Gaming World Forums
General Category => Technology and Programming => Topic started by: Swordfish on February 24, 2011, 03:45:15 pm
-
I've thinking of downloading a linux distro (after looking through them of course) and instaling as a dualboot but tbh i've been wondering what would be the point so i'm wondering, what's the use and or advantage of using linux over windows 7?
-
It's free. But if you already have Windows 7 then it has no advantages unless you are one of those who believe anything Open Source is automatically the greatest thing ever.
-
It's dumb to say that there are NO advantages. But it also depends on who you are and what you use your computer for. For a lot of people Linux is just going to be more of a hassle than a good thing but for some people and some usages Linux is v. nice.
But considering you wanted to try a dualboot and you've already got Windows installed first (which is the correct order to do things if you want to dualboot easily) then just download it and install it and see if you like it.
-
if you're doing basic computing(wordprocessing, listening to music, web browsing, etc) or techie shit then linux is fine. If you already have and are comfortable with windows then there's really no benefit to using linux. I use debian on my netbook and it works fine but YMMV if you've got some incompatible hardware.
-
I'm not sure if you can do this in other distros but you can install Ubuntu/Kubuntu inside windows, so Linux uses a virtual disk. Look for a WUBI install program when you download it. It has the advantage of being easy to uninstall if you don't want it anymore.
-
It's free. But if you already have Windows 7 then it has no advantages unless you are one of those who believe anything Open Source is automatically the greatest thing ever.
That qualifies as me.
It's practical in my situation because I have to do all my programming schoolwork on unix machines, and I like doing most of my testing without having to go and SSH the server on campus. (plus I can do that even easier with Linux just by going to the terminal)
It really is a personal decision as to whether or not it's something worth having, but that's enough reason to say it's worth trying out at least. (since it's just as easy to uninstall either way)
-
If you're just after trying Linux, either a live disc or WUBI install would be a better option than just installing a distro outright as there's less chance of doing any damage.
Having used WUBI before, I would recommend it for trying Linux as it works almost as well as a proper install, but it's easy enough to remove.
Linux has advantages when it comes to system requirements and security, and it's more customizable.
I use a 1.66Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2Gib of DDR2 RAM and Ubuntu 11.04 and Windows 7 Ultimate and although Win7 will happily run most non-gaming stuff (including Epic UDK with a little slow down), Ubuntu does seem somewhat faster.
Ubuntu is my main OS as I find it easier to use for day to day crap, and if I need a random app for something, I can use the software center instead of trawling Google and installing it myself.
Windows 7 is still a very good OS, so if you're comfortable with Windows, you might not have much reason to start using Linux.
My only gripe with Win7 is that Dawn of War 2 doesn't run as well as it did under Vista Home Premium, but Vista is still awful.
-
Ack, i can't belive i forgot about this thread i started, nvm. any way i think i won't bother, it's just tbh the problem that i had with Vista i don't have with windows 7, i'm happy with it and i don't do much programing (any more) and i can reasonably fix any issues that do come up (so far none). Since i do have Virtual computer software build in to windows 7 i might try it with that but it would be more for the novelty of it then to actualy have a use of it. Still thanks for the info.
P.s. windows XP mode is really pretty usfull
-
the primary advantage of linux is it doesn't make me want to kick my computer out a window. if you don't know better you can just use windows though.
edit: seriously windows 7 starter edition made me so mad. it's like a preloaded virus.
-
the primary advantage of linux is it doesn't make me want to kick my computer out a window. if you don't know better you can just use windows though.
edit: seriously windows 7 starter edition made me so mad. it's like a preloaded virus.
Hence why i whent with pro, but beyond that is pointless.
-
oh is that why you went with pro over an edition that only comes with netbooks?
-
ahahaha you're judging windows 7 in its entirety based on the starter edition??? why would you do this???
-
I'd say over half of everyone who uses linux as a desktop OS feels the need to publicly justify it in some way
"Welp: it's better than windows starter edition" is about as good as any other, regardless of how dumb it is
-
Yeah and I'd say that same over half don't really have any business using linux. Like they don't have a reason beyond HEH, IT'S LINUX. I'M USING LINUX.
Linux is great for certain things. A lot of people using it aren't using it for those things. I will never understand people who primarily use a computer for gaming that also use Linux.
-
Considering that for 95% of people 95% of the time it doesn't really matter which OS they're on just the fact that Linux is free should be a pretty self-explanatory and sufficient reason.
-
I just today got an old laptop from my aunt and I'm planning on installing Ubuntu on it, mainly because it's just cool and I wanna toy with it. I ran my desktop computer on tripleboot XP/Vista/Ubuntu for some time, I really really enjoyed some things in Linux, most importantly the package manager, and liked to just play around because it lets you touch all sort of stuff Windows never lets, but I uninstalled it after a while because I needed a couple of programs that were Windows only + games, so I in the end I rarely booted to Linux.
If I would really pay for my Windows or even feel bad about not paying I would seriously consider going all Linux though. Especially considering many of the programs that are Windows only would also cost a fuckload if not for piratebay, so the only thing keeping me on Windows would be games and that's pretty minimal nowadays.
-
most of the games i care about run sufficiently well on linux and to be honest if your reason to be running windows is access to derivative space marine bullshit you should just read a book. there's lots of books about space marines. internet cafes have most new games available for a lot less timewasting / cost than putting them on your computer and you feel less obliged to continue playing if they turn out to suck.
imo the main reasons not to use linux are:
- lack of good CAD software for engineering drawing
- no good DAW support aside from renoise so if you don't like trackers...
- gimp really isn't photoshop (mypaint is awesome for drawing from scratch though)
- a piece of hardware you own doesn't have proper drivers for linux or is intentionally locked to windows/mac
- lack of good game development tools beyond compilers and text editors.
the reason I do use linux is that it doesn't fight me at every turn when I want to change something about my computer. it has good terminal programs, which simply don't exist on windows (I think it's reasonable for me to say this, I worked for about 3 months in a Windows environment and mostly stuck to the terminal when possible.) it's a lot faster and easier to manage software with a package manager once you've learned how it works than to keep around a bunch of .msi files and use the add/remove programs dialogue. ext3 doesn't require anywhere near as much defragmentation and dicking around as NTFS (i.e. i have never defragmented my disk) and you can send kill signals to programs, which are significantly more effective than clicking "end task" and hoping your box does what you told it to do. i don't need antivirus software and my computer doesn't constantly advertise to me with windows performance scores (that go down even though my computer hasn't changed??) and anti hacker super macro command centres. basically, if something goes wrong with my computer, i don't need to ask official permission to fix it or beg a wizard to diagnose my fault code.i'd say that that's something worth paying for but I got it for free. if you really want to pay, you could get a mac.
-
Biggles I hope you realize that that's exactly the kind of post that tend to give Linux a bad name.
-
please, break it down for me. it wasn't at you btw.
-
- a piece of hardware you own doesn't have proper drivers for linux or is intentionally locked to windows/mac
That can partly be blamed on Microsoft and their support for EFI over ye olde BIOS.
Microsoft does offer Windows with EFI support, but only for 64bit systems, and prior to Windows Vista, it was only for server editions.
Linux and OS X can both use EFI (Apple uses EFI on all Intel Macs), but as Windows is still the biggest OS on desktop systems, it's unlikely that EFI will take over for some time yet.
The big advantage to Linux would be that if enough Windows systems used EFI, the issue over drivers wouldn't really exist as EFI provides a generic layer between the OS and hardware so that any OS that can use EFI can use EFI compliant hardware )it's like having an interpreter to help you in a meeting instead of you buying a book and looking like a dick as you stumble through the translation).
I have Windows 7 Ultimate and I have to say, I've had no real problems with it other than it apparently being hopeless at running Dawn of War 2 as well as Vista did O_o
Other than that, I have to say that Win 7 is impressive (what isn't after ME and Vista? I won't mention XP's ugliness as I might get lynched), which is odd as it reminds me of KDE and KDE annoys me.
-
please, break it down for me. it wasn't at you btw.
What are you doing with your computer that makes you worry about the time wasted over clicking buttons in GUI installers/end task dialogue boxes? Windows automates defragmentation and it's in the background, most antivirus software just sits in the system tray, windows performance scores are tucked away in the computer properties dialogue box and it's not like it's advertised at you; I haven't even looked at mine. I don't know what you mean by asking official permission to fix your own computer, I'm pretty sure nobody is stoping you from messing with your own stuff, unless you're referring to poking around the source code of the OS.
basically you're harping on a bunch of banal aspects and inconsequential differences between the platforms. UGH, NTFS? NO THANKS!
-
please, break it down for me. it wasn't at you btw.
You have some good points, mainly with Linux letting you touch stuff Windows doesn't which helps dealing with rarer problems if you know what you're doing and the package manager which is a real improvement even for the average user. But most of your points are either minor details and/or most people don't even get what you're talking about. Add in the first paragraph which is at the same time arrogant and stupid (you don't need a computer for gaming, you can do it in internet cafes!) and you come off as a severe case of cocksure Linux fanboyism that likes to flex his abbreviations.
-
Internet cafes aren't even a viable option for a large part of America (can't speak for other places but uh I sure can't find internet cafes with the latest games here!!!). Jesus I love arcades but I'd never tell someone WHY BUY AN XBOX WHEN YOU CAN JUST GO PLAY STREET FIGHTER IN AN ARCADE???
-
msi files? you gotta be kidding me, I don't got all day to be scaling mountains of "accept" or "install" buttons here. *posting this via EMACS/W3 cuz I can't be bothered with dragging a mouse across the screen* You want graphical browsing? go to a kinkos chump
-
ain't from america, don't think playing the latest games matters, play street fighter at home on my emulator, arcades are a treat. so are internet cafes. games are a treat. if you're short on time, might as well play interesting games: braid, penumbra, dungeon crawl. what is "part of the operating system" on windows is often just some program you installed or your distribution installed on linux. you don't need to hack kernel source code to change between window managers or filesystems.
whether or not my preference in computer software or the fact i even have preferences is aesthetically repulsive to you, it's nice to be able to choose, and it's nice to be able to examine bits and pieces to find out what they do if you want to. on a proprietary platform, the vendor controls the software and to a certain extent the means of setting user's beliefs about it. they hold power over the platform, which they may confer to developers. users accept the conditions of using the platform. this means using the platform's distribution channels, environment, etc. blah blah blah. i would continue but i get the feeling that everyone present is either already familiar with the arguments around free software or doesn't care and that this will inevitably result in the word "conspiracy theory" being thrown around (empirically this happens 100% of the time when i argue with people about computer software wrt discourse.)
overall summary is that Windows has opposing security goals to me and so from my perspective is a virus.
(http://sadpanda.us/images/401264-518S6UG.gif)
-
ain't from america, don't think playing the latest games matters, play street fighter at home on my emulator
see the problem here is that you're suggesting this to EVERYONE not saying that this is your particular reasoning for why YOU choose linux. you're saying people in general should play games this way. i don't live ANYWHERE NEAR an internet cafe. it's not a treat for me, it's a complete lack of a possibility. aaaa it doesn't even compare to an arcade you'd have to take your save game with you on a flashdrive every time and you'd be restricted to whatever games they had installed if they even have them and this is just a big mess of impracticality that can be solved by just having a dang computer at home to play games on. having a computer to play games on doesn't mean you're playing generic bullshit games 24/7 if you want someone to play braid what's wrong with them playing it at home? your arguments would be okay if you were talking about yourself but you were talking about everyone and your posts are really really bad arguments from that perspective.
most of the games i care about run sufficiently well on linux and to be honest if your reason to be running windows is access to derivative space marine bullshit you should just read a book.
honestly can't get over how smug this is
-
obviously i am only explaining why i personally use linux and believe that it is overall better to put up with halfassed (but increasingly bearable) game support than to put up with windows. the reason i mentioned braid, machinarium etc is because those games do run on linux. natively. internet cafe is for starcraft and shit.
i'm intentionally trying to avoid arguing about software politics and stick to criticising windows aesthetically. it's an i think it's a virus and you should too kind of deal. makes computers work non-properly. of course, nobody gives a shit about computer software aesthetics except, well, people who are already linux users. so i guess the argument doesn't work. next time this topic comes up i'm just going to do copywriting and play pretend adbot. viruses on my computer? it's more likely than you think. click this free link for a free scan of your user agent string for microsoft windows.
-
Biggles, what is it that you primarily use your computer for that requires Linux? I mean you can simply prefer to use Free/Open Source Software out of support for the cause and whatnot but seriously everything you've mentioned so far are totally bogus concerns for desktop computing on a modern PC: the filesystem and background defragging, running an up to date virus scanner, needing to "hack kernel source code to change between window managers or filesystems"(lol what), etc.
I mean I get it, you like free software and not a fan of corporate encroachment on the use of your computer and you boycott that shit on principle. but for daily home and office computer use linux is no better than windows, they both basically do the exact same thing.
-
when i just got to university for computer science in the first year that i was there i remember a TA making fun of my laptop because I had installed the windows 7 beta
he then went on to explaining to me how he installed arch on his and deleted all traces of windows, and how it took him 6 hours to get even the simplest things to work, he was explaining this in the tone that "heh im so good at this"
i threw back something insulting about how he was just being some pretentious comp sci guy who wants to seem cool to the first years (i regret this as I'm pretty sure he was marking my assignments and I kept losing marks for stupid things)
regardless im thinking that ta was biggles
-
oh yeah windows rules linux drools
-
I'm pretty opposed to the existence of the user/developer boundary in general because I think that if most people with high school math don't also have some computer programming then bad things will result.
As for my own use of the computer, I'm doing my honours year in computer science, but it's mostly theory and reading papers at the moment. I'm not studying anything overly systems related. I also program various things e.g. game stuff in my spare time. Aside from that, it's all web browsing, music, etc. In running a minimalist system, I know that I have enough spare memory to work on songs or make a big drawing/animation without closing everything else or swapping to disk a lot. I dunno? There's a million things that bug me whenever I have to go back to Windows. I want to order outside of the menu but it's all burger, coke, fries, optional side salad.
Since Windows essentially defines what people expect from using their computers, i.e. what home and office use IS, of course other operating systems are pretty much the same as Windows for home and office use. But there are other ways of using a computer in the home or in the office, and I think that the current way of looking at things could be improved on a lot, especially in changing the way computers enforce (or don't) organisational structure, culture and policy. To a certain extent, Windows (and clones of Windows software for Linux) embodies typical use - reports, spreadsheets, desktop icons, the official story of Human-Computer Interaction.
-
I know that I have enough spare memory to work on songs or make a big drawing/animation without closing everything else or swapping to disk a lot. I dunno? There's a million things that bug me whenever I have to go back to Windows. I want to order outside of the menu but it's all burger, coke, fries, optional side salad.
this made me chuckle :3
does your computer have 64mb of ram running windows 95 when you were having to close everything to do something else
just wondering
-
To a certain extent, Windows (and clones of Windows software for Linux) embodies typical use - reports, spreadsheets, desktop icons, the official story of Human-Computer Interaction.
wowwwww you are more or less a I'M A MAC/I'M A PC ad only instead of mac it's linux. this is the most narrow minded view of an operating system ever. ugh...windows and its spreadsheets and desktop icons...*ignores that windows does all of the things you described you do on linux, and you must have one heck of a bad computer to not be able to multitask those things*
i mean if your computer is having a hard time running programs at the same time in windows but not in linux then fine that's cool but that's hardly a problem with windows it's a problem with your computer. you can't really use that as a criticism for windows.
-
it's not that i'm low on memory, it's that i like to do things that need a lot of memory and would prefer to avoid using my hard disk to make up virtual memory on account of it being slow. not all the time but once a week ish. I have two computers, one box with 2GB main memory and one netbook with 1GB main memory.
that said, the netbook i bought recently seemed to have trouble running IE and changing control panel settings and notifying me about critical security threats to my family at the same time for some reason. i'm told i have the worst experiences with windows?
either way, being less efficient at more cost sounds like a reasonable criticism to me. it becomes more apparent for things like web servers but it's still a limiting factor on what you can do with a general purpose machine. hence music / design types always get memory upgrades. either way, it indicates that Windows is more costly to run. this isn't my main concern with it at all though. it's just a consequence of the way the platform works.
neckbeard flares up, begins drooling
-
biggles you are wrong and possibly a little bit crazy
-
i was just OCRing some financial documents in microsoft windows xp and the program misread a visa symbol as "GNU". it's a sign. information wants to be free. it's trapped.
-
The main Linux desktop environments(GNOME and KDE) and firefox are pretty notorious resource hogs as well... I really don't think there's a significant difference between running common desktop variants of linux and windows in terms of resource use.
-
I'd agree with that. There are some easier low-resource desktop environments (OpenBox I think?) coming out though. I got stuck on linux when I switched to using Awesome as my window manager, after which I switched to xmonad. Apparently there's a really easy to use xmonad variant called BlueTile now. I don't know how it is on resources. The minimalism thing isn't for everyone though. It's the choice thing that's important. After you know about packages, you can kind of do what you want. There are also tradeoffs - some software only works on nonfree platforms and you actively deprive yourself of it if you only use linux or bsd but I think the best long term strategy is for as many people as possible to use as much free software as possible since at the moment the tradeoffs for doing so are not entirely terrible unless you're in a line of work/hobby that has all its core software on windows with no decent alternatives.
-
OS doesn't matter to me much since most of what i do is INTERNET and WORD and i'm sure any differences must be slight at best, but i'm pretty offended by the idea that a video game is more mindless than a book. here's a newsflash for you book lovers: BOOKS SUCK. if a book is more exciting than your imagination you may be a computer running linux. this is why video game plots are horrible, everybody wants them to be more like books and they're trying. the reason people say "the book was better" after a movie is because the book was garbage and they only realised how contrived it was when the format is changed from the one that they're so used to the cliches and unnatural behaviour is invisible.
-
no what i meant is that by buying a book instead of a video game that's basically a book with filler you save money because books are cheaper and there's probably more of them since they cost less money to make. i actually like video games more than books as a medium and it would be nice if space marines left to go chill with the other romance novels.
-
no what i meant is that by buying a book instead of a video game that's basically a book with filler you save money because books are cheaper and there's probably more of them since they cost less money to make. i actually like video games more than books as a medium.
and why does this explain why you shouldn't use windows just because you wanna play games
-
and why does this explain why you shouldn't use windows just because you wanna play games
because hes a mac and ur a pc
-
because a large chunk of windows-only games are SUPRE EXCITING RPG ABOUT IMPORTANT GUY (america). also it's not carefully phrased argument it's me being mad at the games industry and expressing my general dislike of big-budget industry games of the kind that typically tend to be windows/xbox exclusive. at the time, i chose space marines because it had recently been confirmed by a couple of friends that i was right to stop playing mass effect after 20 minutes at the internet cafe. it was more like "fuck windows btw fuck the games industry" than an argument because who argues like that? i guess you think i do. nah though. what's the point of writing an argument when all you expect to get back is "are you aspergfers? ??? ??" i entirely realise that plenty of people are strongly attached to the windows games directx thing and felt like giving that the finger in passing because i don't like the surrounding culture / most of the games / the tar pit platform.
i have emotional feelings about computer software. put me in a zoo.
-
hi dx
-
you dont have emotional feelings for it, no
you are just crazy
-
hi bggls
-
because a large chunk of windows-only games are SUPRE EXCITING RPG ABOUT IMPORTANT GUY (america).
no
-
IDK, desktop linux has always seemed like a waste of time. It's basically a second-rate windows for home use.
Linux/BSD kernels are much more interesting when they're put to use in environments outside of your standard keyboard+mouse+monitor PC setting: Servers, Android/iOS, routers, or any other computer-device that requires an operating system.
-
IDK, desktop linux has always seemed like a waste of time. It's basically a second-rate windows for home use.
Linux/BSD kernels are much more interesting when they're put to use in environments outside of your standard keyboard+mouse+monitor PC setting: Servers, Android/iOS, routers, or any other computer-device that requires an operating system.
you mean like the pandora handeld? i'm honestly thinking of getting it, just so i can play zelda classic on the move.
-
you mean like the pandora handeld? i'm honestly thinking of getting it, just so i can play zelda classic on the move.
Is this ALL you want to play on it? Because there's no reason to spend $500 on a device to play this. You could get a used GBA even to play this. There's also plenty of other small Linux-based gaming devices that are closer to $100-$200 that aren't as powerful as the Pandora but are more than powerful enough to run 2D emulators.
-
That reminds me I should dig up my PSP. Fantastic machine for emulation. Does NES/SNES/GBA/PSX pretty much perfectly. N64 too iirc but it's probably harder because of the lack of controls.
-
That reminds me I should dig up my PSP. Fantastic machine for emulation. Does NES/SNES/GBA/PSX pretty much perfectly. N64 too iirc but it's probably harder because of the lack of controls.
Yeah, even a PSP would be a better option than the Pandora. I've not used a Pandora so I can't comment on if it's a good device or not but the price is insane considering how many people just want it for emulators (especially the people who want it for old emulators that a cheap Dingoo or Wiz or PSP or heck even a lot of cell phones can handle).
-
you mean like the pandora handeld? i'm honestly thinking of getting it, just so i can play zelda classic on the move.
no, the pandora is basically a tiny PC the thing has a keyboard and mouse-ish user inputs and there's really no qualitative difference.
I'm talking more along the lines of computers where you wouldn't expect computers
-
im gonna make a linux game and the main charry is going to be tux the penguin fuck windows
-
I switched over to Linux a long time ago when I realized that my computer could no longer run any of the programs I needed for school. I was still using a Pentium II with 512MB ram and like 20 GB of hard drive space, so my word processor was clunky and other programs were slow as hell. I didn't have enough cash on hand to get a bigger hard drive or more ram at the time, so I experimented with Ubuntu's liveCD. I was impressed, considering how the liveCD version ran faster than windows did, so I deleted windows and installed it. I've been pretty happy with Ubuntu ever since. It's got a user-friendly GUI but still has the elasticity and form-fitting of your typical linux OS. if you choose to use it that is.
Anywho, I have since acquired an additional computer. One is a dedicated Linux computer where I store all of my files for security and stability reasons, and the other is a dedicated Windows gaming machine. Eventually what I want to do is run the internet through my linux machine and into my xp machine so that I could use the linux machine as an external firewall/server for my xp machine. I hate networking, so I haven't gotten around to it. It should be a fairly easy project.
I used to do the partition thing...but after having to repartition my hard drive a ton of times...so many times that now the mbr somehow OVERRIDES cd boot (like the only way to cd boot is to unplug the hdd), I've gotten sick of it. It's a time consuming process which is prone to error when your hdd is going bad...and if you're like me, you'll forget that you needed X GBs left on your hdd to install whatever game you wanted to play, and now you're gonna have to do everything all over again.
BUT, if you're still looking into doing the partition thing, I have some recommendations:
1.) Burn yourself a copy of GParted, or like program. I use GParted, and it's finicky sometimes, but it usually works when I need it to.
2.) Create a partition especially for your home directory so you can have a place to back up your things on-site supposing that you change your partitions around a lot...and don't forget to update it every few months.
3.) Get a Linux Rescue CD...not sure I can recommend anything in particular, but it's helpful to have when you fuck things over royally.