Operating System question; Q2 on Windows vs Linux

[FirebirdTN]

For reasons other than gaming, its about time I learned an alternative OS to Windows.

But, being that Quake2 is my favorite PC game of all time, I thought I'd ask:

Given the identical set of hardware, what OS would give better Q2 performance (with the same client if possible of course):

Windows or Linux?

-Alan

[jägermonsta]

Basicly, if your computer has preformace trouble running quake2. It's time to get a new computer. Otherwise it doesn't matter what OS your running really. It will most likely be better to run linux when hosting a server. Otherwise, I'd stick with windows.

[FirebirdTN]

My computer doesn't have any problems running Q2; although it is older than dirt.

[Jay Dolan]

A main factor in performance (framerate) is your video card driver -- not necessarily your operating system.  Both ATI and NVidia offer Linux support.  ATI users can choose between faster proprietary drivers and open source ones.  Nvidia users are stuck with binaries, but they are quite stable and perform very well. 

That said, Linux is much easier to trim down if you're really looking for top framerates.  Also, I've developed a Quake2 client for GNU/Linux and FreeBSD called Quetoo[1] specifically targeted at (among other things) raw speed.

I've been running GNU/Linux for the past 8 years, and exclusively for the past 5.  I play Quake and do everything else that Windows users do (and then some).  I have no plans to ever switch back.

[1] http://jdolan.dyndns.org/trac/wiki/Quetoo

[cyberneticimplant]

If you game stick with Windows.

You can always make a dual boot system, and have both.

[Jay Dolan]

There aren't any games I want to but am unable to play because I use GNU/Linux.  Quake, Quake2, Quake3, Wolfenstein, ET, Doom3, Quake4.  Flash games work in GNU/Linux.  So do nearly all games that utilize SDL.  Are there really that many compelling DirectX titles out there?  I think the "Windows for gaming" mantra is quickly becoming dated. 

 

[fanny]

 Also, I've developed a Quake2 client for GNU/Linux and FreeBSD called Quetoo[1] specifically targeted at (among other things) raw speed.

[1] http://jdolan.dyndns.org/trac/wiki/Quetoo

Gratuitous Advertising

[Jay Dolan]

Hehe   Well, he did ask about running Quake2 fast and on Linux..

[X'tyfe]

iv heard that running quake2 on linux is fast
but its a bitch to get going, and isnt alot of choice on newer clients

id highly suggest dual booting aswell if you absolutly need linux

[Jay Dolan]

Wait, so.. you've never even run GNU/Linux, but you'd strongly suggest dual booting ...because you enjoy spreading FUD? 

[FirebirdTN]

Well, I definately am going to give linux a go.  Its NOT because of Q2 performance.  There are other factors; mainly 1)  I feel I *NEED* to learn it.  My prediction maybe wrong, but I feel that while Microsoft may never be overthrown as the most popular Desktop OS, I feel that in the next few years, Linux popularity is going to EXPLODE.

I don't know, maybe my thoughts are unique, and maybe I am actually one of a few that feel this way.  But where I work, I wasn't hired to do computers.  Matter of fact I didn't know a THING about PCs when I was hired (1997).  I grew up with a commodore 64 though.

Anyway, fast forward to today.  After countless years experience with Microsoft products, I am really starting to dislike some of their practices.  I won't go into detail, but its been enough for me to wish there was an alternative.  Fact is though, EVERYBODY runs Microsoft products.

Well, I don't know how I stumbled onto it, but I found a program called "OpenOffice".  Now, I have had a bug here and there, but its mostly compatible with Microsoft Office documents.  How sweet; so I started replacing out M$ Office with OOorg.

Then I realize that OOo runs on Linux as well.  Got to thinking, wait a minute; if OOo, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc all run on Linux, then after a while whats to stop me from upgrading from XP to Linux on most all our systems?  If our employees are already familiar with those programs, what difference does the OS make?  In my mind, the broader the Linux software base is; especially software that people are already using now, the more you have to ask yourself, why keep giving money to M$?

Its my take on it anyway.  This coming from a 100% windows user.  I haven't even started to play with Linux yet.

-Alan

[Jay Dolan]

You will encounter bumps in the road here and there.  And not everyone likes change -- even if it is for the better.  So be prepared to cope with those few problem web sites out there that require IE6.  Anticipate the odd .doc attachment that OOo doesn't render correctly.  And be mindful of the few Windows apps that some organizations really do require (Quickbooks comes to mind).  But in general, you will save time and money migrating to Free software.  And you may just have better peace of mind.

[X'tyfe]

Wait, so.. you've never even run GNU/Linux, but you'd strongly suggest dual booting ...because you enjoy spreading FUD? 

iv used linux, even from the little experience i had. i found it to be alot harder than windows
doesnt mean that its better or worse

gotta love the linux fanbois 

[Jay Dolan]

iv used linux, even from the little experience i had. i found it to be alot harder than windows
doesnt mean that its better or worse

gotta love the linux fanbois 

Read:  I installed Fedora once and gave up after 30 minutes because it was different than what I was used to.

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it -- poorly.
--Henry Spencer

 

[X'tyfe]

iv used both mandriva and ubuntu

for a month at the most, just cant be arsed to setup something that im not going to use
did learn alot though  which why i installed in the first place