Pedro Quaresma wrote: > > > > > You never had to configure anything in Windows? Reduce a bit your sound > > card acceleration? Tweak around with your gfx card settings? > > >What the heck is "reducing sound card accleration?" > > Hmmm. I remember a slide bar somewhere about the sound card... maybe it was > some completely different thing.
I have never, ever had to do that. What the heck is wrong with your system? ;-) I say that with a wink because, sometimes, the user does nothing wrong and it still flakes out. But you can say this for any post-1990 OS/hardware combo anyway. > >I only tweak GFX if I'm trying to overclock and get better performance > >:) > > How many times have you had to uninstall your regular drivers, because the > newer nVidia's were faster, and then uninstalled your nVidia's because the > older nVidias were even faster, and then uninstalled those and installed > GLSetup because the old nVidias were incompatible with game X that you love > so much... well, been there, done that. Well, maybe you should've stuck with the original drivers. There's a reason they only officially release drivers twice a year. You aren't blaming this on the user or the OS, are you? > >It is not "way" faster. I don't consider 3-5fps "way" faster. > > 3-5? We had managed to get more than that. Then you have a broken setup or you're doing something wrong. In games where the rendering pipeline is 85% of the total gameslice *and* are hardware-assisted *and* the hardware assist is the same library (OpenGL) *and* the API for both platforms is provided by the same company (nVidia), there is no way Linux is going to be "way" faster. > > in Windows. Better yet, Quake 2 for Windows on a Windows emulator in > Linux > > is faster than Quake 2 in Windows! Interesting, isn't it? > > >In software rendering, yes. But people don't play Q2 in software. > > Nevertheless, it was interesting to compare. So is running Windows in an emulator that itself is running in Windows, but I don't see the usefulness of it. > >Okay, are we done arguing about which OS is better than the other for > >gaming? It's a pointless argument. Consoles whip all computer > >platforms anyway since they never crash and never have compatibility > >issues. > > Consoles never crash? What's this that I hear everywhere about the XBox on > exposition on the different Toys'r'us around USA reading randomly from the > "CD drive", failing to output any sound, stopping abruptly with error > messages, etc? At no point did I promote the X-Box as a good console. Come up with *ANY* other report of a console crashing (NOT x-box). > > won't crash. In the worst possible event, X will crash but not the OS, so > > >And that's acceptable? > > Well, I prefer the X to crash (and even so it happens with less frequency > than Windows crashes) than a complete OS crash. Just "startx" and you're > back on. But you still lose data. Your argument is really "well, it's faster to restart X then it is to reboot a hung winbox". One is not better than the other. > >I'm just saying you should choose your battles wisely. If you were > >arguing for Linux as a server OS, I'd roll out the red carpet and step > >aside. But gaming isn't one of those platforms you should debate on. > > I still don't understand why not, but nevermind. I have this stable OS that > has the same potentiality as this other unstable OS. In the very least it's > as good to run games as the other. Hey, I can lament for years why the Dreamcast didn't succeed but that doesn't change the current state of things :-) -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive gaming database project. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
