with all the latest hardware out there running some sort of linux distro.

even in this site, you get benchmark tests on crap low-end gpus and you talk about ignorants?
say that to a guy who spent 500$ on a gpu and don't compare that guy with the one that have a 7660 or a 7770.
my 500$ gpu(4870 x2) likes windows, because it got screwd driver-wise(no support). my next high-end card is going to run on windows only.

[funkSTAR]

KDEs market share compared to Unity is low cause no distro that has marketing and glory in the media like Ubunto ships KDE by default..

No. KDEs marketshare is low because KDE is crapware. Always has been always wil be. A few very vocal exnokians cant change that. They sure do can flame other desktops but they will eventual find better ways to spend their time. Like getting job at Jolla and redo what Nokia failed: A well patented close source phone.