Well, that's not entirely true.
1st. - Linux does have it's roots in networking and really shines in that
area; Apple is still the choice for graphics artists that I've heard from;
and Windows pretty much has the home desktop market.
2nd. - Linux versions of the popular Win games are known to run at lower
frame rates and be just a little rough around the edges. I still haven't
been able to play Quake 3 for linux, though I bought a copy about 4 months
ago because it was supposed to support my Matrox G400 card out-of-the-box.
I've come closest to running it when I installed SuSE 7.0 a few days ago. I
d/l'd SuSE because they do a lot of xfree work and they were the first to
support my ATI Rage Fury video card when that came out. It still doesn't
play Quake though; I've got video and audio playing at the correct speed
(was choppy and in slow motion), now I just have lines across the screen and
can't see what's going on.
You see, I can buy a game off the shelf for windows, put it in the cdrom and
start playing within a few minutes.
It's good to be positive, but it's also good to know your limits. Know your
enemy - Sun Tzu - Art of War
Mike
From: "Carjam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Linux could do those games easeily, but most of them have only been writen
> for windows. Some of them, such as half-life, are out for linux and run
fine
> on it.
From: Dacia and AzureRose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Windows is the best damn video game machine I've ever
> seen. For me, it is nothing but a glorified nintendo
> and it is VERY good at that. I thank those freaks at
> microsoft every time I sit down and play my favorite
> games because those games are beautiful and they would
> never run on a console.
>
> As someone else pointed out, every OS has its
> strengths and its weaknesses. Its not a matter of
> better or worse its a matter of which one will do the
> job you need to do.
>
>
> Dacia
