NWN2 Multiplatform Support

[Rhomal]

But the main reason why DirectX has become the top dog, is because Microsoft will shed no expense or effort into making Windows and Xbox the only choice for gamers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If it isn't broke...

 

XP does a fantastic job as gaming. So whats the issue? Show me a OS that, technically, is better for gaming?

 

I fail to see one that currently exists v.s the bells XP and DX has.

 

This is a bitter pill for open source zelots but this is where commercialware excels. The ability (read resources/motivation) to stay on the bleeding edge of technology and why windows, OS X and every other commercial product will always be several steps ahead of hobbiest or open source operations. IMO this (and the geek mentaility of linux devs) is why linux has always trailed windows on ease of use, apps and support and unless a large mindset shift happens always will.

[Kaftan Barlast]

But the main reason why DirectX has become the top dog, is because Microsoft will shed no expense or effort into making Windows and Xbox the only choice for gamers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If it isn't broke...

 

XP does a fantastic job as gaming. So whats the issue? Show me a OS that, technically, is better for gaming?

 

I fail to see one that currently exists v.s the bells XP and DX has.

 

This is a bitter pill for open source zelots but this is where commercialware excels. The ability (read resources/motivation) to stay on the bleeding edge of technology and why windows, OS X and every other commercial product will always be several steps ahead of hobbiest or open source operations. IMO this (and the geek mentaility of linux devs) is why linux has always trailed windows on ease of use, apps and support and unless a large mindset shift happens always will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I say "only choice", definently not "best choice".

 

 

Many Linux distributions and in some cases MacOS are actually faster, more stable and handle system resources more efficiently than Windows. If you play Quake4 on a linux machine youll gain maybe 10% in FPS, and that game was made for Windows primarily.

 

 

Microsoft doesnt want the kind of product where you go into a store and pick out their OS because its the best there is. What they want is for you to walk into the store and the only OS on the shelves will be Windows.

[mkreku]

How do you know one OS is good when there are no alternatives? I'm sure we'd be seeing better versions of Windows, if the file/executable formats were open source and anyone could make their own Windows compatible OS. As long as one company has a monopoly on 90% of the world's computers, we'll never really know if Windows XP is "better" or not.

 

I do know that Windows takes up lots and lots of unnecessary space, it sucks at multitasking and it requires you to restart your hardware for almost everything. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Windows is a crappy OS for gaming too, as it's resource intensive even in stealth mode.

 

One thing's for sure: if there were several companies battling to create the best Windows OS, the prices would drop.

[alanschu]

Naturally, we aren't going to see several companies battling to create the best Windows OS.

 

I suppose it is possible to get something like this from a Linux distribution, but the conundrum of course is that Linux isn't very popular, so it's hard to get the commercial support that is required. And if the people start making changes to the Linux OS in such a way that all Linux OS's aren't created equal anymore, you'll start splintering the OS market. Which means that the software developers designing apps have to take these into considerations.

 

People complain because of bugs in games because of variable hardware. I can't imagine it getting any better if the games had variable software to run on as well.

[BicycleOfDeath]

I have a Linux/Windows Dual Boot: I play NWN, DooM 3, and Quake 4 all in Linux. Not because I don't like Microsoft either. It's simply because of performance. Hell, I spend most of my time in Ubuntu. I quite enjoy how stable and secure it is. It'd be nice to beable to play more than half of a handful of high grade games without using a Windows emulator.

 

If there was an OS specifically designed for gaming, I wouldn't own it. I do quite a few other things besides it and the only reason Windows currently does them well is because of the lack of alternative support from 3rd parties.

 

I want to beable to play more games without getting a blue screen of death. I want to beable to browse the web without having to worry much about malicious software that gets installed without my concent.

 

I'd like to beable to do that and many other things on one operating system.

[Loof]

Rhomal I must say that I disagree with you about open source not being cutting edge enough. I think that in many instances open source projects have an advantage in that trying new things is easier and so they become more open to inovation.

 

Where I think open source does have a problem is in ease of use, documentation, and optimization. The reasons I think this is so are:

 

That since open source projects eneraly don't have money to hire testers or do usage tests they are totaly reliant on voluntary user feedback, which might be slow comming in. This in combination with the fact the the people that develop a product are very familiar with it and therefor have a hard time seeing what needs explaining and which interfaces are hard to use if you don't know all the commands at the top of your head.

 

Writing documentation is boring. If noone is paying or forcing you to do so its alot less likely to get done.

 

Some kinds of optimization can also be boring and so suffer from the same reasons that documentation does.

 

That being said I am pretty sceptical about statements such as kraftans about the superior performance on linux/osx. While I think that in some cases linux/osx is probably faster I don't buy it as a general rule.

For one counter example have a look at this test of Doom3:

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2241

 

But yeah in some ways windows sucks, but then linux and os x suck in other ways so I find this whole "my OS kicks your OS's ass" debate pretty tedious

[BicycleOfDeath]

Simply put there's no superior OS. It's all a matter of preference. Kind of like asking someone "What's your favorite color?'

 

I just hope to see more game options on other OS's besides Windows. I've stated my reasons and from what I can roughly browse through in my head, my statements/debate is complete.

[Rhomal]

> I say "only choice", definently not "best choice".

 

Thats matter of opinion I do beleive.

 

 

> Many Linux distributions and in some cases MacOS are actually faster, more stable and handle system resources more efficiently than Windows. If you play Quake4 on a linux machine youll gain maybe 10% in FPS, and that game was made for Windows primarily.

 

So you are saying, assuming you have accurate numbers to start with but ill go with it, that I as a gamer on winxp is going to see a difference in my 70pfs v.s 77fps? Is 10% even matter when your still talking way more fps then the human eye can discern?

 

Unless your one very outdated hardware 10% is moot. and if you are on outdated hardware you not going got be a serious gamer anyways, so again, moot. Back 7 or 8 yrs ago sure 10% was a big increase/deal. Now with FPS easily breaking 80+ on a consistant basis 10% eaither way is pointless.

 

> Microsoft doesnt want the kind of product where you go into a store and pick out their OS because its the best there is. What they want is for you to walk into the store and the only OS on the shelves will be Windows.

 

And neither does coke or ford or gap or.... Thats a commercial world and the sellers only want you to buy from them. If a seller wanted you to take your business elsewhere thats not a very good economic model is it?

[mkreku]

So you are saying, assuming you have accurate numbers to start with but ill go with it, that I as a gamer on winxp is going to see a difference in my 70pfs v.s 77fps? Is 10% even matter when your still talking way more fps then the human eye can discern?

 

Unless your one very outdated hardware 10% is moot. and if you are on outdated hardware you not going got be a serious gamer anyways, so again, moot. Back 7 or 8 yrs ago sure 10% was a big increase/deal. Now with FPS easily breaking 80+ on a consistant basis 10% eaither way is pointless.

You're missing the point. The number of fps doesn't matter, the point is that Windows XP (probably) wouldn't be the best platform for gaming if there were alternatives. I mean, if a Linux variant can beat Windows XP in performance for a game primarily developed for Windows, that's not very assuring, is it?

 

I for one would love to see more competing OS'es with full Windows executable compability.

[alanschu]

We'd all love that.

 

Except it's completely unrealistic.

[Rhomal]

So you are saying, assuming you have accurate numbers to start with but ill go with it, that I as a gamer on winxp is going to see a difference in my 70pfs v.s 77fps? Is 10% even matter when your still talking way more fps then the human eye can discern?

 

Unless your one very outdated hardware 10% is moot. and if you are on outdated hardware you not going got be a serious gamer anyways, so again, moot. Back 7 or 8 yrs ago sure 10% was a big increase/deal. Now with FPS easily breaking 80+ on a consistant basis 10% eaither way is pointless.

You're missing the point. The number of fps doesn't matter, the point is that Windows XP (probably) wouldn't be the best platform for gaming if there were alternatives. I mean, if a Linux variant can beat Windows XP in performance for a game primarily developed for Windows, that's not very assuring, is it?

 

I for one would love to see more competing OS'es with full Windows executable compability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How convient you can only point too one example. Show me a consistent sampling of games that have this issue then you may have a case. Of course there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. No fair sampling/statistics/odds is ever going to be 100% one way or the other.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Rhomal

[taks]

i intend to set my system up in dual-boot mode shortly, with xp pro and linux (probably fedora core 5). the ONLY reason i still have winders at home is because of games. if more companies go to linux porting, i will drop the winders partition completely (for home use). from a business standpoint, i run both win 2k and linux (fedora core 4 at the moment). i need the winders box because several of the tools i regularly use are primarily winders tools (visio in particular). heck, most of my actual development is done in linux (even matlab has a linux port, the only way possible to use 64-bit machines, btw) even at work.

 

in short, yay to NWN2-linux!

 

taks

 

PS: recent linux releases are undeniably MUCH more stable than any winders release has ever been. also, there are few, if any, security issues with linux though once it becomes more mainstream, that may change... i don't know enough about the subject to really comment further.

[alanschu]

I suspect that Linux will become more compromised as it becomes more common.

 

The only reason why the Mac OS didn't get the crap kicked out of it was because of its smaller installed base.

[taks]

unfortunately, you're probably correct. it is inherently more secure due to the limited number of ways you can access the internals, however. winders has so many "doors" to critical system resources that it is nearly impossible to lock them all. linux is much simpler in that respect. of course, a larger user base will result in more options with linux, too.

 

taks

[BicycleOfDeath]

*laughs* Rhomal you make me laugh. Mainly at the part where you need more proof when the hard proof given is that games with native Linux clients run better than their Windows counterpart. What more do you want?

 

They're more stable too. It's a little bit more work to get a game installed but once it is it will perform better and have better stability. The system requirements are even lower for native linux ports.

Edited July 12, 2006 by AngryKidJoe

[Lare Kikkeli]

*laughs* Rhomal you make me laugh.  Mainly at the part where you need more proof when the hard proof given is that games with native Linux clients run better than their Windows counterpart. What more do you want?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I bet you wasnt really laughing....

[BicycleOfDeath]

Actually, I was. Well, it was more of a chuckle. It all depends on your perspective then.

 

All in all: Linux performs better, Windows is more convenient.

[alanschu]

*laughs* Rhomal you make me laugh.  Mainly at the part where you need more proof when the hard proof given is that games with native Linux clients run better than their Windows counterpart. What more do you want?

 

They're more stable too. It's a little bit more work to get a game installed but once it is it will perform better and have better stability. The system requirements are even lower for native linux ports.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is this reflective of all Linux client games though?

 

 

I can't really recall having stability issues with games (in Windows) that happened to also have native Linux clients either for that matter.

[BicycleOfDeath]

The only issues I've ever had with native Linux games is getting the sound set up (mainly because it's in the midsts of switching from OSS to ALSA so everything's crossfiring at the moment, should be fixed in Ubuntu 6.10?). My prime example is the random crashing Windows users experience with Neverwinter Nights. I've yet to have that happen in Linux.

 

Then again, we're pretty much debating a preference here. Heh, and I thought I posted that I was done with this thread. Woops. I'm not at all saying Windows is bad, Windows is bad! I prefer Linux, everything I have ran has ran faster, smoother, and with no crashes or blue screens of death or an equal to that. Linux has won me over and I will stand by it. If Windows works for you, awesome. You've no need for a Linux OS.

[alanschu]

You're using Ubunto right?

 

I have a Fedora Core partition, but it was mainly for work reasons (at the time). Now, I can still do my stuff (different work) using Eclipse on Windows, so I don't really have the need to touch the Linux distribution anymore. It still exists because I'm inherently lazy

[BicycleOfDeath]

I'm using Ubuntu 6.06 (KDE), but I also have a 3rd harddrive in right now to play around with some other distros. Was playing with Gentoo and Debian recently.