Which one is better?

gen.Rage1991hrv · October 3rd, 2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unixlord

There's nothing good with BSD and Solaris? Please, you're killing me! Seriously, there's a lot more to drivers than just 3D acceleration and gaming.

LOL

blindartist · October 3rd, 2007, 11:00 PM

and what exactly is there to do with a 3d card on any of thoes os's? There's very few good games (most old and boring) for them, if your talking 3d design then rendering is 100% CPU your graphics card has nothing to do with that, so what exactly is it that these other os's excel at that would require a good vid card?

Unixlord · October 4th, 2007, 12:48 AM

Various aspects of Solaris and BSD are superior (note I'm not grouping them together they're very different OSes and so is Linux) depending on the required task. This factor makes them a favorable choice. Dual/multi monitor support, rendering, 3D desktop, occasional games, temperature monitoring,fanspeed control (by itself a sufficient reason if you've ever head the 7600gt fan on full blast you'd know) and uses that allude me have compelled (in one instance) nvidia and sun to work together to fix things (This costs money so they would be crazy if there wasn't any benefits). The fact remains that the opensource nv (not nvidia) driver is very limited and installing the proprietary drivers is required if you want good 2D/3D support.
This is veering off topic (or it already has).
Nvidia has broader and better driver support. Even if future catalyst magically overtake forceware, they still hold so many advantages that the verdict won't change until the distant future or one by one the holes in catalyst are filled.
When people flock to Linux (they already are) I'm jumping on the BSD or Solaris wagon.

blindartist · October 4th, 2007, 02:09 AM

But serously, what is the sense in using thoes limited os's? I know its the rebel thing, down with the man etc etc but windows will do all of thoes things (sure its bloated and what not) but its got some serious functionality, uncompairable software support and will do anything thoes os's can do, sure their more stable and all that but unless your running a server windows really is the way to go, im not saying support ms and pay for it but theres no point in screwing about with an os that wont everything you need it too and just runs you into huge ammount of compatability issues and headaches, sure windows has its headaches but atleast it support all the software, games and hardware that you would need for pretty much any purpose. The idea behind thoes os's is great but their just not practical, and so ATI still gets my vote because theres no point in having wicked graphics with thoes os's, might as well just use the onboard vid card for what its worth, maybe one day that will change.

asdfXTXUltraPro · October 4th, 2007, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unixlord

Actually most ATI Linux users can't get the damn thing working (and it's the driver not their level of competence). Forceware on the other hand installs and works like a dream on every setup I've tested. Even with their latest efforts catalyst doesn't have the Opengl performance of forceware.
There must be competition in the driver department otherwise we'd be left with crap, rigged drivers.
Oh and the opensource HD driver is still a long way away from doing anything remotely useful (3D acceleration? pfft).

You must not read Phoronix.
Phoronix - ATI R500 Linux Performance

Quote:

On average, this new driver allowed these ATI graphics cards to operate between 50% and 90% faster. These driver improvements surely fill the gap between NVIDIA and ATI on Linux and you can find much more about this in our future Phoronix articles.

and Phoronix - AMD: Accelerating Open-Source Drivers?

It helps if you don't get all your news from nvidia.com, and their various marketing.

I don't use linux yet,(planning on dual booting) but a family member does and they own an ATI card, and it works fine.
and hey check out this website: live.linux-gamers.net
has older drivers which might not support new cards, but it still shows you can easily play games in linux with ATI cards.

as for the windows vs linux argument, 1 word: Cedega.
Cedega - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I use a lot of open source alternative software, so games are the only thing keeping me on windows right now, and even that may soon change.

In fact, I think windows took a step back with vista, while linux constantly moves forward, so in the next couple years linux may very well be the better OS to run.

blindartist · October 4th, 2007, 06:20 AM

I agree vista is total crap, i will never switch to it, they'll have a new os in a couple years anyways so theres really no point, wish someone would find a way to encorporate dx10 into xp, i did like linux, even took courses in it back in college but windows does everything i need it too hastle free, ive got my 3d modeling software, the graphical design software and most importantly the games.

Cedega and WineX is great and all but its still buggy, doesnt work with everything, and the majority of games will not run nearly as well on it as they will on windows.

Dont get me wrong i do respect and like linux, when i was younger i really liked it but it just doesnt have the compatability base of windows, i can get anything (multiples of anything) that i need for windows, without problems or compatability issues so untill linux has the hastle free compatability of windows i wont be switching to it, unless i need to run a server.

Shin_Mike · October 4th, 2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindartist

But serously, what is the sense in using thoes limited os's? I know its the rebel thing, down with the man etc etc but windows will do all of thoes things (sure its bloated and what not) but its got some serious functionality, uncompairable software support and will do anything thoes os's can do, sure their more stable and all that but unless your running a server windows really is the way to go, im not saying support ms and pay for it but theres no point in screwing about with an os that wont everything you need it too and just runs you into huge ammount of compatability issues and headaches, sure windows has its headaches but atleast it support all the software, games and hardware that you would need for pretty much any purpose. The idea behind thoes os's is great but their just not practical, and so ATI still gets my vote because theres no point in having wicked graphics with thoes os's, might as well just use the onboard vid card for what its worth, maybe one day that will change.

hahhahahaa

ok, i voted ati, i recently installed a nvidia card and almost forgot how much i didnt like their new control panel.. like seriously wow.. having to download something else to unlock more options? pff lame.. other than that they applications run fine.

Vradash · October 4th, 2007, 12:32 PM

ATI.

Nvidia ForceWare sucks on Vista.

Unixlord · October 4th, 2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfXTXUltraPro

You must not read Phoronix.

Excuse me?
Phoronix is one of my favorite websites and it's getting better all the time.

Blindartist, you'll probably change your mind (by yourself) in a few years. These kind of truths take time, patience, a broad mind, experimenting and relevant knowledge to sink in.

The future for catalyst is optimistic.

blindartist · October 5th, 2007, 08:04 AM

its nothing to do with the truths m8, ive used linux, i know linux quite well and as it stands it is totaly useless to me, like i said when it has the same hastle free compatability base of windows (which may be never) and companies make games and software for it in the same magnitude as windows i will switch to it, but as it stands, even with cedage and winex it doesnt do nearly what i need it to but it would be my first choice for running a server and/or a network but as far as for a personal system is has no use to me.