Rage Linux Port Is Not Likely Until 2012

[Desti]

If you use more than stereo sound, e.g. 7.1, you will notice a performance difference between software sound and hardware accelerated sound.

[deanjo]

If you use more than stereo sound, e.g. 7.1, you will notice a performance difference between software sound and hardware accelerated sound.

Depends on your sound card. X-Fi's for example do have hardware accelerated sound via openAL and there is no difference in performance. Even in XP with directsound most cards out there in recent years (after the death of companies like Aureal, Philips, Yamaha etc that had hardware acceleration) the effects were the same in XP and Win 7. Those "softcards" gained next to nothing in performance utilizing DS. In fact, even a lot of hardware cards required acceleration disabled to get proper sound rendering (like philips Thunderbird Avenger DSP and Yamaha's 744 on the infinity engine games and diablo's engine.).

[jcgeny]

Not really, while Win 7 does have IPv6 installed by default, so does XP 64 and any unneeded extras are simple a click away from disabling them. The Win 7 network stack is also far more efficient then XP's ever was and there are several network benchmarks out there to back up that fact.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3

Aero is suspended when running games in fullscreen. It isn't even close to being a factor. The only time that XP might have an advantage is on old titles that did see some ever so slight increase when utilizing DirectSound but most of the new games out there utilize openAL and it becomes a non-factor especially given the processors that are in use today.

i am surprise that xp takes 10 times what is needed by vista or win7 .
i think it can not be ...
for the rest these kinds of papers need some money to pay the bills and M$ should not pay for advertising XP .
by the way xp is old and well known and so have very good and stable drivers while it is not the case with win7

40% of pc are still using xp and same numbers are using win7 .
win7 will "win" -because nearly nobody install its os [that s major reason linux fails ] -but will soon be replaced by w8

latest 11.10.2? those are out for linux now?
cant find the link. im forced to use 11.8 atm. cuz 11.9 has some random x crashes

i use windows xp x64

[deanjo]

i am surprise that xp takes 10 times what is needed by vista or win7 .
i think it can not be ...

It is real. I have several XP 64 and Win 7 systems in use and the difference is really that great. You can also look at recent Server 2008R2 (same kernel and networking stack as Win 7) vs 2003 (same kernel and networking stack that is found in XP64). Vista was another story but Win 7 fixed those issues that Vista suffered from.

[jcgeny]

i am really not sure you are so right because at the time of NT4 and W2000 or even XP the cpu were having 1 core : pentium 2,3 or 4
while by now cpu are having 4 , 8 or even 12 for latest .
it shows well that vista and 7 are really hungry with cpus .
a bench made with a p3 or a dual-core should have shown others results and xp would have won .
M$ does not optimize its code . like with .net 4 , it has update files bigger than the exe that installs it - i think it s around 50-60 Mo to install , at next boot windows update downloads more than 130 Mo for it only ;']

[deanjo]

i am really not sure you are so right because at the time of NT4 and W2000 or even XP the cpu were having 1 core : pentium 2,3 or 4
while by now cpu are having 4 , 8 or even 12 for latest .
it shows well that vista and 7 are really hungry with cpus .
a bench made with a p3 or a dual-core should have shown others results and xp would have won .
M$ does not optimize its code . like with .net 4 , it has update files bigger than the exe that installs it - i think it s around 50-60 Mo to install , at next boot windows update downloads more than 130 Mo for it only ;']

That is because the newer kernels can utilize the extra cores far better then XP's and older could. Again this is a known fact. The size of update files means sweet diddly as often legacy libraries are needed to maintain compatibility for older software. BTW even an old Socket 754 Windsor single core running Win 7 matches Win 64 in fps and still has better network performance then Win XP 64. I'm sorry but your thinking that XP 64 outperforms Win 7 is a mistake. XP64 vs Vista, yes XP64 did have an advantage but this is not the case with Win 7. Win 7 even has functionality in it to behave will with low ram netbooks, something neither XP 64 and Vista had.

[Max Spain]

If you will notice in that benchmark that was linked, it was testing throughput. Starting with Vista, M$ optimized the Windows network stack for throughput at the expense of latency. Tranlation: File transfers will be better with Vista/7, but pings will be lower with XP.

[jcgeny]

If you will notice in that benchmark that was linked, it was testing throughput. Starting with Vista, M$ optimized the Windows network stack for throughput at the expense of latency. Tranlation: File transfers will be better with Vista/7, but pings will be lower with XP.

that is what i wrote about network , i saw that with the l4d linux server i am working on to create a live cdrom .
both windows were network optimized using TCP Optimizer http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php
the pc has a dsl modem and downloads all files at full speed of the 10 Mb the provider sells , at least if i get drivers from nvidia or intel .
may be a cable-modem would help to see if the 10x difference is real or not . xp should have network settings more made for 28800b/s than for dsl like w7

by the way , xp x64 has a very bad support for x86 code : duke nukem forever , that is quite recent , can not play xpx64 , rage is still coded in 32bit .
may be 64 bit release of rage will help to see one os being better , as it uses opengl : it s a fair comparison .
as we see with power bug of recent kernels , with a "buggy" bios , latest technologies are not always doing well ;']

[V!NCENT]

/************************************\
Rage stuff
\************************************/
Rage is not a PC title in the sense that it wasn't optimized for it directly. That means; controller, gameplay and textures.

Yet Rage is running at a blazing 60fps with the most beautiful visuals I've ever seen on my HD5470 mobility GPU and Core i3 laptop. Crysis won't even come close to running at 30fps and Crysis looks like shit. The gameplay is the best that I've seen in games in a long while.

I am actually glad that it was made for the Xbox360, because now we have a realy cool, beautiful and actually good running game instead of these Crysis meets B-movie crap shooters that realy need to die sooner than later.

/************************************\
Windows stuff
\************************************/
Amount of RAM, CPU and HDD size used != speed in any way. Saying something eats more ram and CPU and is therefore slower is complete bullshit. Just as much bullshit as ythe gigahertz myth is bullshit; A 2,4gHz Core i5 runs faster than a 3,2gHz Pentium 4.

Come at me with real world examples, please? And while you're at it; on a recent computer.

[V!NCENT]

Self-correction
But according to Carmack, Rage on the PC is going to get graphics updates, just like Quake 1 had with OpenGL:

At QuakeCon 2011, Carmack mentioned a number of additions PC version of RAGE might receive in the foreseeable future. These include unofficial patches as Carmack named them "research engine things, 'far-out technologies'"; such as HMD support, Kinect support, "tracing, splatting, voxels and non-polygonal stuff", "perfect motion-blur" and "perfect anti-aliasing". id Software is committed to update the id Tech 5 engine past Rage's development.[citation needed]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(v...elease_support