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

[unimatrix]

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.

[Tuxee]

Another useless comparison.

Linux is not a gaming platform.

Would you care to elaborate on that? Under Linux I have 3D accelerated graphics, surround sound, ... my joystick is working, too.

If you are talking about the lack of "blockbuster games" on Linux - that's not because "Linux is not a gaming platform".

[devius]

A better definition of gaming platform would be any platform for which popular titles, in their full versions, are ported.

Medal of Honor
Starcraft 2
Fallout: New Vegas
FIFA Soccer 11
Civilization V

Which of those are available for Linux? AFAIK, none

Crap... I bought a Nintendo DS thinking it was a gaming platform but it has none of those games!!
I also have a Super Nintendo which has about 1000 games and I also thought it was a gaming platform, but it doesn't have any of those games either?? What the hell??!!
Even DOS which I always thought of as a gaming platform doesn't have any game in that list... It seems to be really dificult to find a gaming platform these days.

[devius]

Where are the installers, because I haven't seen many and when I do find them they almost always have problems where I have to use the command line on them, something that should never have to be done anymore for Linux to be successful for desktop users.

There are loads of games on most distro's repositories. Also, some more "advanced" games are distributed with a self-extracting shell script which only takes typing in the name of the file and pressing Return. If a user is too thick to do this he shouldn't be using linux or trying to play "advanced" games in the first place. Why is it that that argument of everything having to work with a single click on an icon always comes up?

As soon as software developers and companies don't have to make exceptions for specific distros in their software, THEN you'll be able to say that Linux fragmentation has been taken care of and that good standards have allowed successful interoperability.

They can start distributing only the source code and letting distros manage the packages, OR they can offer that option and distribute it in the two most popular package formats. I can't imagine any company disregarding a linux port just because they have to make a .deb and a .rpm package.

As for now, ATI's proprietary driver is still horrible to install from their website

Why? What's the problem? Kano even provides a great script that allows the instalation of fglrx on unsupported kernels.

Instead, the distros seem to only care about trying to have software only for THEIR distro, have it all go through THEM, they want to be the sole channel for access to software so that users are forced to go through them so they can take a cut.

When you say "distros" you mean ubuntu right? And when you say "them" you mean canonical right? And even if you do what do you mean by this? Of course the distros are going to package software only for their distro (more or less).

[RealNC]

It's a gaming platform if it has games. It has games, so therefore it's a gaming platform.

That's not a good definition of gaming platform. With that argument, my cheap cell phone is a gaming platform because it has games. Now that I think about it, my cell has more games than Linux. So does that make it a gaming platform, and a better one than Linux even?

Don't think so. A better definition of gaming platform would be any platform for which popular titles, in their full versions, are ported. "Popular" means stuff you find covered in places gamers hang around (gamespot.com for example). A quick look at those right now gives a list of current popular "top" games:

Medal of Honor
Starcraft 2
Fallout: New Vegas
FIFA Soccer 11
Civilization V

Which of those are available for Linux? AFAIK, none

[graogrim]

Netbooks? I'm honestly puzzled why anyone would make an argument about netbooks in a gaming-centered thread. The primary use for a netbook is light fare like surfing the web and reading email--it's not a gamer's platform.

Obviously some casual gaming takes place, but netbook purchasers aren't basing their decision to buy on the gaming experience that the device will deliver. More significantly, most purchasers of Linux netbooks during their surge in sales weren't buying Linux--they were buying an ultracheap portable computer.

That ties into another problem: the surge in netbook sales was largely an artifact of the economic downturn, particularly in 2009. That window of opportunity is closing, if not already gone. Basically, that means that Linux has already had its shot, under conditions that were about as favorable to it as possible. This is it, folks. This is the big win. And I'm inclined to agree with this article's take on the resulting market figures. Consider that it took the biggest economic upheaval in generations to create that opportunity and I think it's a valid question to wonder how long it will be before we see another.

Many developers have fully turned to consoles--curated, relatively low-piracy environments with guaranteed operating specifications all-around. Developing for the myriad hardware found on PCs introduces complications, which ultimately results in PC software sections in various retail stores being miniscule in comparison to the console selection. If it's even there at all (I'm looking at you, Gamestop). And that's with developers ignoring any version of Windows prior to XP. Complicating things further with dozens of Linux variants would create a support nightmare for a highly questionable return on investment. With development turnaround now taking years at a stretch, Graogrim's Game Studio wouldn't see much advantage to including Linux support in the box.

Now I'm not saying all of this to bash on Linux--I've got Ubuntu 10.10 on a secondary hard drive on my PC, a TiVo, and an Android smartphone--but this is the age of Call of Duty: Black Ops. And it strikes me that harping on benchmarks of games based on eleven-year-old technology on inappropriately low-end hardware isn't the way to push Linux as a gaming environment. It isn't inspiring. It's sad.

Trying to convince people who are accustomed to high def gaming that OpenArena plays great or that some cross-platform tech demo is wicked cool won't cut it. It's time for a different approach.

[Yfrwlf]

The "fragmentation" argument is BS- and many problems for producing good binaries for all distributions and 32/64-bits are typically self-inflicted.

Where are the installers, because I haven't seen many and when I do find them they almost always have problems where I have to use the command line on them, something that should never have to be done anymore for Linux to be successful for desktop users.

Secondly, where are the tie-ins to the software managers? If I install OilRush using the installer for it, will I be able to easily remove it via my distro's manager? I.e. I hope that's something that is standardized...

As soon as software developers and companies don't have to make exceptions for specific distros in their software, THEN you'll be able to say that Linux fragmentation has been taken care of and that good standards have allowed successful interoperability.

As for now, ATI's proprietary driver is still horrible to install from their website and THAT is the main reason everyone sticks with the one from the repository and for that result in the Phoronix poll a while back, because they don't want to screw around with things all the time, and of course the desktop users who don't know how won't be able to any way.

Once I find that driver doesn't need to make exceptions for certain Linux distros, and there becomes no need to install "native packages" on a distro just to make sure the manager knows software EXISTS on a machine, because you have enough communication there that the manager knows what's up, THEN I'll consider those fragmentation problems solved and those cross-distro software installation standards to be good enough.

The distros don't seem to be actively caring about this problem, actively trying to do things which will help standards so that ISVs will be attracted to the Linux platform. Instead, the distros seem to only care about trying to have software only for THEIR distro, have it all go through THEM, they want to be the sole channel for access to software so that users are forced to go through them so they can take a cut. I'm all for "software stores", don't get me wrong, as long as I have a CHOICE of stores. I don't want that greed and those ideals to be in conflict with software accessibility freedom and Linux standards.

[Remco]

It's a gaming platform if it has games. It has games, so therefore it's a gaming platform.

[RealNC]

Now, I'm hurt. The only reason it's "not a gaming platform" is solely because studios won't port games to it.

Indeed. But as you say yourself, this means Linux is not a gaming platform The reason doesn't really matter to players.

[Svartalf]

Another useless comparison.

Perhaps. I see less use in it than some.

Linux is not a gaming platform. At best it can be used to run Windows games under Wine, but in this case no valid and realistic comparisons can be carried out because Wine semi-accurately emulates DirectX calls using OpenGL.

Now, I'm hurt. The only reason it's "not a gaming platform" is solely because studios won't port games to it. The "fragmentation" argument is BS- and many problems for producing good binaries for all distributions and 32/64-bits are typically self-inflicted. WINE's a band-aid and should really only be used for things that won't get ported over. Old stuff. Mainly because of the very thing you comment to.

Unless Linux has at least 10% market share I highly doubt anything is going to change.

Heh... Hate to disillusion you there- but we're already at that threshold according to something Ballmer showed people this year. You can actually do the math yourself- but someone else has done it for you:

http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09/debunking-the-1-myth.html

If you accept the figures that the industry pundits give on Netbooks, just for starters, the floor for shipped units using Linux (nobody will typically go out of their way to buy a Linux netbook and put Windows on it, sorry...) if you go off of the official shipped Netbook figures, is 6% of the total estimated market. That's the minimum and only using netbooks for a figure. The figure is quite a bit higher than that, obviously, because there's more than just netbooks out there.

You're AT the 10% figure you talk to- and there's some changes going on in the background that might change the story you're talking to.