NVIDIA GT 425M: Windows 7 Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 10.10

[deanjo]

If you want to read how bad their support is check out this thread:

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...t-by-far-in-NA.

[deanjo]

Thanks, I had read similar comments in other forums.
Send an e-mail to asus tech support and they told me that the solution was to wait for publication Nvidia drivers with support for Optimus

Lol, typical Asus support. Trust me I have dealt more with them then I care to admit over the last year or so. Maybe point them to nvnews.net where nvidia has stated that they are not bringing optimus to linux. Make sure you are dealing with a tier 2 rep and make sure that he forwards it on to engineering. I've had to go over their head a few times and contact headoffice overseas via phone before they corrected a few BIOS issues on their boards.

[yoniyoni]

Thanks, I had read similar comments in other forums.
Send an e-mail to asus tech support and they told me that the solution was to wait for publication Nvidia drivers with support for Optimus

[deanjo]

Nvidia drivers for linux do not support even for Optimus technology.

I have an Asus U30JC (intel core i3 350M & nvidia 310M) and the X server does not start when I install nvidia drivers.

How you got it?

Better optimus laptops allow selection of GPU from the bios, linux runs fine on them.

[yoniyoni]

Nvidia drivers for linux do not support even for Optimus technology.

I have an Asus U30JC (intel core i3 350M & nvidia 310M) and the X server does not start when I install nvidia drivers.

How you got it?

[alexan]

Wow, surprising that in this whole thread only one post did mention Compiz/Desktop effect:
System > Preference > Apparence > Visual Effect > off

make the test


Doesn't look too much hard.


I wonder if will never happen that Phoronix try to benchmark using a distro like Puppylinux.. or even better: TurboPup Xtreme

[RealNC]

Yeah, sure does Fallout 3 suck. That's why it sells so well, because people think it sucks and they don't buy it. :-P Needless to say it sold more copies than all Linux indie games combined...

[crazycheese]

But most gamers want the new, big, expensive productions. Those who cost millions of dollars to produce. That doesn't mean they don't play smaller titles; it just means they can live without the small titles, but not without the A-titles. And not vice versa.

Man.
I bought Fallout 3.
It sucks.
I wish I could do moneyback.

Fallout 1&2 were so much better! Same as Xcom, Ja2 etc. All by little indie studios.

*cough*

[RealNC]

Ok... guess I need to be more clear and use sarcasm tags like everybody else. There's no need to be offended. Here's what I meant:

Just because a game YOU like or YOU want to play doesn't exist on a gaming platform that doesn't make it less of a gaming platform. It may not be a gaming platform YOU will want to game on, but that is it. Also, your argument of using gamespot as a reference to determine if something is a gaming platform doesn't make much sense. Why not use mobygames instead as it's a much bigger database and not commercially orientated? Oh wait, I know why! Because mobygames actually lists linux as a gaming platform, so that wouldn't be too beneficial to your argument.

If I got your argument correct, only the systems that show up on the main gamespot navigation bar are eligible as gaming platforms. And, of those only the ones that have the more popular and best selling titles (and long running franchises), like the ones you listed, so that leaves us with windows, PS3 and XBOX360 as the only gaming platforms that exist. That makes sense? The point is you can't use a commercial/promotional games site to figure out what is a gaming platform and what is not, because these sites benefit from promoting always the more recent (and profitable) games and game systems.

These sites exist to make money. And money is made by covering popular games (those that sell best). In other words, games the majority of "gamers" want.

Yes, 10-year old A-titles, games by smaller indie studios or individuals do qualify as games. But most gamers want the new, big, expensive productions. Those who cost millions of dollars to produce. That doesn't mean they don't play smaller titles; it just means they can live without the small titles, but not without the A-titles. And not vice versa.

With all that in mind, what is a "gaming platform" and what is not is defined by the gaming industry: a gaming platform is whatever platform the gaming industry chooses to port their titles to now, or did so in the past. Old gaming platforms would include MS-DOS, Sega Mega Drive, etc. Current gaming platforms would include Windows, PS3, XBOX 360.

Even the Mac, with its bigger market share compared to Linux, is not a gaming platform; only a tiny fraction of A-titles get ported.

If you want to tell yourself that being able to play Quake, HoN and Tux Racer makes Linux a gaming platform, then that's your right. Me, I go with the views of those who actually matter (since they have the money for big productions; writers, actors, etc.)

[crazycheese]

Thank you Phoronix for posting some actual numbers unlike most Linux fans who will just blatantly claim that Linux is faster.
We have to face the truth. Windows has an advantage in 3D acceleration.

/me rollseyes and rofl's

Linux kernel overall boots faster, uses less resources, much more mod-friendly, requires less time to fuzz around, whole less trouble about security(including server case), its opensource, open license, no one forces to upgrade, you can choose to pay projects you want if you want, its constantly on a move, has everything to build projects of any scale including heavy games.

And when it slows down, its usually cause of lack of developer attention (way better than text editor capable of burning CDs) or/and closed sources.

Nvidia driver which does the majority of work, apart from loading levels, capturing keystrokes and playing sounds, is closed source. Maybe except well known case of low-res q3a benchmarks showing pure CPU efficiency. If you look up the test, linux is faster than windows there in terms of CPU.

AMD opensource driver is very feature/performance lacking, still AMD supports linux much more than nvidia. Strangely AMD refuses to create an option for people to tell they have bought their card to use with opensource drivers.

And then, microsoft can always steal from opensource. They did it, they do it, they will always do it. And throw mines in form of patents. They think they hinder linux. No, they arise hatred and hurt themself. At least there is GPL and not much BSD. And as for the code - the more attention it gets, the more polished it comes out.