With a new platform (X99) means that things in Wine such as games will run better so why not ditch Microsofts crap for Linux.
Where's your evidence that programs using the Wine APIs will be better with x99. Back up your statement with links or references please. I want to see this.
i'd like some logic, any logic
Problem is not all games will run under Wine, and some games that do run under Wine have bad performance despite good hardware. Also, most "hardcore" Linux users are turned off by the idea of using Wine: if it allows Windows programs to run on Linux, theoretically it could allow Windows viruses to do the same (Keyword: theoretically).
However, more games are coming to Linux via Steam and there push towards cross-platform, so the idea of ditching Windows to game on Linux is not as far as you think. Now if only Adobe would do the same...
QED... X99 is perceived by the masses as primarily a gaming platform... fail!
Watch the tests by (Windows using) TechofTomorrow, he ran comparative gaming tests, and the fps results were not faster than on X97, in fact, some games were a few fps faster (like 1 or 2 fps), some games were actually slower...
X99 will be faster than X97 when gaming and streaming online first person shooters though, now X99 will be about as fast as the FX8350 in those applications. Yeah, X99 just oozes return on investment for gamers...
Games dont run better on X99 basicly.
Thats why i dont understand why there are X99 gaming boards in the first place. such a fail. Haswell is Haswell, you wont see much of a diffrence between a 4770K or 5930k in gaming
X99 is only for heave codding, video editing, and what not. 6 core 12 threads cpu for gaming does not make any sense.
Yup, and that's just the thing. People that need more performance than consumer grade CPU platforms can offer, hardly have any benefit going with X99, and it's a hell of a lot more expensive. For professional heavy use, the things that are most important are 24/7 full load operation (because you don't buy expensive hardware to let it idle all the time) and ECC memory support (to make sure no data is lost of those valuable professional files), and those are two features X99 doesn't have, whereas Xeon-specific platforms like C60x, do have them, and provide multi-CPU options for a noticeable compute performance boost worth the extra investment.
Therefore, X99 is clearly a marketing troll, aimed at gamers that want to boast the most expensive hardware, even if that means no noticeable performance increase. Streamers that hate AMD might benefit in comparison to consumer Intel products, but that's about it, and pretty pathetic, because any AMD FX8k would provide the same result for a fraction of the price.
The big appeal behind linux, well one of many is that it can run on lesser hardware compared to windows. Heck you can run linux on old boxes much smoother then windows period. Linux mint will run on a old pentium dual core with 2gbs of ram where windows 7 would struggle big time.
X99 is a high end platform meant for people who NEED as much speed as possible. Gaming doesn't require a boatload of cpu steam more graphics. Of course intel is going to market the crap out of x99 as a gaming platform to push more product.
Some things just don't run well with wine, its just how it works and no amount of crazy cpu power is going to fix this.
I'd be careful not to downplay the performance of the OS too much when comparing Windows with Linux derivs, especially on a forum of gamers.
Windows is generally slower not because the OS itself is but because people tend to have bloatware which consumes all available resources. Consider Ubuntu's unity. That's why people tend to advise doing fresh installs or restoring every once in a while. I'd rather just use msconfig.exe personally. The OS always runs just fine, it's the applications that need a ton of resources and linux distros don't use significantly less resources than windows when comparing similar generation OS's. Take a look at the Linux Mint 17 requirements or OS/X's. Can also compare Android to iOS.
The real appeal of linux is that it's free and can do most of the things people want it to do reasonably well and everything else so-so. Ultimately, what OS people use is determined by the applications they want to run which is why consoles aren't completely dead yet despite being inferior to PCs and apple had a lot of success when marketing os/x as a "video editing platform". It's also why pc gamers won't be switching to linux any time soon.
I have attempted to use Linux to run video games before, although I've had luck with a lot of games it took a lot of time, patience, sweat, blood, and tears to make them work. Then just to spend a bunch of time on a game that turns out won't even run or has bad performance. I'd rather just have a dual boot environment for Linux and Windows. Best of both worlds.
The DE consumes a lot of resources in linux. Cinnamon (the DE that Mint uses) is one of the heaviest on resources. Unlike Windows, to a lesser or larger degree, depending on the particulars of the distro, you can use any DE out there. And there are DEs that are extremely light and they are generally vary varied.
As for the other applications that slow down your system, again, unlike Windows, you have the possibility of removing them. You can even compile your own kernel and applications, with support for your own hardware and software needs.
Linux can be as light or as heavy on resources as you make it.
The real appeal of linux is that it's free, as in free speech, and not free beer.
I never understood why people are so apt to game on Linux instead of just using the clearly easier option Windows. I use a Linux distro about 80% of the time I'm on a computer and never find myself wanting to try and game on it. I use it for work, studying, home server stuff, and many other things but as soon I want to game I just boot into Windows. It takes like 30 seconds to do a full reboot over the hours of headache and instability that come with trying to get games to run on even the more stable distros. This is coming from someone who works with it professionally and I still find dealing with games on it a pain in the ass for various reasons that I'm sure if you've tried it you have experienced. I'm not bashing Linux here, I'm just saying I don't feel it's there yet for gaming. Again if you're in a situation where you're using some 10yr old laptop and just want to play Minecraft, sure, I can see you wanting to use a Wheezy or something over Windows haha
X99 will be good for VM gaming, though. Unlocked and VT-d for hardware pass through . Even a 6 core would work give 8 threads and GPU with 16 GB ram to the VM and you should be fine.
Also if you don't care about EA and Ubisoft the games scene on Linux is pretty good. Also most MMOs run great on wine with a quad core.
A lot of people, myself included, do it for the challenge, wouldn't be nice to have games, work, server related items, and other neat Linux things all on one drive? I know some people like to have a work PC and a fun PC so they can concentrate on the tasks on hand. Of course it's people experimenting and trying to make a game run on Linux that helps push game creators into making a Linux stable game or more technologies to make it possible. In short, progress, knowledge, and curiosity. The great traits of human beings.
I've found WoW (Not that I'm a player) to be kinda iffy at times. For the most part a lot of MMOs do work without issues, like LoL for example. With Steam a lot of games are Linux compatible which is great, sad thing is a lot of the games saves/setting/configs don't transfer over to other platforms.
Nope, just nope.
Linux also runs better on hardware that is so high performance, that Windows can't even run on it.
Windows is a software console, aimed at customer binding and milking and harvesting, it's in no way comparable to GNU/Linux.
That being said, you can use Linux for open source and closed source, you can install it as free (as in freedom) or as non-free (as in open source software that isn't free software, or even proprietary software) as you want.
The big appeal of Linux, is that it's an exponential knowledge enhancement machine that benefits all the users, and that there is no difference between users and developers, unlike software consoles, where the users are slaves to the developers, and even the developers are slaves to the patent holders.
With Linux, you can do whatever you want and whatever serves your own personal purpose, and by doing that, you enhance the knowledge of all the other users.
Because of the customizability, adaptability and flexibility of Linux, corporations that don't want to subject to the power of closed software solutions, have developed their own Linux applications, which has lead to the wealth of knowledge and technology that is accumulated in the Linux-ecosystem right now, where Linux dominates the lives of pretty much everyone in the world, in their cars, their homes, in space as on earth, to the point where the term "Windows-user" has become laughable, because there is no person on earth that doesn't use Linux much much much more in their lives than any other kernel. A "Windows-user" is like an "XBox-customer", as opposed to a "Playstation-customer", it's nothing more than a consumer with a paid subscription to a closed and limited entertainment and non-adaptive limited productivity service. It's a downgrade of hardware, and a downgrade of intelligence, functionality, performance and freedom.
It's not about Linux. Minix or BSD had just as much chances of making it to the popularity of Linux. It's about the people that have joined the knowledge community.
Linux is not necessarily cheaper than a software console in absolute terms, that is, not counting the return on investment, because the user's time is also valuable, and for those that still have to learn about Linux based operating systems and open source software, there is a substantial investment in time needed in order to benefit from Linux, but the return on investment is huge, so it's definitely worth it. Linux is addictive, it invites to develop custom solutions, the choice is huge, even without changing one single character of code, users can build completely different and custom systems to suit their needs, and the experiences they have, benefit the knowledge of the community to make the products better and even more compatible and functional. Every user contributes, even without writing a single line of code, and without having to reserve dedicated time or effort to it. The investment process in Linux is relatively painless, except for the open source software developers. As the owner of a company that does open source software development, I know that open source development is risky, it's expensive (can't just use generic cheap dev labour, you need specialists, and those are more expensive), and it takes patience (the rules in open source are that software has to be compatible, safe and reliable, the quality requirements are much much higher than with any closed source software, plus you can't just break stuff written by other people, there is a lot to take into account, and that takes a lot of time and study).
Linux is also about new technologies, clusters, faster-than-ever networking with technologies like MP-TCP for instance, less power wasting, better graphics where it matters (fonts on a Windows software console look medieval in comparison to how good they look on Linux systems, and on high resolution screens, that is even more the case), more screens, more data, more storage, more speed, more security, more power to the user, etc... there are nothing but benefits to Linux based operating systems in comparison to software consoles!
If it runs on a software console, it'll fly on a GNU/Linux based operating system with open source application software. If it's functional on a software console, it'll blow your mind with unseen functionality on a GNU/Linux based operating system with open source application software, etc...
Ignorance of the consumers means power to the vendors. That's why software consoles are what they are, and why Linux and open source software users are much less liable to be extorted, exploited, spied upon and held back. Closed source is for losers, unless they're shareholders of course, those have struck the jackpot. It's all about power and control.
If you're subjecting yourself to Microsoft, being a good lapdog, you're only going to be fed just enough dog food to keep subjecting yourself (read: to keep paying for the good food of the MS shareholders). If you learn how to use open source tools like cutlery and pots and pans, and learn how to make fire, you can cook your own meals, and eat as much good food as you want.
Other benefits of using GNU/Linux based operating systems and open source application software include: less frustration when Windows BSODs again or does updates that don't work and take ages to do something you don't want done to your data, less wear on your hardware because of modern filesystems and lack of "hidden features", more productivity because of performance and functionality that closed source software consoles can only dream of, and overall less time wasted on maintenance and security issues for a better quality of life and a better work/life balance, etc...
That being said, the Linux world is not jumping with joy with the fact that commercial gaming is trying to move to Linux. Most games are still very old tech, and uses a lot of very old and crappy software solutions. For instance: most games are still 32-bit, whereas there are major Linux distros that don't even do 32-bit anymore (like Sabayon for instance), so applications like the Steam Client and games always run in compatibility mode, which of course means that they run well just the same, but it's a definite waste of resources in Linux/open source terms. When big bucks gaming comes to Linux, whether through SteamOS software consoles or because of Windows-like software consoles like Ubuntu and derivatives thereof, this will hold back Linux for sure, it will slow down development where it really matters. I for one think that it's much more beneficial to keep Windows as a proprietary software console, with added regulative legislation to guarantee intercompatibility and security/privacy and fair pricing, and to keep commercial games on Windows in a safe virtual machine on a Linux host. I personally think that Windows as it is now, should be outlawed, and that it should be replaced by a "plug-in" of for instance the Steam Client, whereby this would only be available as a virtual appliance, and cannot run by itself, but can only be run in for instance an open source kvm host. That would really make people think about what they're doing and would level the playing field. It would also provide the very best user experience, and would make development a lot cheaper and faster, because everything would always be the same, there wouldn't be any need for development towards certain hardware, because all hardware would be virtualized in open source, and therefore have the exact same specs on every single machine, even on non-x86 machines.
Steam Cloud fixes most of that unless the game is old.
Yea... when you have to work with Fedora 10hrs a day your curiosity is cured by the time you get home haha. I do see what you mean though, curiosity and a fun project but once it kills your curiosity you're stuck with lots of issues hindering your gaming experience. I agree, I would love to see more game development there but I'm a realist and the market isn't there to motivate companies yet. Also you can have all that on one drive... dual boot off the same drive, no need for two separate machines at all. Again that statement is strictly subjective to my situation.
<3 Windows Explorer. Using 73MB of memory atm while firefox is at 789MB. Yeah, the integrated UI isn't the issue here.
So for removing applications: there's this control panel applet in windows called "Programs and Features" that lets you remove programs. It's also possible to remove/add key windows components by clicking on "Turn Windows features on or off" on the left navigation pane of that applet. Most applications that start up can be disabled via the system configuration utility's "startup" tab. For advanced users there's also autoruns by sysinternals, the services tab of msconfig/services.msc, taskmanger, fun registry edits and the concept that you can right-click->delete.
Regarding application compatibility: If you realllly want to, there are cross platform IDE's that let you compile your own applications and VS Express. The thing about compiling your own applications with linux is that it's not optional, especially if you want to get things to work the way you want. If you want to run completely random programs from random websites, expect to have to compile. Heck VLC made me re-compile it to get to to not-insta crash under Ubuntu 10.4. You're expected to compile everything yourself as opposed to having it just work. Do I really have to say anything about kernel level applications (drivers) and linux?
So there's two key concepts here. The first is performance, again that's determined by user level applications not the core software. As you pointed out Linux Mint's dramatically change based upon which file explorer you're using.
The second is a spectrum of general purpose OS's where one end is "it just works" and the far end of usability is "compile it yourself". OS/X sits very comfortably at one end and linux distros sit at the far end. Windows is always somewhere in the middle. Consider this: OS/X is rising in popularity and Linux has completely dominated every market is has entered /except for/ the desktop general computing market. 1) What does that tell you about the importance of "ease of use" for the users of those systems? 2) Why do you think Linux hasn't taken over?
Peanut has a point here, it's also the way programs are handled on Linux. You have packages you can pull using your package manager which you know are safe, using the repositories that come with the distro. As opposed to Windows where you google search what you need to install and hope you find it and click the right link and not shitty add and tons of bloatware they cleverly sneak into the installer.
See the link below if you want to know more, I'm not the best with explaining myself clearly.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu