Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • susikala
    replied
    That's not the point. I don't need to read the article to complain about its existence: I get to read here every second day the line 'If you want more of these articles, make sure to check out the premium subscription program, or click our affiliated links'.

    My point was I'm not going to donate or click those links if the content here contains in this direction, accompanied with shallow, populistic titles.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    So don't read the article, then? You don't *have* to click the link, you know.

    Leave this for those of us who can actually appreciate Michael's effort to provide hard data over, say, hand-waving and hearsay.
    Exactly, if someone wishes remain blind they can skip past the article and go forth in ignorance. That option is always there. It's not like going to the front page presents you with a browser window that can't be closed with the results of the tests.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by jteb View Post
    I don't understand why this test doesn't take any of the aforementioned facts into account. This is not at all a sneer/flame. I'd just like to know if I am the only one who had this experience (I can't imagine), or perhaps the writer just took games into account .. ? Especially because the writer is pointing at bad performance regarding Intel cards/chipsets.
    Compositing performance is not relevant to 3d/gaming performance, they are two completely distinct issues. This article tests the latter.

    As Michael said, more articles will follow soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by susikala View Post
    For me as someone who uses Linux and is therefore here, to read LINUX-related stuff, I don't give a rat's ass about any comparisons to Windows.
    So don't read the article, then? You don't *have* to click the link, you know.

    Leave this for those of us who can actually appreciate Michael's effort to provide hard data over, say, hand-waving and hearsay.

    Leave a comment:


  • jteb
    replied
    Just my two cents...

    Approximately two months before W7 was released, I was hardly using anything but my slowest machine, which is a Prescott (3.0, HT), with an onboard i915. I made it a sport to get the most out of it in terms of scheduling and most important, GFX performance.

    What I want to point out is, that I had never expected the performance I had from that terribly low-end chipset.

    At that time, I didn't use Gallium. The project was starting, but not at all usable. However, that was about the time that Jessy Barnes, Eric Anholt, Dave Airlied and Kristian H?gsberg (in no particular order) were very busy at improving the DRM code.

    They did some incredible work ..

    Windows Vista/7/ .. wouldn't even allow me to turn on "Aero". After some experimenting however, I did get the i915 drivers running with hardware accelerated graphics.

    Now here's the point; I had KDE (4.1 IIRC) running with _all_ compositing options turned _on_. Running as smooth as a baby's bottom. That is cube, rain, transparency, wobly (it worked, but who doesn't disable it as soon as it does.. )

    Long story for a single remark ..

    I don't understand why this test doesn't take any of the aforementioned facts into account. This is not at all a sneer/flame. I'd just like to know if I am the only one who had this experience (I can't imagine), or perhaps the writer just took games into account .. ? Especially because the writer is pointing at bad performance regarding Intel cards/chipsets.

    Cheers,
    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by Vanir View Post
    My first post! Maybe my last!

    Having just started to have a go at learning OpenGL I found your comment of useful interest. You state that the design is 'broken'. Design is the 'how'; the how of a specification. I have read recent the OpenGL specs but find it not much more than API functionality spec. It is hard to gain an understanding of the overall process desired. Threading is hardly mentioned in the glspec32.core spec.

    So, do you think that the design is 'broken|old' because the specs are also in need of updating to reflect modern GPUs and CPUs: multi-processors and threaded software techniques?
    Not really. You are talking about the implementation, while I was talking about API design. API design refers to the gl* functions and how they are supposed to be used; implementation is how these gl* functions are implemented in the drivers.

    A different API design might make threading more simpler or more efficient to implement but is not a prerequisite. Right now, you can create multiple OpenGL contexts and use them in parallel to load resources (for example). Some drivers might perform better or worse when used like that but this is mostly an implementation detail.

    My point is that the weak point of OpenGL is the "backwards compatibility at all costs" approach. Yes, there are good reasons why the ARB did this, but I cannot help but point out that Microsoft didn't maintain compatibility for Direct3D and this helped them immensely in the end. They were able to learn from their previous iterations and managed to design a modern API that is cleaner, more efficient and simpler to implement than OpenGL.

    Personally, I use OpenGL extensively but only because it's cross-platform. Were I able to use Direct3D in the same manner (and if D3D gained a couple of capabilities it is missing right now - e.g. 3d stereo), I would switch in an instant.

    Still, there is hope: the ARB has suddenly become much more agile and has started listening to and implementing suggestions by developers other than Carmack. Functionality-wise, we are pretty much covered right now (we just need Intel and Apple to get off their asses and release 3.x drivers). What's left is an API cleanup that will allow developers to stop tearing their hair out when dropping down to raw OpenGL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caveira
    replied
    Originally posted by susikala View Post
    I think a more appropriate title for this article is, "Is Michael Actually Becoming a Microsoft Fanboy?"

    I don't see anyone providing benchmarks for Ubuntu OR Linux on BBSs decidated to Windows. Why? Because no one cares (they're using Windows and THAT'S why they're are there). For me as someone who uses Linux and is therefore here, to read LINUX-related stuff, I don't give a rat's ass about any comparisons to Windows. The fact you use your allegedly limited (as you care to mention every day) resources for this sort of crap actually makes me rethink if I should make any donations or continue to visit this site.

    And always those populistic titles... seriously, the level of journalism here is starting to really get on my nerves.
    Calm down dude, relax! It's just an article...

    I also use/develop Linux for 8 yrs or so, but the article isn't useless as you say. Unfortunately, PC gaming industry focus on Windows. Seeing the rise of Linux in this area is awesome, and the comparison to Windows is therefore obvious.

    If you don't care about **gaming**, this article isn't really of great use for you. Clearly, the intention was never to advertise Windows - as a matter of fact, showing that Linux is there for gaming actually is a warning to Microsoft.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by susikala View Post
    I think a more appropriate title for this article is, "Is Michael Actually Becoming a Microsoft Fanboy?"

    I don't see anyone providing benchmarks for Ubuntu OR Linux on BBSs decidated to Windows. Why? Because no one cares (they're using Windows and THAT'S why they're are there). For me as someone who uses Linux and is therefore here, to read LINUX-related stuff, I don't give a rat's ass about any comparisons to Windows. The fact you use your allegedly limited (as you care to mention every day) resources for this sort of crap actually makes me rethink if I should make any donations or continue to visit this site.

    And always those populistic titles... seriously, the level of journalism here is starting to really get on my nerves.
    To get better at ones weaknesses, one has to look at the competition in comparison to identify and have a yardstick to measure by. Doesn't matter if it bruises a persons "fanboyisms". More harm is done by ignoring the weaknesses.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    Ideal circumstances? You make it sound as if Linux needs some extraordinary combination to be able to play games while with any recent VGA (except Intel) offers that capability.
    Really because if you read the review, there are issues with do not runs, some large gaps in performance with certain hardware combination, anomalies with resolution settings and so forth. The only real issue with the windows runs was with the most expensive card in the comparison refused to launch one of the tests. Also keep in mind that was done with drivers that bypass much of X.

    Leave a comment:


  • susikala
    replied
    I think a more appropriate title for this article is, "Is Michael Actually Becoming a Microsoft Fanboy?"

    I don't see anyone providing benchmarks for Ubuntu OR Linux on BBSs decidated to Windows. Why? Because no one cares (they're using Windows and THAT'S why they're are there). For me as someone who uses Linux and is therefore here, to read LINUX-related stuff, I don't give a rat's ass about any comparisons to Windows. The fact you use your allegedly limited (as you care to mention every day) resources for this sort of crap actually makes me rethink if I should make any donations or continue to visit this site.

    And always those populistic titles... seriously, the level of journalism here is starting to really get on my nerves.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X