Linspire To Run Windows Games

Ken writes "Aviran's Place reports that Linspire and TransGaming released Cedega for the Linspire desktop Linux operating system, allowing Linspire users to play hundreds of popular Windows-format games right out of the box."

Comments

Portability

[SadPenguin]

Not a linspire fan, but i think its about time someone's thinking this way. Portability is key for widespread acceptance, and I like cedega, because in my experience, it works.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see games run natively under Linux. Cedega is a discouragement.

Re:Portability

[eno2001]

Hmmm... I got Cedega and was still unable to play Riven or Uru. I also noticed they aren't on the list of games people want to play. But... I want to play them.

Re:Portability

[Zemrec]

Exactly. I've tried Cedega/WineX on-and-off for about 3 years or so. Sometimes it'll play the games I want to play, but most of the time not. And even when it is working, its sporadic, and like you mention, only a selected subset of games actually work.

For this reason only, I keep a PC with WinXP for games.

Re:Portability

[toggles]

heh, I paid good money for Cadega to play bf1942, which is in their list of supported games, it was totally unplayable, they lied so I canned my subscription and wont be going back.

Re:Portability

[menkhaura]

Roger that. If there is no need to write native games for Linux, then why bother? The performance penalty will be high, Linux gaming will be slow and painful, and people will say: "Look at that Linux thingie, it's slow, it's incompatable [sic], it's hard to use...". Should more software houses follow iD Software's example, using open standards (OpenGL anyone?), portability would be dead easy, code would be better written, Linux gamers would have more options, and these soft houses would have faithful customers (I wouldn't have bought Doom 3 if it didn't run on Linux, and it runs smooth; now I know that iD respects its Linux customers, and I buy anything Linux they make)

Re:Portability

[pyser]

If there is no need to write native games for Linux, then why bother?

This is one of the things that killed the mass-marketability of OS/2. Since it would run Windows 3.1 apps, there was little need to provide a higher-performance OS/2-native version. Most apps written for OS/2 were excellent performers (e.g. DeScribe), but the market was too small to be viable.

Re:Portability

[hal2814]

"If there is no need to write native games for Linux, then why bother?"

Like you said, the "performance penalty will be high" for WINE games. Users might be willing to give up a bit of gaming performance in exchange for some of the perks of running Linux. I'd wager that the spyware alone on some systems outweigh the perfomance lost through running WINE. Also with Linux you can (though most people don't) run a lightweight WM to further increase gaming performance.

The way I see it, things like WINE will at least make it less scary for people to try Linux. If people at least try it, they might see that it's a pretty decent OS. That would lead to more people adopting it as their primary OS. When that happens, software developers will take the time to make Linux-native versions of their software.

Re:Portability

[eeg3]

That's what you get for not conforming to societies typical game list. Play DOOM 3, Quake, or Everquest... OR ELSE!

Re:Portability

[Minwee]

But always remember to wait two weeks after any expansion or graphics update before playing.

Re:Portability

[Khuffie]

If people at least try it, they might see that it's a pretty decent OS.

Linux has one major hurdle to overcome. It's not the interface, as Gnome/KDE are pretty user friendly, but this: installing programs. I'm a pretty savvy computer user (for windows/ os x), but I've never had any luck running Linux. Using the default set of programs that come with your distribution is fine, but when trying to get anything else installed is a nightmare. Most programs require using the terminal, apt-get or, dare I say it, compile from sources. Until Linux has the ability to just download a file, double click it and install (for all distros, not just one), it'll still be out of reach for regular users. Just my 2 cents.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

or, dare I say it, compile from source

Yes because ./configure, make, make install, is so difficult. :rolls-eyes:

Re:Portability

[rainman_bc]

I'm with you.

Not to sound like a windows zealot, but I actually like the that required libs are included with an installer. I know it causes installer bloat, however that bloat makes installation a breeze.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

I find apt-get or emerge much easier that the windows-way. You only have to say... hey computer, install this program for me. You don't even have to surf the web looking for your program. Apt-get/emerge will do that for you. Can it be easier?

Re:Portability

[RemovableBait]

What you say is very true, but some of the new Debian based distributions (most notably Ubuntu) are beginning to get closer to the ideal when it comes to package management. The APT (.DEB) package manager is coming on leaps and bounds, largely due to the Synaptic user interface for apt-get. Synaptic fits the user friendly requirement: you click search, enter your wish, click go, pick the software you want and click 'Apply'. Synaptic automatically downloads the software, reads the headers, resolves dependencies (sometimes by automatically downloading required libs), and installs the software. The program then appears in the Applications menu in the correct category, with a nice icon.

This is a major step forward for Linux, in that the terminal is not required and the dependencies are resolved for you (it was a real pain trying to get out of an unresolvable chain of dependencies, sometimes you ended up installing loads of large library packages just to get a little app to run). This method has only a few drawbacks: you are ultimately limited to the software in the repository -- if apt-get can't find it, you can't install it with Synaptic; you also need to search for the software you want... you can't just browse the web, download and install on a whim.

While this is about the best we have so far, the number of available packages is increasing daily. If you haven't tried Linux for a while, give Ubuntu a go (you can use it without messing up Windows by using a Live CD here or installing it inside a Windows virtual machine like VMware Workstation: you can get a 30-day trial here).

Give it a go, good luck and enjoy

:)

Re:Portability

[LWATCDR]

The other thing is that you will not have that big of a performance hit using wine.
Wine is not an emulator. Adds the windows API to Linux.

Re:Portability

[SavvyPlayer]

Within the next, say 12 months we should have a 3rd choice: Running windows alongside linux via Xen on a dual-processor machine (http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenFaq#head-fcb 85a149da66907086cc8ba4f0793ad01769b92).

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the few Loki games I bought worked WAY better in Linux than in Windows (dual-boot machine, so same hardware). The fact that the Linux games would still run w/o working sound was a complete bonus.

Try installing a game after removing your sound card's drivers in Windows...

As far as OpenGL, who offers support equivalent to what Microsoft can/might/will do with a developer house having issues with DirectX?

Re:Portability

[AvitarX]

It is possible to have stuff install easy though.

NVIDIA drivers are real easy on Linux and on any platform I have tried.

Having a download that runs a script that unzips and configures makes etc should be easy.

For programs I have downloaded it is very rare to need a dependancy that is not in the system already. What distros need to do is install the developer libraries by default and then installing from source can be made as easy as a wizard in Windows, or copying a .dmg

Also from what I am hearing there will be problems with compatablility between OSX.3 and OSX.4+ so similar problems to fragmented distros will arise.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with open standards is that there are so few. OpenGL is definitely not a gaming standard, Linux' video codec management system is, from what I hear, not at all unified like DShow and VFW.
What Linux needs to do is make an openDirectX...
Or at least make a wrapper library that doesn't just route calls to OpenGL!

Re:Portability

[Uncle Jimmy]

You're going about it the wrong way though. On Windows, you generally find an app, download and install it. On (most) Linux (distros) you should get your apps from the distro's repository.

It takes a bit to get used to - my first RedHat installs years ago ended up pretty messed up from grabbing RPMs from all over the place. Now I just see something, drop to a terminal and apt-get install it (or you can fire up Synaptic for a GUI).

Re:Portability

[Trelane]

You should try installing Unreal Tournament 2004. Pretty GUI install--even under Linux!

I ask myself again and again why vendors keep including these ancient installers for Linux, but have pretty, shiny installers for Windows. The stuff is there--InstallShield, for example. They should frelling use it . End rant.

Re:Portability

[Khuffie]

I actually like Ubuntu. By far the best Linux distro there is (for linux newbs anyway). Its userfriendly and nice. And while the Synaptic app manager is pretty damn nifty and a step in the right direction, its still not as easy as going online, finding a program and installing it. You sort of have to know what you're looking for in Synaptic. And I'm actually looking for a decent PC laptop that I can install Ubuntu on a partition; I can't part with my main PC (i'd never boot out of Windows to run Linux for fun), but a secondary laptop would be fun.

Re:Portability

[meloman]

You're right! It's SO hard to type a simple command. The terminal is very scary! People just want to double-click and never have to type anything! "rpm -ivh something.rpm" or "apt-get install something" or "urpmi something" thats SO hard to remember and to type! Sometimes I think computers, like cars, should require a licsence to operate...

Re:Portability

[Khuffie]

And elitist users like you don't help either. Firstly, apt-get works in Debian, and RPMs in Redhat mostly. There needs to be a universal method of installing programs, and not having a different way for different distributions. Besides, presumably you'd like to see Linux become more popular, no? It'd need to be easy. Regular folk aren't gonna go to the terminal. They're not gonna remember commands like apt-get.

Oh. And you know, using apt-get, you have to *know* what this "something" is. And not just that, but what version it is you're installing. And that its available in the repository. So no. Its far from ideal, no matter what you think.

Re:Portability

[xRobx]

Wow, and your pretty clueless.

Re:Portability

[pembo13]

You do realise this isn't some Windows feature, and that anyone can write an installer for any OS, right?

Re:Portability

[pAnkRat]

"Besides, presumably you'd like to see Linux become more popular, no?"

I think you presume falsly.
Many of "us" linux veterans don't see linux as a end it all world domination solution.
It is _the_ solution for my problems and work needs.
_You_ would have less headaches if you would use it too.
But I'm not going to shove it down your throat.
I know that quality will prevail, but it might take a few years.
That's ok, I've got tons of time for the rest of the world to realise their errors :-)

BTW:
Many of the "simple" wishes like "having one way to instal software on all distro's" might look like a good idea, and not to difficult to do.

Same goes for "have an software installation piggyback all it depencies"

There are some real good thechnical reasons for both these things being the way it is.
But to recognise this you must look under the hood.
Not everybody likes doing that, and not every body should bother trying, that's ok.

But if your engineer says "No, this way is better in the long run." you better accept it, or look for some other Distro/OS.

Not listening to the engineers, but doing what the sales/advertisig departments thinks is a good idea is exactly what windows got where it is today: a dead end.

Re:Portability

[Jarlsberg]

True. I've used computers since the dawn of the micro, and I still find Linux/Unix to be a bear to use. It's not that I dislike the complexity and the ability to fine tune the OS to your heart's desire, but it's far from perfect.

After setting up a computer for Linux a few years back, I've slowly gained enough experience to use it effectively, mostly through the command shell and using VI as editor (hey, the Amiga's Ed is a cousin of VI, so at least that one was familiar to me), so I have no problems using a Linux computer today, but then, I'm not a "regular" Joe Blow/Sixpack/whatever user anymore. Whenever I show my Linux setup to my wife, she just snorts in contempt at her inability to do things that are a snap in Windows. There's no fault to Linux or the computer, but it's not very user friendly.

Re:Portability

[Jarlsberg]

You're right! It's SO hard to type a simple command. The terminal is very scary! People just want to double-click and never have to type anything! "rpm -ivh something.rpm" or "apt-get install something" or "urpmi something" thats SO hard to remember and to type! Sometimes I think computers, like cars, should require a licsence to operate...

The shell console *is* very scary for a lot of people. Yes, people want to double click a file to install it, not open the console, find the file and type rpm -somethingsomething /wheresthefile/something.rpm. It *is* hard to remember, and it *is* easy to get it wrong.

You'd like a licence? Sure. You'd probably like it if we went back to the main frame. You could wear a nice, white coat and all, and people would queue to your desk for a moment of your time.

Re:Portability

[aug24]

It's a chicken and egg problem, and there are two ways to break the loop.

In order to justify the provision of Linux versions of games, the bean-counters need to see a user-base they can sell to. In order to get a user-base we need games that run on Linux.

Your only solution is to hassle them for OpenGL versions. TransGaming's solution is to enable Linux gaming. So long as that OS choice is *visible* to the game companies, it should work - at any rate, work just as well as hassling.

I think I know which option will convince the beancounters. Incidentally, my gaming friends say they would use use Linux if they could, as their 'doze boxes crap out regularly during LANs. I also don't think the performance penalty need be high, but I could be wrong, there may be some fundamental reason I'm not aware of.

Justin.

Re:Portability

[KlausBreuer]

Well, you could place the Linux game on a boot CD.
This would fire up something like Kylix, and immediately start the game - perhaps using the HD (or an USB stick) to store save games, settings, and the like.

This would allow beginners to simply pop the CD into the drive, boot the PC, and play.

And the Linux people would simply install the game itself on Linux (using the script provided).

The only problem I see (and which game companies are going to whine uselessly over) is the copy protection. You can forget it, and that may be a big problem for them. They still haven't understood that copy protection only annoys the people who actually buy the game.

Re:Portability

[Dext]

When you began using a computer it was probably on windows, you spent some time moving the mouse around, clicking on stuff, pressing next a bunch of times with out reading anything. that appeared to work and you thought "wow this computer stuff isn't so hard". you assumed that since Microsoft made it, it much be the best cause "Hey they are MS they know stuff". 1 year later (assuming you haven't had to reformat because your MS product broke, or let you break it.) your still using the same version of win-zip and win-amp or whatever it is you use, Even though new versions of the software have been out for months with new features you would probably like (but your don't even know they exist). The only typing you do is when you email your grandmother or instant message someone (and since you never took the time to learn to type it takes your forever to hunt and peck).

Then one day you hear about this magic thing called Linux, and thinking that your the computer master since you helped your grandmother install AOL, and are just so good at the video games you play that it should be easy. You don't take 5 mins to learn the first thing about Linux and just ASSUME that you should be able to double click everything just like in windows. Well this isn't windows, this is Linux and you shouldn't use it probably unless 1. you use it at work and your sysadmin sets it all up to be easy, or 2. you are willing to take 10 mins to do a little reading (all of which is free on the Internet) and learn a little bit about your distro.

THE POINT!
If your not willing to spend a little time learning how to use your system, THEN YOU WONT BE ABLE TO USE IT. RTFM..

and if thats to hard for you heres a hint.

apt-cache search whatever
apt-get install whatever

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

and the most important of all
man program-name

Re:Portability

[Khuffie]

Wow. Way to assume things right out of your ass. For your info I started out with the C64, and later DOS, so no pointing and clicking and moving the mouse around for me. And no, I've never had to reformat because my "MS product broke", but I reformat every year to get a fresh start (i install random programs to test em out and never bother uninstalling. and formating gives you that "new computer" feel.) And yes, I reformat my OS X machine too.

And I've heard about Linux for ages before installing it, and I knew it was complex. And I'm not a computer moron like you make me out to be, but I'm usually the goto guy to fix problems with other peoples computers (drivers/hardware/viruses, etc). I never assumed I could double click everything just like in Windows. Im saying Linux should take hints from Windows ease of use in getting things done. I've tried many distros (Red Hat, Mandrake, Fedora, others and by far my fave is Ubuntu) and none of them are that user friendly. And I did some reading, and even if its free, most of it is aimed at people who are familiar with Linux/UNIX.

And yes. Running "apt-get install blah/blah-randomversion.0.3.3.4" is something everyone's gonna know.

Also, virtually every Windows program I can think of notifies you when its upgraded. And guess what I do? Disable those notifications. I don't care that Winamp has updated to another point release, if it works fine, why the feck should I bother upgrading? And how is running apt-get update any better? You still have to do the physical act of typing that command when you know there's an update, not that it updates itself like you seem to indicate it should (or that Windows doesn't).

Re:Portability

[Dext]

ugh get a grip man, my rant was not directed at you personaly, i dont know a thing about you. it was directed more at people in general who think that linux should be the same as windows. you may know a lot more than the general person i was refuring to. but a lot of people are like that.

just a note on updating. apt-get update/upgrade is meant for updating yoru entire system, fixing possible bugs and vulnerabilitys as well as installing new versions. you can run it your self once a week/month/whenever or you could automate it with a simple cron job. if your keeping your systems up to date you are asking for problems

Re:Portability

[finiteSet]

Downloading, double-clicking and installing Windows software is "out of reach" for most of the computer novices I know. Finding the proper installer is not always trivial, especially when companies push users towards a pay version and hide the free installer. After downloading, some novices have difficulty determining where the file went. And finally, many get confused by the options presented during the install (though clicking accept, next, and okay until your fingers bleed is a fairly reliable route). I've talked many novices through installs on the phone, and it can be very tedious.

On the other hand, I set Gentoo Linux up on my sister's machine. When she wants something installed, I call her up and say: "open a konsole, type su -, enter password, type 'emerge xyz'". It takes all of 20 seconds of phone time, and then whisks her off to a long install. Furthermore, this is a consistant interface for installing a new program (as opposed to going to different pages on different websites, downloading different files (zip,exe...),etc.) All you change is the name of the program you want to install.

Yes, long installs are annoying, but its pretty easy to compile during the night. Yes, it can go horribly wrong, but so can Windows installs. (Countless times novices have called me up and said, "oh this wouldn't work, it popped up some error message, I forget what"). And for updating the whole system? "emerge world" is many, many times more convient than going to 50 websites to check if the software/drivers/etc have updates, downloading each individually, double clicking each manually, and so on.

As the tech support guy for way too many friends and family, I wish they all had access to a package management system. Sure, installation on Linux isn't ideal, but in my experience, its a hell of a lot more convenient than Windows.

Re:Portability

[Deusy]

I've found programs packaged using Autopackage to install pretty nicely on my Gentoo box [which surely has to be one of the more diverse Linux environments].

Perhaps we, as a community, just need to be more vocal in our support for a common standard that embraces all distributions like Autopackage, or OpenPKG, or the other cross-distro install options out there.

Re:Portability

[__aamkky7574]

I love the irony of someone, complaining about users who think commands are hard to type, putting a typo in their post. As long as there's zealots like this around who want to keep Linux knowledge to the high priests, Bill G has little to worry about. P.

Re:Portability

[meloman]

I never said I want to keep Linux knowledge for the high priests. I'm just saying it's not that hard to learn the command to install a package with your distribution. Once you know it, you can install whatever you want. You don't have to be a Unix Guru! ...and for the typo, I have one thing to say : english is not my first language so I don't think it means I don't know how to type and that the "Windows Click-O-Rama / You-Don't-Need-To-Use-Your-Brain-Anymore" is the perfect solution! In my opinion, when the average Windows user install something, he click "Next-next-next-next", don't read any warning or error pop-up, he's not too sure what he's just done, and now he's complaining he has spywares and visruses. As long as there's zealots like this around who want to keep the spywares and viruses on their toy-OS, Linus T has little to worry about. :)

Re:Portability

[__aamkky7574]

I'm just saying it's not that hard to learn the command to install a package with your distribution.

You're right; it's not hard to learn one command. But to use Linux, you have to learn how to use dozens, probably hundreds of commands, many of them with parameters (and many of those parameters are annoyingly irregular). In essence, it's like trying to learn a new irregular language, and it's easy to forgive people if they feel they don't have the time.

If command-line Linux is a new language, Windows could be compared to one of those fridge magnet poetry sets, where at least the available language is laid out in from of you.

Command line tools can be very powerful - I'm just using grep today (using XLiveCD on Windows for a UNIX environment) to process game dialog files. Powerful, but incredibly frustrating (\. is the literal character ".", while \t is a tab character. Go figure.)

P.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true, but only for Gentoo. Loads of other distros have much crappier and more annoying package managers. And getting a novice to install it themselves (though I've never gone through any but the second stage install (didn't want to bother compiling the kernel since I wanted to have it sometime that day on an 800MHz P3)) is going to be a veritable feat of magic. Not to mention the problems that can arise from "world" updates and the like, which (in some cases, like my world comp) can break gcc and gtk and then disallow you to fix it. And if they can't do it themselves, then they'll undoubtedly have many problems using the OS in general. I agree though, a good package manager like Portage for Windows would be cool.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is wholly untrue. No program under linux under any distro installs with an easy single command. By the way, not all distro's use RPM.

Listen, this is the world of click, drag, and drop. Stop trying to hold Linux back to the world of the command line. Most definitely the command line is in the minority. STOP HOLDING LINUX BACK!!!!

After 2.5 years of using linux I can guarantee every single solitary soul that was ever born and that will ever be born that at this point in history, for the average Joe, nothing is easily installed in linux using the current systems, aside from the most simplistic of programs. Any program of substance requires significantly more work than typing simple command line entries.

Why do friggen people keep trying to perpetuate this baseless untruth?

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

These are incorrect analogies. You can't compare dependency and repository issues with availability of free software. They are apples and oranges.

Linux doesn't hold the lock and key on free software. There's plenty of it for Windows users.

I have used linux for 2.5 years now and I have looked at many distros. There are no good installers for Linux ATM.

Why do people keep trying to hold linux back? Why is it they insist that doing the way it is being done is the best, or only way it should be done?

The problem with package management systems are extremely clear to anyone paying attention.

1) packages for a single program can be reproduced a hundred times or more for various distros or versions of a distro, so the problem with finding exactly what you want is much more difficult than just double clicking on an icon and clicking next.

2) each time the package is reproduced it is almost never reproduced by the person that created the software. As a result it could be reproduced in error.

3) There is too great a chance that there are so many versions of the same program for one distro that one may not be able to correctly identify which one is the latest and most correct for their distro release.

Take for example gstreamer. Under FC3 it is an old version that is released on the CDs. The repositories for FC3 have more recent versions but still out of date versions. Only going to the gstreamer homepage can you get the correct version and they have packages created specifically for many distro which you have to add a reference to your apt-get repository lists just to install them.

4) The distros may not hold what you are looking for. You are at the mercy of those, and their free time, in order to obtain the packages you want. So, you could be looking for months or more before you find what you wanted in that repository. Only the favorites get in there. There are times when the distro goes down or moves and the mirrors are no help.

5) You end up with a shopping mall of programs that become your interface. For example, synaptic. From distro to distro the interface changes (albeit not drammatically, but enough).

6) Repositories rely on high speed internet access which the vast majority of the world doesn't have access to.

7) Not all dependencies are resolved to the latest versions.

8) Dependencies can add a large amount to your download even for simple programs.

I haven't even begun to touch on the esoteric reasons. These are straight-forward reasons that everyone must at least have come to understand from just using Linux and trying to install programs on the day to day.

Most of the average Joe or Jane population don't have someone holding their hands like your family.

There's no reason to say that Linux has to be different because when push comes to shove or click comes to double-click these GUIs operate the same. The fundamental of the OS are the same (file systems, drivers, all the hardware, keyboard/mouse input, pictures, listboxes, scroll bars, icons representing this or that, browsers, terminals, the raison d'etre for software (to draw, to write, to calculate, to chat)). The OS exists for the same reason for the same people as every other OS. There's no reason to try to make Linux different (especially package installation), when, if you really wanted to make it different you would do it in other ways. Trying to differentiate Linux based on software installation methodologies is fatalistic. You can't adopt an OS that is the same in all other regards as all other OSes and then claim you are different because your software is installed differently. I'm sure there are many other ways you can make linux unique instead of strapping the hands of the average user when they want an easier method of application installation.

Re:Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this is the kind of attitude that gets things done! ...Eventually. I'm just saying it's not that hard to learn the procedures involved in building a PC to your satisfaction. Once you know it, you can build one to do whatever you want. You don't have to be a Computer Scientist! ...and because somebody once criticized my spelling, it doesn't mean that I don't know how to use my PC and that Purchasing-One-Prebuilt-So-You-Don't-Use-Your-Brai n-Anymore is the perfect solution! In my opinion, when the average user buys a PC, he presses all the different buttons, don't read any warning or error pop-up, he's not too sure what he's just done, and he's complaining he has spywares and visruses. As long as there's zealots like this around who want to keep their spanners and ratchets away from their toy-PC, Dell has little to worry about. :)

Most Importantly...

[nxtr]

Does it play Solitaire?

Re:Most Importantly...

[Jonny_eh]

I'm pretty sure that the original wine plays Windows' solitaire.

You may have been joking, but I'm not.

Re:Most Importantly...

[AKAImBatman]

Yes.

Even if it didn't, sol is an excellent replacement.

Re:Most Importantly...

[skiman1979]

I prefer the version of Solitaire that comes with Windows RG ;-) http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php

Re:Most Importantly...

[WarmBoota]

Actually, pysol (Windows Build Python Source) plays any solitaire version you've seen on Windows and dozens more!

Re:Most Importantly...

[HG Slashdot]

No... But not to fear Linspire has sponsored the development of LSolitaires.

Windows just isn't that expensive

[Nom du Keyboard]

You know, Windows just isn't that expensive. Chances are, due to the (I would think illegal, but no one seems to care what I think) per-processor bundling of Windows, you probably already have a copy for your box. So just boot into Windows to play your game, and then return to Linux afterwards. It's likely to run faster this way anyway.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Shrapn3l]

I agree. Why buy more software for Linux (which is supposed to be mainly open-source) and run Windows programs like Wine? Why not use an actual Windows environment?

Still, though, I'd love to play Madden 2005 on my Linux. It just sounds so forbidden. :)

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[angrist]

Thats not the point...

I don't want to have to reboot to play a game.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[qewl]

http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20020531/windows _gaming-06.html

Yes, actually it is about half the speed on Linux. But I still think it will become faster. I also think Wine/CVS may catch up to WineX/Cedega in a year or so. After all, the real goal is to not have to leave Linux for atnything.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Ghostx13]

Actually, in my experiance (KOTOR I & II, WoW) games run faster and with fewer crashes (again for the games I've played). I had nearly constant mouse issues with KOTOR I under Windows; mouse not moving correctly, double clicks when a button was only single clicked, etc. Never once did I have one of those problems under Cedega. I also got higher frame rates under Cedega for all games mentioned, and was able to run WoW at higher settings than under Windows.

Bottom line: I really have NO reason to use Windows now. At home at least. I've not been able to get Remedy (ticketing system) to work fully under Cedega yet...

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how many share this experience, but for me, there's a number of games that run _faster_ with Cedega that on Windows.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[mrchaotica]

1. I build all my own desktops, and my laptop is a Mac. Hence, I don't already have a copy of Windows.
2. Windows is not cheap; it's ~$200 retail.
3. Even if I wanted to spend the money, I sure as hell don't want to sell my soul to the Windows Activation scheme!
4. Why should I have to reboot my desktop -- which has an uptime of several months -- just to play a game?
5. Actually, some games run faster under Wine than they do natively. Besides, as long as it's "fast enough" I don't really care if it could be a little faster on Windows.
6. The way to combat the illegal bundling isn't to bend over and take it, but to refuse to submit.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[eno2001]

Since 1994, I've only bought two systems with Windows. The rest came with no OS. That's typical for the majority of Slashdotters. Why buy from someone like HP or Dell, when you can build a better system for less yourself and load up a better OS (Linux or one of the BSDs)? I currently have one machine that runs Windows here at home. Just one. And it's almost always booted into Fedora Core 3. The reason for the Windows installation is that I still like Sony's Vegas video editor better than anything I've seen on Linux. Other than that, there's not a whole lot of reason to buy Windows anymore.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Windows is *not* cheap, unless you pirate it. MS is currently taking a large margin of every single computer sale. As the prices of computers fall, the share going to MS becomes more and more untolarable.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Drako2]

OK, that article is from 2002. Winex or Cedega is on version 3.2 now, that article is from version 2.

Speaking from experience, depending on the application speed loss is hardly noticable in most of the games I run (including World of Warcraft, Warcraft III, others).

I don't like the inconvenience of having to reboot. For me it's as simple as that. I use Wine with the D3D patches over cedega whenever possible, for obvious reasons, but both of them perform well now-a-days.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[The Infamous Grimace]

I don't want to have to reboot to play a game.

Why not use virtualization?

(tig)

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Okay - fair enough
2. Slight overestimation, but okay
3. Blah blah blah, good linut FUD there buddy
4. OMG I LEAVE MY COMP ON 24/7 !!!11- I'm da 1337 sauce :-/
5. Any examples of these magical games that run faster with emulation overhead?
6. Or maybe realize Windows is still better for gaming and normal people?

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[packetl0ss]

Doesn't virtualization require more CPU power than just booting into the actual O/S to play the same game? Some people barely meet the minimum requirements to play some games, but play it fine in Windows. Virtualize that and you might not have enough CPU power to actually play the same games on their machines.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[dadragon]

Why should I have to reboot my desktop -- which has an uptime of several months -- just to play a game?

Why does uptime matter?

Other than that, I agree with you, though when I build desktops for people, I usually buy an OEM version of XP Pro, as Home annoys me, then I just use a premade install image that I made when I was bored one day, set it up, and reseal it. Works great :) They are the one who has to activate it, not me.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[nolife]

Linux is open source. That does not mean every and all applications have to be. If there is a demand and people will pay for it, it will sell. On the flip side, I can run open source software on Windows. Why should I use open source on Windows when I can buy and use closed souces, after all, the OS is closed source? That agruement does not make sense, just as yours does not.

Why not use an actual Windows environment?
IMHO, if Linux is meeting an acceptable % of your daily computing needs, it is not convienent to run and support another OS for the other small % you may need if you don't have to. A lot of people are past the tipping % point with Linux.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[swv3752]

It actually depends. There is or at least was a 50 fps cap on OpenGL rame rates because of user space design issues of Wine and X. I think those have been resolved but not sure. Many programs run in Wine have an actual speed increase as the translation of win32 calls to compatible glibc calls via Wine has a negligible performance hit and Linux is that much better at resource management. Now somethings do get very porr performance in Wine, so it just depends.

It is not that Wine engenders a preformance penalty, but whether a program is completely compatible with Wine.

For those unaware, Cedega is a fork of the Wine project much like CrossOver Office.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the article you pointed to dates back to more than 3 years ago, and things have probably improved since...

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a more accurate resource. Anyone?

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Winex or Cedega is on version 3.2 now, that article is from version 2.

WineX (now known as Cedega) is currently at version 4.3.2.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[mrchaotica]

Uptime matters for a couple of reasons: First, I'm usually running a file server, and I might want to sftp something remotely. Second, I like to be able to sit down and start using the computer immediately, without waiting for it to boot up.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is 3 years old. Has WineX / Cedega not improved at all since then?

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[IntergalacticWalrus]

I hope you're just kidding, or really ignorant. There's no virtualization solution out there that's even close to be somewhat usable for games.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[swv3752]

Depending on your skill at searching online, you can find Windows OEM for about $75. You could always go with Win2k though that is about to be eoled. The rest of your points are still valid, and the cost of windows is greater than zero regardless.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[kayak334]

I guess the real question here is...

Why not? Rebooting WinXP on a system with a 2GHz or greater CPU and a 7200rpm hard drive takes approximatly 3min.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

'So just boot into Windows to play your game, and then return to Linux afterwards'

Cant fault that logic, that's how it works for me.
I have a disk caddy (don't even keep windows on the same disk as my work machine OS) which lets me swap into 'games mode' in the evening. I dont even protect it with virus scanners and Norton etc, because the whole thing is built from a great image
that just gets dd to the partition, so it takes like twenty minutes to completely rebuild my windows games setup with all my fave games installed. Every few weeks I dub over a fresh image just to be on the safe side/ If I want to install a new a game then start from a fresh image, while offline install a new game and
grab a new image of the partition.
Most mornings I just pull out the caddy, put in my serious (Linux) disk and start work.

Discovering Linux wasn't just a technical revolution in my life, it was psychological/cultural one. Windows, to me, is all about those pointless stupid timewasting things I used to do with my computer, like play games, chat etc. Sure sometimes I want to do those things, which is the point of having a 'toy' computer. Keeping them separate breeds good discipline.

Basically what I'm saying is Linux is a serious operating system and Windows is an entertainments system. There's still room for both in my life at the moment.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Baloo Ursidae]

So just boot into Windows to play your game, and then return to Linux afterwards. It's likely to run faster this way anyway.

No. Debian system, 200GB disk, 1GB RAM, nv15 with 64MB, Athlon 2200+ running Vice City in Cedega runs cutscenes and plays the game with about twice the framerate the very same machine does running Windows.

Please actually know what you're talking about before demonstrating that you are, in fact, a moron.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting something. Its not just about the money, its about Microsoft Windows being shit.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Babbster]

And what does that have to do with anything against Windows? Despite the claims of some, Windows products (certainly 2000/XP) don't just spontaneously become unstable - something has to happen. Even if a particular game causes system instability serious enough to require a reboot (I should note that I haven't played one of those recently), all that would mean is running a reboot after running the game, leaving the computer still up afterwards for serving files and being available to start using immediately without waiting.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[fjf33]

But cedega will not help you. It only works on the x86. Maybe once the Apple finally moves to an x86 platform then you may be able to get wine/cedega for it. Now that would be a good way to go.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[hairyfeet]

I have a question-Why does it seem like everyone is trying to get their poor pc to do EVERYTHING?Computers are cheap.I have five-from a 233mhz up to a 2.6 ghz.The 233mhz has a voodoo 2 pci for running all the classic glide games,My 1ghz celeron makes a great net toaster and my 2.6ghz with dual dvd burners and a 128 meg geforce is a wonderful multimedia/fps game box. The point is this-If you want to run linux and be safe on the net(i run 2k myself and never been pwned)then why not simply have a seperate machine for games?With a wireless router you can even play online with any extra hassle(though i wouldn't trust my WinXP box to be loose on the net for the world)or better yet,get a PS2 or Xbox? Working in a pc repair shop i can tell you that trying to get a machine to be a office/game/internet/multimdeia box never works.And the average windows user doesn't have the time or energy to learn all the extra steps you'd need to make it run anyway. If you want to make great inroads on M$,Then linux should make a very easy to set up distro with all the office apps you'll ever need and,This is the most important and the reason most of the offices here use Win98 or Win2k or anything free,Come up with an office browser app that will interface ANY IE and activex site. Every business i've worked for has some app that is required for their business that the home office made using IE/ActiveX.And if You've dealt with any large corps you'll know that getting them to recode an office app that works,Even if it is crap,Is impossible.Now i haven't had a chance to try every distro out there so maybe there is one.If there is please let me know and i'll be happy to convert all those god awful Win98 boxes that i have to keep dehosing.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2241 &p=10

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Digital Pizza]

Not everyone wants to have an extra computer taking up precious space.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to hear about your loss, Be writing to me for the discounts on softeware

Windoze XP PROFESS1ON4L - $59
m$ OFFICE 20034 - $69

truckdriver recliner economy nuclear
spamsoft.org

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, your soul is very cheap

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Nom du Keyboard]

Debian system, 200GB disk, 1GB RAM, nv15 with 64MB, Athlon 2200+ running Vice City in Cedega runs cutscenes and plays the game with about twice the framerate the very same machine does running Windows.

Oh wow! I'm sarcastically impressed. I must take your word for this. You know, if a system like yours could run all Windows apps twice as fast as Windows itself there wouldn't be any more Windows! 2X performance gain with fully Windows compatibility would rule!

So allow me to express the belief that the whole story isn't being told here.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[sloanster]

Yeah, actually windows is that expensive - for starters, by the time you add in all the virus software, an office suite, etc, it gets pricey. but more importantly, if I have to take linux down to run a windoze app, that's a high price, since I lose the availability of all the linux services during the time the machine is in peecee mode with windows.

For that reason, I ony buy native linux games (ut2004, doom3, and of course RtCW, quake 3 arena, and the other OpenGL-based 3D FPS classics)

As far as speed goes, the benchmarks at Tom's hardware shows that linux runs the games as just fast as windows, despite the more complex GUI display system.

Sorry, I just can't see buying into the whole microsoft thing just to play a game. If the game is so good I have to play it, and it's not available natively on Linux, I'll buy a game console, problem solved!

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Shrapn3l]

Linux is open source. That does not mean every and all applications have to be.
While that is true, we need to remember that Linux is one of the "heroes" of OSS. The idea of selling software to run on an OSS software, while plausible (and legal), detracts from the spirit of OSS itself. We are not talking just "should I, should I not", but also "is this wise?" and "does this work with the idea, the spirit of OSS?".

On the flip side, I can run open source software on Windows. Why should I use open source on Windows when I can buy and use closed souces, after all, the OS is closed source? You are attempting to prove my statement false by proving its opposite to be false. "On" and "Off" are two different things. OSS is ON. Proprietary software is OFF. The idea of OSS is to have as many things ON as possible. Hence, Linux and other open-source applications and products. Of course we wouldn't want to buy proprietary software if we can get OSS that performs just as well, if not better! Claiming ON (Linux) implementing OFF (e.g. Cedega) is equivalent to OFF (Windows) implementing ON is incorrect. But it is a very interesting topic all the same.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[runderwo]

What "emulation overhead" are you speaking of? Games usually spend little to no time in the kernel. The rest would depend on the quality of the Win32 implementation and the toolchain it was compiled with.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

He said his *laptop* was a Mac, dipshit.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Mornelithe]

He was talking about having to reboot into Windows just to play games. It's a hassle.

Some of us, you know, actually enjoy using Linux, and it works well for us. We aren't running Linux because we're cheap or whatever. It's because it's better for our purposes. Having to go into Windows to play games is annoying (especially if it means you have to configure every server you run twice so you don't have downtime while you're in Windows), and a waste of time if you can do it in Linux, too.

But, please, continue to rant about how Windows is stable, if that makes you feel better.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[fjf33]

Reading comprehension not your strong skill uh?

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[The Infamous Grimace]

I hope you're just kidding, or really ignorant. There's no virtualization solution out there that's even close to be somewhat usable for games.

Chalk it up to ignorance. I'm not a gamer and use a Mac, so emulation has met all my Windows needs. I have a basic understanding of the difference between emulation and virtualization, and know games suck under emulation. But I am certainly am not so familiar that I would know games suck under virtualization as well, or why. If the virtualized OS has access to hardware, and games nowadays seem to rely on the GPU as much if not more so than the CPU, then where is the performance hit? Does the host OS really use up that many CPU cycles? Couldn't it be coded such that the host OS gets almost completely out of the way, and allows the virtualized OS almost complete control? A google of the topic returns some interesting articles, but none seem to address the gaming issue in any real detail.

(tig)

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[IntergalacticWalrus]

The virtualized OS has no direct access to hardware. VMWare does have USB tunnelling, but direct access to the video card would be basically impossible to do (how the hell would both OS "share" it? from a technical viewpoint it just can't be done)

A virtualisation software like VMWare is really just an emulator, only the CPU instructions run natively. Everything else is pure emulation.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Babbster]

No, actually I think you're the one misunderstanding, or justifying. He talked about "uptime" and that pretty clearly implied that Windows isn't capable of remaining stable for long periods of time without a reboot.

On your point of not wanting to switch between OSs, that's a very reasonable argument to make. If I did use Linux I'd be pretty resentful of having to dual-boot myself. But, that resentment would be about cost (paying for Windows just for gaming) and not about the TINY amount of time it would take to move from Linux to Windows when I wanted to boot a game. At that point, I'd be far more irritated by the ridiculous amount of time (for me, longer in all cases than it takes the OS to reboot) it takes most games to go from double-click to play.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Mornelithe]

"Why should I have to reboot my desktop -- which has an uptime of several months -- just to play a game?"

I don't see anywhere in his posts where he talks at all about Windows' ability to have long uptimes.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Proving that Windows users are still so used to rebooting, that they consider it a completely normal thing to do.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[The Infamous Grimace]

For years one of the biggest complaints regarding Virtual PC was its crappy graphics support. When Microsoft bought it from Connectix, there was talk that native graphics card support would be added, although it seems not to be the case at this time. What exactly is meant by native support, if not that the virtual machine has access to the graphics card? Couldn't graphics API calls be passed directly to the card? Most cards these days (AFAIK) support OpenGL to some extent at least; couldn't these calls be passed directly? Or does 'native support' simply mean that whatever card is in the computer is also emulated by the guest OS?
Does any of this make sense, or am I completely lost?

(tig)

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[spauldo]

Uptime doesn't matter for home systems, as long as it's reasonable. Windows 2000 and XP (if there's someone who can keep 'em updated and spyware-free) certainly meet those requirements.

However, to someone who has a sporadic workflow, rebooting is a nightmare. I can't reboot now; I've got twelve tabs open in mozilla, wings3d with a half-finished model in it, pan doing some downloading, a set of terminals open with the source code and reference docs to a program I'm working on, and a terminal with the stylesheet for my website open so I can experiment with new designs. I flit from one to the other when I get bored of working on one, but it's very, very rare that I don't have at least three things going on at once. Closing the programs would interrupt my thought process for them (strangely enough, as long as they're open and I visit them once a day, my workflow survives just fine).

Example: the program I'm working on has two terminals - one editing source code, one with an input file for the program. Three of the tabs are open to reference documentation for java. Another terminal is used when I finish a class and need to compile it and test it. This is spread across three desktops. Starting all that over again to reboot for a game would be a hassle, whereas switching to another desktop and starting up freeciv preserves everything for me.

Re:Windows just isn't that expensive

[op2hacker]

Right on with the open source philosophy. Going and buying Windows just shows that you are a supporter of closed-source, expensive, big-business bureaucracies. On the other hand, Linux is free, open, and is much more stable. If your Windows games run fine on an emulator, then use the emulator. (And I can count the games I play on Windows on one hand, none of them requiring exquisite 3d acceleration that you can only currently get in windows). However I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy Cedega was released, how you have to be a "subscriber" to TransGaming, $5 / month or $55 / year, just so you can download a closed-source program because you like the concept and stability of Linux. (Open-source) I'm sure people will download it illegally, or get it other ways without paying, but the software should be free in the first place. So it's a catch-22: Either use the closed source Windows OS (which you have to pay for), or use a closed-source emulator, Cedega, which you also have to pay for.

ongoing cost

[Laz7]

at 45USD a year, I think I will pass on that ...

Re:ongoing cost

[qewl]

Cedega/WineX is $15 for the minimal 3 month subscription which would get you all the precompiled binaries. Not too bad.

http://transgaming.org/subscription/subscribe.html

Re:ongoing cost

[darksider415]

I have to agree on that one. Personally, I believe that if you're going to do something of this nature, it should be in the spirit of Open Source, and the GPL, in that it should be free. I'm not looking to offend anyone, or to insult anyone. I just feel that if you're going to do this, on a Linux-based platform, it should be free. I, for one, am a proponent of such measures being taken on Linux, but there still needs to be work done, and it needs to be usable on all *nix platforms, instead of only Linspire. I'd really like to see a version for SuSE, but that's just because that's my distro of choice.

Re:ongoing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Cedega doesn't stop working when you unsubscribe, you just don't get new versions. So that means if you just want to get a version you would have to pay $15 and get all the updates for 3 months. You could buy a subscription once a year and spend only $15 a year, which is a lot less than most people spend on games.

Re:ongoing cost

[saider]

I wish my mortgage holder and grocer would get more into the spirit of Open Source.

Re:ongoing cost

[Moderator]

Good. Now port it to FreeBSD.

Re:ongoing cost

[n9uxu8]

Cedega runs fine on SuSE...and RedHat and just about any Linux distro out there..It's not bundled with most major distros because it's a for-profit fork of wine... Dave

Re:ongoing cost

[IntergalacticWalrus]

"You could buy a subscription once a year and spend only $15 a year, which is a lot less than most people spend on games."

Sadly, most people pirate all the computer games they play, so I can't say I agree with that statement.

Re:ongoing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue with the assertion that "most" people pirate "all" their games. Is that out of your butt or do you have facts? I would give you "some" people pirate "some" of their games, but anything beyond that = ass-talk.

Re:ongoing cost

[MHobbit]

Exactly.

One thing stopping people from switching to Linux is gaming; nearly all of the games are made for Windows (and some for Mac OSX). Programs like Cedega may be able to do this, but people would shy away from emptying their wallet just to get Cedega, which AFAIK isn't flawless in some games' cases. So, the natural course is to somehow make it free. Of course, the work put into Cedega may not deserve a pricetag of $0 or something less than $45, but it has (?) to be done.

Re:ongoing cost

[IntergalacticWalrus]

We must be living in different dimensions then. Except for a bunch of fellow Linux users, I don't personally know anyone who doesn't pirate all the software he uses.

Re:ongoing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly disagree. Linux needs commercial software. Why? First, commercial software builds Linux's legitimacy in the commercial world. Why is the commercial world important? Commercial = money, money = pay the bills. Hey, money is NECESSAR, even in the "free" software world: just ask any of those guys with a "Donate with Paypal" button on their site. Second, legitimacy grows support, such as drivers. Could Transgaming have something to do with the ongoing driver releases from nVidia and ATI? Probably, though how much is questionable. Linux needs drivers, and sometimes developing open source/free versions isn't practical.

IMO, the most important role of Linux is to eliminate the monopolistic lock-in of proprietary operating systems. Giving one company control of the very heart, the core, the foundation of your computer on which all software must be built, is extremely dangerous.

Re:ongoing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't kid yourself---Transgaming doesn't give a damn about Open Source. When the Wine project relicensed their code base from BSD to the LGPL, Transgaming forked so they could continue avoiding distribution of their DirectX 8 code. Also, they have repeatedly threatened to stop releasing any source code when Debian, Gentoo, and other packagers have expressed interest in including WineX/Cedega.

Re:ongoing cost

[Skye16]

Gamers do. No one wants to fight tooth and nail for hours/days to find a keygen that works. Why bother? Just buy the fucking game.

Now the OS, that's different. I don't know of anyone who has purchased that, aside from the guy who bought an Alienware nigh on 3 years ago. "Whoops", he said. "I'll never do that again."

Re:ongoing cost

[sanosuke76]

Hmm. Gamefly charges me $21 or so for a Netflix-style "two out at a time" rental of console games.

For me, I'll stick with Gamefly. I found that once subscribing to Gamefly, I stopped spending money on buying more games, hence spending much less per month.

Were I go to Cegeda... great, save $5 on the monthly rate, but gain the ability to spend more money on buying games. That's a type of game-crack I'd rather not start smoking.

I desire to keep the monthly game-crack bill small and manageable, thanks. :)

Re:ongoing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you'd be saving ~$16 per month. It's $5 per month, with the first 3 months up front.

And, you don't actually have to keep paying to keep using Cedega. You pay for access to download new versions.

Re:ongoing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about?

Cedega is a program that allows you to run Windows software (specifically, Direct X games) on Linux. You pay $5 a month to be able to download new versions, but you can spend as little as $15 total to get it.

Apparently, Gamefly is a game rental service.

You appear to be comparing the prices of the two services, which doesn't make any sense, because they're two completely different things.

Maybe you should lay off the "game-crack," it's rotting your brain.

Re:ongoing cost

[sanosuke76]

Actually, I got the $15 (incorrectly) from the promo where you pay a quarter in advance.

As for rental vs subscription-to-Cedega... you're not understanding my point.

With Gamefly, assuming you don't buy any games and just keep renting it - $21/mo, every month as a flat fee; no additional software costs.

With Cedega... $5/mo (I'd thought $15/mo by mis-reading earlier) + price-of-windoze-games. The math isn't as scary as I'd originally read it to be, but the price-of-windoze-games could prove fairly high.

I suspect that I spend less money per month with my Gamefly service, than with the new doors which Cedega would open. Currently, I run only Linux at home (with the exception of my PS2, which also has the linux kit) and keep my gaming costs contained to my monthly rental fee.

By going to Cedega, I'd be tempted to buy Starcraft and Alien vs Predator (the most recent Windoze games I actually enjoyed - yes, they're in the cheap bin now), and add in Farcry and Halflife 2, etc. I'd probably wind up spending roughly the same per month as my friends who game on Windoze, which is considerably more than I spend presently. To me, Cedega and re-opening the flood gates of purchasing games would probably prove to be a greater wallet-peril than a rental service.

Yes, I'm a cheapskate.

Affordable

[teiresias]

Kevin Carmony, president and CEO of Linspire, Inc. ..."Point2Play with Cedega is so easy and affordable, you'll be able to play Windows games on Linspire for less than it would cost to purchase a Windows system."

Cedega = $44.95
Game X = $40-50
Total = $80-95

Windows Home = $100~
Windows Pro = $130~
Windows Longhorn = Unknown

Makes sense to me.

Re:Affordable

[xENoLocO]

So you're saying $180 is less than $80? I'm assuming your post was sarcastic... Regardless, you forgot to tally the cost of the game + the windows system.

Re:Affordable

[cuerty]

You forgot that in Windows you too have to pay for Game X, so it will be something like: Windows Home = $100~ or Windows Pro = $130~ Game X = $40-50 Total between $140-180

Re:Affordable

[ravenspear]

You forgot the game price in your Windows numbers. You're not going to get the game free when you buy Windows (unless you pirate, but then you could do that for Linux too).

So it really is:

Windows Home = $100~
Windows Pro = $130~
Game X = $40-50
Total w/Windows Home = $140~$150
Total w/Windows Pro = $170~$180

Re:Affordable

[indros]

Cedega = $44.95
Game X = $40-50
Total = $80-95

Windows Home = $100~
Windows Pro = $130~
Windows Longhorn = Unknown

Makes sense to me.


Actually, you included the price of the game in the first estimate, but not the second. So, really, it would be:
Windows Home = $100~$130(Pro)
Game X = $40-50
Total =$150~($180)

Re:Affordable

[Curtman]

" So you're saying $180 is less than $80?"

No, I think he was saying that for less money, you can get Cedega and a game, maybe two. Buy Windows, and it costs you more, plus you still need games.

Re:Affordable

[Nos.]

If you're going to count the cost of the OS for Windows, you have to do it for the Linux side as well "Cedega with Point2Play requires Linspire Five-0" which according to the site is $99.00 new. Thus, we're now looking at $143.95 for the Linux way, or as you said, $100-$130 for the Windows.

Re:Affordable

[Cat_Byte]

But the Windows cost is a one time cost. Cedega is an annual cost I believe. It would be cheaper at first but would eventually surpass. I've tried cedega but some of the games that loaded had issues such as invisible buttons or lag. I love the idea though. It makes it possible to play a few games on my widescreen TV running Fedora and MythTV.

Re:Affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey buddy, did you know that you forgot to include the price of the game in your estimate? Let me spell out the exact math in very concise terms, while also pedantically yet tactfully correcting your ignorant mistake. Oh, God, give me some Slashdot karma for being the 9th person to point this out!!!

Re:Affordable

[d3bruts1d]

Everyone is getting it wrong. lol You've forgotten that you also have to buy Linspire.

Linspire: $49.95
Cedega: $44.95
Game X: $40-50
TOTAL: $134.90-144.90

If you really want to use Linspire, you also have to buy the CNR membership. So that would add another $49.95/year.

Now. Compared to Windows:
Windows XP: $100-$250 (Priced @ Amazon)
Game X: $40-50
TOTAL:$140-$300

Pricing Windows XP Home + Game could be cheaper than trying to run it on Linspire.... Though it could also be cheaper on Linspire than running on XP Pro. Upgrade vs Full install also have an impact on the Windows XP price.

Re:Affordable

[Curtman]

"But the Windows cost is a one time cost."

Maybe for you. For your average person, there's also a $60+ annual spyware/virus removal/detection charge. Then there's upgrades, which are included with Cedega.

I don't use Cedega at all though, Wine proper is plenty good for enough for my needs.

Re:Affordable

[mike260]

Windows is also an ongoing cost; the upgrades from 95->98->ME->2K->XP aren't free you know.

Re:Affordable

[pizen]

You're not going to get the game free when you buy Windows (unless you pirate, but then you could do that for Linux too).

In which case you're probably not buying Windows, either.

Re:Affordable

[Cat_Byte]

Bah I'll run 2K Pro for games until they pry it from my cold dead hands ;) Either that or when WINE starts working with all of my stuff. Then my journey to the dark side..er..linux will be complete.

Re:Affordable

[Quevar]

Cedega = $44.95
Game X = $40-50
Total = $80-95

Windows Home = $100~
Windows Pro = $130~
Windows Longhorn = Unknown

Playstation 2 = ~$120
PS 2 Game X = $20-$50

You don't have to reboot and one person in your house can play a game while someone else is surfing the web. And, no compatibility issues to deal with....

Re:Affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Who actually pays for these upgrades? I'm unaware of any home user that pays to upgrade Windows. Why change what's working well?

Re:Affordable

[manno]

44.95 per year, I've been using the same windows 2000 license I payed for in full in 2000 for $120 I'm going at 5 years now, and will probably go for at least another 1 or 2 despite m$ dropping support for it. so lets do the math on that shall we? Cedega = 44.95 * 5 = 224.75 Linspire = 49.95 Total = 274.70 Windows XP/2000 = 130.00 Upgrade + 90.00 Total = 220.00 Linspire = 274.70 Win 2K/XP - 220.00 = 54.00 so yeah do the math $50 a year to have spotty at best game support, or $130 one time to have games desinged to run on your pc out of the box... you decide. I think MS is just as evil as the next guy, but I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face.

Re:Affordable

[Naosuke]

You still have to pay for Game X if you try to run it on Linux, so it doesn't affect the price difference.

Re:Affordable

[Naosuke]

Nevermind, I reread comment and he did include the game price under linux.

Re:Affordable

[Solarian]

Where did you pull that number from? According to their site it's $50 for a download or $60 for a CD shipped to your door.

Also, if you're going to use his numbers for linux (which included the price of the game) then you need to do it for windows (which did not) so add $45-$50 to the windows price of $100-$130, resulting in $145-$180. This isn't including the price of all the antivirus/spyware/etc crap that you've gotta buy to keep a win box functional.

Re:Affordable

[fab13n]

Cedega = $44.95
Game X = $40-50
Total = $80-95

Windows Home = $100~
Windows Pro = $130~

Only thing you forget: 95% of people already paid for their windows OEM version when they bought their PC (OEM licence price to manufacturer is a trade secret and probably highly volatile,but expect it often isn't more than than $44.95). And PC vendors are not willing to put linspire INSTEAD OF windows on their computers , especially if prices are so comparable.

So for your average Wallmart-PC-owner, who's got his windows copy without even realizing he paid for that, the equation is: cedega+game=x+44.95, or the_windows_they_already_have_anyway+game=just x.

Doesn't make sense to him.

Re:Affordable

[phxbadash]

What antivirus/spyware crap do I have to buy.

I currently run my system without any antivirus software at all and ms antispyware and I haven't had any viruses on my system as of yet, and have been spyware free for 2 years.

Also as some have mentioned, the windows is a one time cost. And don't give my the excuse that you need to keep buying the windows updates to keep playing games, that's BS and you know it. Even using a conservative estimate of 5 years between OS updates that's $130/5 years = $26 a year, whipty freakin do.

If you really want to break it down with cedega @ $49.95 per year x 5 years that's $249.75 after 5 years. WOW what a savings.

Re:Affordable

[Trelane]

Cedega is an annual cost I believe.

Not quite. A subscription gets you support, votes for new games to support (more depending on how long you've been a subscriber), and updates.

The minimal subscription is 3months for $15. You can still continue using the binaries after that; they don't expire.

Re:Affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

No compatibility issues? So you got Halo working did you?

Wa wa wa waaaaa......

[LordPhantom]

Impressive.... or at least it would be, if they had a site that could handle more views than it takes to make the first post.

And there isn't really that much to say based upon the header... could someone tell us what this is all about?

Re:Wa wa wa waaaaa......

[Anonymous Coward]

Linspire.com is not the slashdotted site jackass.

That's What They Said in the First Place

[Winkhorst]

Actually, Lindows was supposed to run ALL Windows programs before they scaled back their early claims. Looks like it just got put on the back burner.

Re:That's What They Said in the First Place

[AKAImBatman]

Robertson didn't know what he was talking about. He'd seen WINE in action, and assumed that it was close to being a complete replacement for Windows. He then went on to include it with Lindows and promised the world that he'd be Windows compatible. Somewhere along the line he learned the horrible truth (Win32 is an ugly, broken, and complex moving target) and backed off his claims.

Unfortunately, this left Lindows in a bit of a lurch because it was less secure than most Linux distributions, and only had its application repository to carry it. My guess is that the Microsoft vs. Lindows lawsuit was what kept them on the map. Without all the press, it's posslble they would have languished into obscurity. Since then, the renamed Linspire has been slowly building back up to Windows compatibility.

Re:That's What They Said in the First Place

[ShieldW0lf]

You're mistaken. Lindows doesn't need the evil Microsoft Empire to sustain it. It has the evil Wal-Mart Empire behind it, and as long as Lindows is for sale preinstalled at Wal-Mart, they remain one of the most significant distributions going.

Re:That's What They Said in the First Place

[Curate]

Robertson didn't know what he was talking about. He'd seen WINE in action, and assumed that it was close to being a complete replacement for Windows. He then went on to include it with Lindows and promised the world that he'd be Windows compatible. Somewhere along the line he learned the horrible truth (Win32 is an ugly, broken, and complex moving target) and backed off his claims.

Well, even if you could mimic all of Win32, that hardly means that you could run all Windows apps. That's like saying that if your OS is POSIX compliant, you can run all UNIX apps. There are other important APIs and defacto standards out there. In particular, to say that you support Windows games broadly, you pretty much have to implement DirectX as well.

Re:That's What They Said in the First Place

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are other important APIs and defacto standards out there. In particular, to say that you support Windows games broadly, you pretty much have to implement DirectX as well."

So perhaps he saw wineX (which started out as an effort to add DirectX support to wine and is now called Cedega) around then too?

Re:That's What They Said in the First Place

[martian265]

I happen to disagree. I think that the limitations exactly and the whole thing was a marketing ploy.

Think of the 3 things they were originally selling the OS on:
1. Name, similar to Windows (Lindows).
2. Complete compatibility with Windows applications.
3. Low price for a complete OS.

Look at each one critically,
1. I'm pretty sure even my dog knew they wouldn't be able to keep a name like that. Anyone that thought the courts wouldn't smack their hands was either not smart enough to remember to breathe or had been in a coma for the last 50 years.
2. Anyone that had ever looked into Wine/WineX knew that this was out of reach. Even a completely clueless Corp Exec would realize this (I say this because one of the clueless Corp Execs at one of my old jobs had this conversation with me. And believe me, he was about as clueless as they came. He wouldn't even get a car alarm because he thought that if someone attempted to break into his car it would never run again).
3. Well, they could do this one. From what I've heard, it seems like they might have succeeded. At least to some degree.

From the first time I saw their website, I knew it was a gimmick to get people interested in their new OS and they never planned on being able to deliver everything. That was pretty much the same reaction from everyone in the industry I talked to about it.

I'm glad that they're working on this, and wish them every luck in the future. But I'll wait until all the new functionality makes it back into Cedega. That way I can still have a nice secure system and gaming (of course my current gaming box, WinXP, isn't secure, but at least it runs every game I put on it).

Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but will it run linux?

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with all the Yes, but will it run linux jokes?

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with all the Yes, but will it run linux jokes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_subculture

When a new product is reviewed on Slashdot, some posters may respond by asking a question irrelevant to the product in question, such as whether a new toaster model runs Linux or supports Ogg media. This is a play on the stereotype that some Slashdotters are so passionate about a particular technology -- an operating system or file type, for example -- that they will overlook the positive features of a new development simply because it doesn't involve that technology.

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

full text of article

[Anonymous Coward]

TransGaming Releases Latest Cedega Portability Technology for Linspire Operating System Gamers Able to Play Hundreds of Microsoft Windows Games on Desktop Linux Right Out of the Box.

Linspire, Inc. and TransGaming Technologies announced the release of Cedega for the Linspire desktop Linux operating system, allowing Linspire users to play hundreds of popular Windows-format games right out of the box. TransGaming's innovative Cedega portability technology, combined with the Point2Play graphical front end, offers equivalent game-play experience and performance, making it possible for avid Linux gamers to play titles like Half-Life 2, World of WarCraft and Battlefield 1942 on their machines. The product, which can be downloaded and installed through Linspire's CNR (click and run) software library for $44.95 USD, includes one year of access to Cedega plus regular software updates and membership to TransGaming.

"Gamers don't have to choose between Linux and Windows anymore," said Kevin Carmony, president and CEO of Linspire, Inc. "The release of Cedega technology for Linspire fills one of the most serious application gaps that exist for widespread adoption of desktop Linux. The added bonus is that installation of Point2Play with Cedega is so easy and affordable, you'll be able to play Windows games on Linspire for less than it would cost to purchase a Windows system."

Linux Games

[ndansmith]

You can play the games right out of the box, assuming that you can get functional drivers for your video card. For all of us who use ATI cards for games, this is not so exciting.

Re:Linux Games

[dreamchaser]

I'm surprised you were modded as insightful. The point was that they were including software support to run games via Cedega (Wine). If you bought an ATI card then given their track record with Linux drivers you get what you deserve. ATI's Linus drivers are known to suck. If you want to run Linux and play games, Nvidia is still the best for that purpose.

This thread is about added software support in a Linux distribution, not about various hardware/driver issues on Linux.

Re:Linux Games

[mc900ftjesus]

If you use Linux and bought an ATI, you aren't very good at using Linux.

Re:Linux Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Before anyone else calls it, I spelled Linux 'Linus' in that post. Freudian slip? Perhaps.

Re:Linux Games

[StonedRat]

I use the fglrx ATI drivers in ubuntu and never had a problem running doom3, ut2004 and most importantly tuxracer.

Re:Linux Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you already had an ATI card and then switched to Linux. So, now you're not stupid, you're just cheap.

Re:Linux Games

[poofyhairguy82]

Then there's folks like me that switched to Linux recently, and have an ATI card that worked just fine in windows. Did I get what I deserve, jerk?

No...but you still have to deal with it. When I switched I sold my card ATI on ebay and got a new Nvidia card to avoid that problem.

Re:Linux Games

[ndansmith]

Allow me to append my statement from above, because it seems that many have misinterpreted it:
"For all of us who use ATI cards for Windows gaming machines and want to switch to Linux."

I thought it would be obvious that someone who is using "ATI cards for games" is using Windows, not Linux. Sorry for the confusion.

Re:Linux Games

[jaypaulw]

Linux is all about choice. I can choose my windows manager/desktop, I can choose from lots of different shells I can edit and modify my applications to behave exactly like I want them. I just can't choose the video card I want.

Re:Linux Games

[Splab]

What is this crap about ATI? my radeon 9500 runs without problems. emerge ati-drivers and I'm off.

Re:Linux Games

[krgallagher]

"For all of us who use ATI cards for games, this is not so exciting."

That is why I only use NVIDIA video cards.

Re:Linux Games

[mahdi13]

ATI Linux Drivers are getting very good, finally. The problem here is that Transgaming focused most of their API on using an nVidia card.

ATI complaints on Linux are lessening where ATI with Cedega is still a problem due to lots of unsupported functions.

Re:Linux Games

[Bellum Aeternus]

I was just going to ask about that exact card. Bummer...

Re:Linux Games

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this Linus operating system of which you speak? Anyway, have you checked out the free and open source r300 drivers? That driver is getting more stable every day. Soon now we will be rid of the one known as the propriatery which stems from ATI! Muahahahaha.

Re:Linux Games

[Mo6eB]

Well, ATI's drivers used to suck hard, but since february they just suck. Just don't expect them to work on a 2.6.12 kernel yet (learned it the hard way). I've been successfully running DOOM3 and UT2004 at speeds comparable (as in very, very, VERY close) to the game's preformance under WinXP pro with the latest 8.14.13 drivers, so it can be assumed that they DO in fact work.

Re:Linux Games

[Minwee]

Would those be the drivers which clearly state

The source code on this website may damage your hardware.
It is *UNTESTED* and *BROKEN* !

Or are you thinking of something which a sane person would actually want to use?

Re:Linux Games

[killjoe]

Did you do any research at all before switching? Everybody knows that ATI does not support linux very well and two seconds of googling should have made that obvious.

It's nobodies fault by ATI. If you are somehow blaming linux or linux developers for not writing drivers for ATI then you are delusional. It's probably illegal for them to do so and nobody should risk jail time just to make sure you have a video driver. The job of writing the driver belongs with the maker of the hardware. If they don't support your OS complain to them.

Re:Linux Games

[tialaramex]

It's a disclaimer, no-one said everyone should be running these drivers today, just that they exist and will sooner rather than later be integrated into Linux distributions.

So far no-one has reported any damaged hardware, but Radeon 9800 users have reported lock-ups which obviously mean the driver isn't ready for them yet.

Given that this is the first Free Software driver for modern programmable 3D hardware (ATI's R300 and R400 series) and it was done apparently without even so much as a donated card from the hardware manufacturer I think a "sane person" ought to be pretty glad that it's happening at all.

Unlike the proprietary drivers, this Free Software R300 driver would be included right in the box with your Linux distro, and automatically upgraded with each kernel version for zero hassle. So if we get together and make it happen it will actually be easier than nVidia's proprietary driver as well as more free.

Re:Linux Games

[Minwee]

But what we are discussing is having a set of drivers today. I'm certain that the r300 project will be wonderful when it is ready, but I would have to question the motives of anyone who included such an unstable video driver in an end-user distribution meant for gamers.

Aa project under development it's great. As something to look forward to in the future it's fine, but if I was trying to push GNU/Linux as a stable, reliable operating system that can do everything That Other OS can, I would want to wait until the programmers have a tiny bit more confidence in their code.

Re:Linux Games

[Luke-Jr]

The Radeon drivers at least support 3D accel (up to 9200). Compare that with nVidia which does not have 3D accel at all...

(immoral drivers not included in comparison)

Re:Linux Games

[Anonymous Coward]

What's immoral about a closed driver? It's software, not a political movement.

Re:Linux Games

[Luke-Jr]

It denies your natural rights to modify it.

Immediate Relevance

[SparksMcGee]

Not to rain on anyone's parade (this is certainly good news for Linux users, though of course it'd be best if it were free), but how much of th ecurrent Linux market overlaps with the Widnows market. It seems to me that if you're buying a gaming rig, you probably already have at least one HDD that boots windows automatically (especially given the relatively incremental hardware advances since last summer). I'm not saying it's not something Linux users should demean, but I'm just not sure that they can count on this gaining Linux market share since those who game, run windows, those who like Linux, run Linux. The Linux community may now run games, but is this supposed to bring new people into the fold as the blurb suggests?

Re:Immediate Relevance

[It doesn't come easy]

Works best for new computer buyers looking at a machine in the store side-by-side. Linspire machine $400 vs. Windows machine $600. If they both run the same games, more people will buy the Linspire machine. Of course, TransGaming would have to allow a time limited subscription to be bundled with the system along with some popular and free Windows only games. From the article, it doesn't sound like this is what they plan to do.

Re:Immediate Relevance

[TheKidWho]

hahahaha yeah I can't wait to play videogames on a $400 PC!!!

Whats the point of debating over a $400 linux machine vs $600 windows machine considering you can get an xbox for less then $200... Support linux and MS at the same time!

Re:Immediate Relevance

[It doesn't come easy]

Because anyone with half a brain would realize that a general purpose computer can do much more than just run games.

Re:Immediate Relevance

[Calyth]

I don't care for Linspire, but Cedega interests me because there's only two things that made me feel like keeping a Windows desktop machine for myself.
I'm sure I can find help on video encoding, and I wouldn't mind trying out Cedega to run my favourite games, thne it is goodbye Windows.
Serious gamers with gaming rigs will still stick with Windows, but those Linux users who wanted to play games that aren't ported to Linux would certainly benefit from this, even if they have to pay for it.

Re:Immediate Relevance

[TheKidWho]

and my point is why not just get both?

$400 linspire PC + $200 xbox >> $600 pc for games + work

Re:Immediate Relevance

[westlake]

Works best for new computer buyers looking at a machine in the store side-by-side. Linspire machine $400 vs. Windows machine $600

If you are talking hard-core PC gaming, Linspire at $400 and Windows at $600 are irrelevant.

satisfied transgaming customer

[vector_prime]

Hooray. I've been a cedega user for almost a year now, and it is an excellent piece of software. Seeing at least one major distribution lend their support is definitely a step in the right direction.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the speed?

No need for choice?

[null etc.]

"Gamers don't have to choose between Linux and Windows anymore," said Kevin Carmony, president and CEO of Linspire, Inc.

They especially don't have to choose if they decide to say with Windows. I love marketing speak.

Re:No need for choice?

[MikeBabcock]

Your comment is illogical. The marketing comment was in fact valid.

I read both statements a few times before bothering to say this, but don't decide its babble just because it came from marketing.

The statement from Kevin should probably be broken down grammatically and semantically into "People who want the (fun|stable|non-MS) operating system that is Linux but also want to play games (primarily released for Windows) won't have to choose between the two anymore since they can now have their cake and eat it too -- their Windows games will run on Linux."

If we took your comment at face value, what you're saying is "there's no reason to choose Linux." which is in fact flamebait.

Re:No need for choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the spirit of Pedantism and Anti-FUD.

I have to state that my pirated copy of Windows XP Pro costs as much as your Linux Distro, and runs just as stably.

Oh, it also has better driver support and runs almost all the games produced these days out of the box.

Re:No need for choice?

[Curate]

If we took your comment at face value, what you're saying is "there's no reason to choose Linux." which is in fact flamebait.

And if we took your comment at face value, what you're saying is "there's no reason to choose Windows." which is also in fact flamebait.

Re:No need for choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean Kevin's comment.

Re:No need for choice?

[ivan256]

The marketing comment was in fact valid.

Actually it couldn't have been more false. Now gamers do have to pick, where before they had windows and that was it.

Re:No need for choice?

[mdman]

Gamers never chose between Linux and Windows...

Re:No need for choice?

[RdsArts]

Your comment is illogical.

You recommend that a gamer who, wishing to have a stable OS and run all their games, chose to use software which is buggy to run a subclass of games availed them under Windows. You futher make the claim that Linux is stable, implying that Windows is not, which is only true where we comparing the OSes 5 years ago.

You futher recommend that someone making a truthful statement, that being the statement that if someone wishs for a stable OS that plays Windows games they will stay with a modern Windows, is doing so as a troll.

If we took your comment at face value, what you are saying is "there is no reason to choose Windows," which is in fact flamebait.

Re:No need for choice?

[MikeBabcock]

I said no such thing, nor did I insinuate it. Nor, in fact, did the original speaker.

Please take a good logic/grammar course.

That said, another responder pointed out that I was wrong in my characterization of the comment -- gamers do in fact now have a choice, whereas they did not before.

Uh Oh!

[kerby74]

"Oh crap" Bill Gates 06/27/05

Re:Uh Oh!

[Meagermanx]

Actually, I don't think he's worried. If you want to game, you use Windows. Gamers already have it, have it set up with all their games, and if they use Linux, it's only as an alternate OS. Not a primary one. If this was free, that would be something, but charging $45.00 a year?
"Yeah, well my free, community supported, open source OS can run almost all the games yours can for only $45.00 a year! So there!"

Re:Uh Oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. I am REAL sure Gates is worried about losing gamers. We all know gamers dont mind only playing maybe 75% or their games at 50% of the speed.

Re:Uh Oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

WHaT!!!1!! I wouldn't be able to stand playing Quake 2 at only 85 fps instead of my normal 170 fps. Man, I'll get fragged in an instant. You even play Quake 2? Dude, if I don't have those extra fpssss, then I'm gonna get hammered. Let me spell it out.
fps = better clarity
fps = better accuracy
fps = more 0wnege
fps = skill

For every fps I have more than you; I will kill you. I was so good at Counter Strike that the US Army recruited me just to play America's Army online. I got griefed one time for being too good (I was running 190 fps that day), so when I spawned I shot the dude playing that character. He died. It was in the news. I got banned. But not for that, I got a medal for that, but because I had so many extra fps I could kill everyone before they even knew they were playing. People would logon, and be like, "Oh, man, I'm dead already!" I challenge anyone in any game. Just look me up, I'm Zer0Co01. Yeah, they made a movie about me. All true by the way. Except, they cut out the part about me shooting SkyNet down with a BB gun (RedRyder with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time).

Besides, anything under 120 fps gives me a headache (I can tell the difference). I can even tell your monitor is set at 75 hurtz. I'm going cross-eyed as we speak.

One time, when I was a newb, I sucked. Then I bought the new Nvideo G-Phorce7, top of the line, bleeding edge (I have a huge dick), but I kept getting smoked. Come to find out, he had the G-Phorce7ULTRA. Man, so I countered his video card by getting a 21" Sony WVega monitor and surround sound speakers.

I just bought a new Nvdeo SLI rig. Then I bought Battlefield 2, never even played it, man, I 0wn3d everyone! I think if I got a lazer mouse, I might take over Dubai.

Re:Uh Oh!

[Moulinneuf]

"If you want to game,"

One use xbox 360 or a playstation 3 or a gamecube ...

Re:Uh Oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's what he said when Apple announced the switch to Intel.

Or, he probably did not say "Oh crap" but instead actually did crap his pants.

Poor bastard.

Re:Uh Oh!

[westlake]

No, that's what he said when Apple announced the switch to Intel.

For twenty years Apple has tried every possible combination of technology and marketing to gain ground on Microsoft but, in the end, nothing changes.

Alternate Articles

[wo1verin3]

Link is already dead..

- Newsforge

- ADDICT3D

Linspire, Inc. and TransGaming Technologies today announced the release of Cedega for the Linspire desktop Linux operating system, allowing Linspire users to play hundreds of popular Windows-format games right out of the box. TransGaming's innovative Cedega portability technology, combined with the Point2Play graphical front end, offers equivalent game-play experience and performance, making it possible for avid Linux gamers to play titles like Half-Life 2, World of WarCraft and Battlefield 1942 on their machines. The product, which can be downloaded and installed through Linspire's CNR (click and run) software library for $44.95 USD, includes one year of access to Cedega plus regular software updates and membership to TransGaming. For more information or to purchase Cedega for Linspire, please visit www.linspire.com/Cedega.

Coral Cache

[davidwr]

Coral cache.

And there was a great flood of Newbs

[VanWEric]

Lasting 40 days and 40 nights, and hopefully a bit longer.

I hope this is for real - I'm more than capable of setting this stuff up for myself, but I can't set it up for my sisters without driving home and spending my valuable home time in front of a computer. I hope this will help us hit the newb audience better.

Re:And there was a great flood of Newbs

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you could find someone on /. that would jump at the opportunity to maintain your sister's, um, box.

It's better than that!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It also uses the Windows security model!

Re:It's better than that!

[Infinityis]

Would that be obscurity or FUD?

Re:It's better than that!

[Anonymous Coward]

yes

Re:It's better than that!

[benjamindees]

Actually, there's some truth to that. Wine is not an emulator, so Windows apps are technically running at the same level as native apps. There are a few tricks used to minimize the risks of known problem apps *cough* lookOut *cough*, and limitations keep most malware from running at the moment. But, as Wine matures, there's no reason that Windows security problems couldn't become Linux security problems.

Article mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

In case of slashdotting...

mirror is here

and article text:

TransGaming Releases Latest Cedega Portability Technology for Linspire Operating System Gamers Able to Play Hundreds of Microsoft Windows Games on Desktop Linux Right Out of the Box.

Linspire, Inc. and TransGaming Technologies announced the release of Cedega for the Linspire desktop Linux operating system, allowing Linspire users to play hundreds of popular Windows-format games right out of the box. TransGamings innovative Cedega portability technology, combined with the Point2Play graphical front end, offers equivalent game-play experience and performance, making it possible for avid Linux gamers to play titles like Half-Life 2, World of WarCraft and Battlefield 1942 on their machines. The product, which can be downloaded and installed through Linspires CNR (click and run) software library for $44.95 USD, includes one year of access to Cedega plus regular software updates and membership to TransGaming.

Gamers dont have to choose between Linux and Windows anymore, said Kevin Carmony, president and CEO of Linspire, Inc. The release of Cedega technology for Linspire fills one of the most serious application gaps that exist for widespread adoption of desktop Linux. The added bonus is that installation of Point2Play with Cedega is so easy and affordable, youll be able to play Windows games on Linspire for less than it would cost to purchase a Windows system.

Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentence!?

[cybereal]

Oh come now. Just try to install Warcraft III with Cedega.

I'm serious, that's the only game I was really hoping to play with Cedega when I tried it out. It flopped hard core, yet, WC3 is on their list of supported games with a flag indicating that it is playable.

Lies.

Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[jbellis]

Maybe it's because having to save all your work, rebooting, rebooting again when your game is done, and restoring all your applications to the right state is a HUGE WASTE OF TIME.

Right now, for instance, I have 12 applications open, only a few of which have entirely satisfactory auto-restore-after-shutdown functionality.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Meagermanx]

Wow, you keep twelve applications up while you're playing a game?

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Zediker]

seriously though, i doubt you run your games with all those files/applications going on at the same time sapping your ram and cpu speed...

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[malsdavis]

I rarely have any applications open while playing games, like many gamers I try to get the best performance out of my computer while playing.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[advocate_one]

Wow, you keep twelve applications up while you're playing a game?

yes, this is Linux we're talking about here... not ms-windows, where it's obligatory to shut everything else down prior to starting up a game... just in case...

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

In the latest ubuntu there is the option

System > Log Out > Hibernate the Computer

This dumps the state of your linux system to the swap partition, and on your next linux boot allows you to resume your work exactly where you left.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[justforaday]

Maybe it's because having to save all your work, rebooting, rebooting again when your game is done, and restoring all your applications to the right state is a HUGE WASTE OF TIME

And spending hours playing WoW or Halflife isn't? I agree with you about it being a pain, but by calling it a "waste of time" you ain't gonna get any sympathy from me...

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[mrchaotica]

As long as the game runs "fast enough," some of us don't really care.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Meagermanx]

I was thinking about the speed issue. Linux must really be wonderful to run 12 applications without taking a speed hit.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[klingens]

Considering the normal desktop computer runs to 99% of time idle: what speedhit?

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

Minesweeper doesn't have much of a resource requirement anyways.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[electrofreak]

Why do you doubt it? I do it all the time without any problem.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. But, to fix it, all he would have to do is put in "fun waste of time". You know, like reading, watching movies, going to the theatre, going to the museum, etc, etc.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[cbreaker]

Sure, why not. I do, on Windows too. Why close all my shit down when I want to play CS for a round or two? I've never really noticed any slow-downs when I have 8 browser windows, Office, photoshop, etc etc open. And it's not like I have gobs of RAM; only 1GB.

All this performance squeezing is an illusion. In real-world uses, having idle background apps won't slow anything down. It might show 2FPS in some benchmark but you'll never notice that.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[XMyth]

That's stupid logic. Doing something you like isn't a waste of time in the same sense as doing something which is not necessary (or wouldn't be necessary) that you don't enjoy doing.

Do you really not see the difference?

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

"HUGE WASTE OF TIME."

??

~4 seconds to save your work for each document
~30s to 3 mins to reboot your machine

Seriously, even at 4 minutes (on an incredibly slow machine) that is hardly a 'huge waste of time'--especially if you plan on playing that game for any length of time (MMORPG, FPS, etc). Now if you're talking about doing all this JUST to play MS Solitaire then I'd agree with you, but seriously all this "gotta have it NOW" crap needs to be put into perspective.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[leonmergen]

And spending hours playing WoW or Halflife isn't?

No, that's called being entertained... just like going to the movies, taking a swim, going on vacation - it all isn't very much productive, but it isn't a waste of time.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

are you serious?

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

seriously though, i doubt you run your games with all those files/applications going on at the same time sapping your ram and cpu speed...

Spoken like a Windows user. My web browser, mail application, messaging client, calendar, terminals, text editor, image viewer, layout application, and a dozen more have been running non-stop for the last several weeks. Why would I shut them down to run a game? Any system with decent multitasking and prioritization will not use any real CPU cycles or hog the rRAM on applications just sitting open while I'm playing a game.

Note, this is on a couple year old laptop running OS X. The games I usually play are some older ones, like UT2003, Warcraft 3, Neverwinter nights, and a handful of less cpu/gpu intensive but fun games.

Maybe you should use a good OS for a month and see what it is you're missing. I'm very unlikely to ever reboot to play a game, nor am I ever going to quit all my running applications.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[packetl0ss]

To many people I know of, "1 GB of ram" is the same as having "gobs of ram". I still know people with as little as 64 to 128 megs of ram. If they left as many as 12 apps open, even if they use nearly no CPU power when idle, the memory usage alone will kill their gameplay performance since swapping to disk is always slower than using RAM.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Hognoxious]

like reading, watching movies, going to the theatre, going to the museum

I can't believe you didn't mention looking (or should that be 700k1N6) at pr0n. Like, this is /., isn't it?

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

amazing how this comment gets modded +5 funny while the original thread is viewed as flaimbait. GD slashdot zealots.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[PeterPumpkin]

Well, not really. I notice about a 10FPS difference when running Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory under KDE and several apps running, versus under TWM with just teamspeak running alongside.

Better than Windows under similar conditions, but Linux isn't completely immune to memory constraint related slowdown :)

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[natrius]

You can hibernate, boot into Windows, and then come back to Linux with everything how you had it. Hibernating works on almost all computers these days.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[cbreaker]

Sure, but those aren't the same people that are trying to squeeze performance for ubergaming. If you have 64MB ram, you aren't playing any 3D games made after 2001.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[perbu]

Hello?

And you think spending 6 hours with some sort of computer game is not a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME?

:-P

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[bensode]

Yes, I do the same. Actually, I get better game performance running under cedega than Windows. I can use the virtual desktop switching to play WoW on one desktop fullscreen, then one hotkey away from any of the other apps I'm running ... such as Evolution, Firefox and my remote desktop sessions, pron, etc. In windows, I'm stuck with screen focus or a "windowed" mode, with crippled system performance to everything else. I usually can't run anything in the background while playing and games.

On the downside, though, for the MMORPGs through Cedega, whenever there is a major patch I often have to wait a few days for the Cedega team to fix what was "broken". Very rare, but it happene a lot on EQ and has started to happen from time to time with WoW. For the other games that aren't patched routinely, I have no problems at all.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[stuuf]

CONFIG_SUSPEND2=y

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[elgatozorbas]

rebooting, rebooting again when your game is done, and restoring all your applications to the right state is a HUGE WASTE OF TIME.

Somehow it sounds funny that the overhead associated with running a game is a waste of time.

"No, can't lose any time right now, I should switch to solitaire immediately..."

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[SScorpio]

I'm not sure what applications you are running. But the majority of the applications are normally just sitting there waiting for user input. There is still the issue of memory, but a 512MB or higher system should be fine.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[MynockGuano]

Or don't plan on needing their OS rebooted 5 times a day.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[hcob$]

Maybe if you didn't play games at work :) But seriously, the only game I play is WoW, but my fiancee' is pretty much afraid of computers and only wants something that she already knows how to use.... So I'm stuck in Winders at home, but I get to tinker with linux at work

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[superpulpsicle]

Look everyone. Let's hope PS3 or Xbox 360 will render PC gaming obsolete. After that most of us wouldn't even need a reason to have windows OS at home.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[phxbadash]

My windows XP box experiences uptimes of 6-8 months at a time without reboots if I so choose. I only reboot the machine when updating drivers or when an update requires it.

Total boot time from powered off to loading up a game is less than 30 seconds.

Next BS fact please!!.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Superfarstucker]

I'm curious what you define as 'real' cpu cycles or "hogging the ram"? I'm also interested in why it should be the operating system's responsibility to prioritize tasks based on whether their pretty gui is painted on the screen? If you don't want an application to eat up cpu cycles have it stop what it's doing, I suspect the same is true for the vaunted 'os x' although you would liken it to some magical and mystifying force that automatically detects your intent when a gui is either occluding by another app painting to the screen or minimized. It's an interesting world, but unfortunately it just doesn't correspond with reality. Why you think it's particularly useful to be able to have all those applications running and play a game at the same time is quite beyond my grasp. Sure you can do it, but performance will suffer, regardless of what you say. An application has a memory footprint regardless of whether its pretty gui is up and paging all of that out of ram would be pathetically inefficient, not to mention as slow or slower than just closing and resuming the application when you need it. But you use the shiny white stuff, so what do i know.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[ad0gg]

Note, this is on a couple year old laptop running OS X. The games I usually play are some older ones, like UT2003, Warcraft 3, Neverwinter nights, and a handful of less cpu/gpu intensive but fun games.

Your kidding right? Theres no way in hell osx can compete against xp/2003 in multitasking. OSx is pretty much single threaded, OSX(Pre tiger) used funnel locks, locking down pretty much everything. Aren't you glad your osx is based on a 30 year old os? XP uses fine grained locks and 'push locks' which have no contention problems. Luckily for you, Tiger got rid of of the funnel locks and replaced them with kernel section locks, it still can't compete against windows xp or Server 2003.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[nintendo_is_a_cereal]

Maybe you should use a good OS for a month and see what it is you're missing. Games made in the last year?

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[composer777]

I was ripping cd's and playing ut2004 at the same time yesterday. Apparently that's one of the things that my Athlon 4800+ is good at. Back when I ran single core, it would hitch quite a bit while ripping CD's, but now I can rip two CD's, or do a kernel compile (using colinux), and run my window's games without noticing anything. So, yes, it's safe to say that if I can rip two CD's at once and play ut2004 that running 12 text editing apps, or email, and a few browser windows along with a game isn't a stretch.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but Mac-centric users should button up when the discussion of gaming comes into play (PunNI). If you were serious about PC gaming, you would not be doing so on a Mac. Period. That's like claiming to be a Formula 1 driver because you drive a Saab. Or for me to claim to know all about Macs because I've used a small percentage of the apps also available on Macs (Photoshop, Illustrator, and "a handful of less cpu/gpu intensive but fun" apps).

Some day the Mac could have good, strong game support. Until then, please refrain from claiming knowledge of an area you know very little about, or are only aspiring to be a part of.

We (gamers) close as many processes as possible before starting a game. Because it is the Game that matters, not so-called "productivity" apps or the inconvenience of closing/restoring. To every extent possible, all resources are freed whether needed or not.

If you do not do so without good reason, you must only be a casual gamer. Good for you. Just don't delude yourself otherwise.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[snuf23]

I don't have any problems alt-tabbing out of World of Warcraft to the Windows desktop. I frequently run apps in the background, especially so I can alt-tab out to check thottbot.com for a particularly tricky quest. I also run things like a newsreader doing binary downloands while I play or stream a dvd off my computer to another comp in the house. It has pretty much no impact on the game performance.
True, not all games support alt-tabbing to the desktop nicely, but many do. Also I find having a lot of RAM helps to make this a quick operation. If the OS needs to swap everything back off virtual memory when you alt-tab the performance will be slow.
It also depends on the speed of your processor. I have a 3.2GHz Pent 4 which admittedly is way more than enough for World of Warcraft.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no "i" in flame, dipshit.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a Windows user. Why would I shut them down to run a game?

No, that was spoken like a gamer. Because modern games are designed to take full advantage of your system's resources. It goes something like this: How much memory do you have? Okay, allocate as much of that as we can.

The second you do that, Windows swaps the idle applications out to disk. At this point, OS 9 crashes with an "out of memory" error, OS/X does the same disk-swap dance - and those types of games don't run on Linux anyway.

If something is swapped out, it means that it has to be swapped back in at some point. This can happen if you task-switch in the middle of the game (like accidentally hitting alt+tab or the Windows key in the middle of furious combat). So experienced gamers avoid problems with accidental task-swapping by simply not having the other apps loaded in the first place. Rebooting is usually not necessary, but it is an easy way of doing a brief hardware check, re-initializing and getting the machine into a known state for maximum performance.

Maybe you should use a good OS for a month and see what it is you're missing. I'm very unlikely to ever reboot to play a game, nor am I ever going to quit all my running applications.

Thanks. I'll remember that the next time OS/X locks up coming out of hibernate and I have to remove the battery to turn the machine off. It'd be great if I only had to reboot when I wanted to play a game.

If I had more than two games that ran on OSX!

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say everything you're bound to be right eventually.

Very rare, but it happene a lot

Maybe next time you could just not post.

Thanks.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Mad Merlin]

I was seeing a similar pattern, I got about 10 FPS less in Quake 3 when running KDE with all of my usual applications open compared to a bare X server. It turns out that it wasn't KDE, but XMMS. After I turned off "autoscroll song title", I got all of those FPS back. There shouldn't be any performance difference in KDE vs nothing running, just start up time for the game will be a little longer because the kernel will be dumping more things into swap to make room for it.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[aybiss]

Your are obviously totally oblivious of how multitasking actually works. Then you can talk about CPU performance hits due to cache misses and context switches. OK it's pretty damn small but most gamers can't subjectively evaluate real-world performance and hence keep trying to get 5 more points out of 3DMark. Or does Linux do all this using some piece of standard ATX hardware I've never heard of, using no CPU cycles at all? You are completely correct RE memory usage however for CPU, there is a point to shutting down running tasks before starting a game.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you guys are doing but i never have to reboot. or shutdown. or close applications to run games. in face, since i switched to NT4 in '99, then 2000 in 2001 and XP in 2004 i've had *2* STOP errors (1 with NT4 and 1 with 2000).

I constantly have trillian open, run firefox, thunderbird, object dock, openoffice, sav 9 corp edition quite frequently with my USB controller and flash drives plugged in.

even on my pentium 3 with 128 mb of ram, that ran all that otherstuff plus winamp and quake3 just fine. now that i have my amd 64 with 512 mb of ram. it's literally seconds before windows boots.

if you're using a relatively recent version of windows and are getting blue screens. you don't know what you're doing.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Your[sic] kidding right? Theres[sic] no way in hell osx can compete against xp/2003 in multitasking.

From a kernel architecture standpoint, you may be correct, but from a real-world usage case, you're dead wrong. I run the same task on two comparable systems with similar amounts of RAM and comparable processors and the results are obvious. The Windows machine takes up to 10 seconds to register mouse clicks while a background task is executing and doing anything like just typing text in a text editor shows significant lag. The OS X machine allows me to work normally, with no noticeable lag using the mouse or the keyboard.

As to the games example discussed earlier, I can play the same game on both systems, but on the Windows machine if I don't close the open file and quit InDesign I experience significant dropped frames and other performance problems. On OS X, I don't have any problem leaving InDesign open in the background.

Regardless of theoretical design differences or kernel architecture the difference is night and day in the real world, and it does not favor Windows.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you do not do so without good reason, you must only be a casual gamer. Good for you. Just don't delude yourself otherwise.

I never claimed otherwise, but it's not like gaming is some sort of technical field that requires a lot of training to understand. I play games occasionally when I'm not busy working or doing something in the real world. It is a diversion, not a lifestyle.

Claiming that because I use a mac means I should shut up about how badly Windows handles multitasking and allocating resources to the GUI is ridiculous and condescending.

Because it is the Game that matters, not so-called "productivity" apps or the inconvenience of closing/restoring. To every extent possible, all resources are freed whether needed or not.

If you bothered to read the root of this thread you'd see it was proposed that rebooting to play games is fine and normal, which I happen to disagree with. I also mentioned that having to close my other applications and open files is a huge pain in the ass on Windows, which I'm glad I don't have to deal with on the mac. You see apparently unlike you, I use my computer to do work primarily, and gaming is very secondary. If I want a dedicated gaming machine that I can only run one thing on at a time and that I normally leave shut down I'll buy a console already. Computers, however, are supposed to be general purpose devices and having crappy multitasking is not excused by saying that you're so obsessed with games you'll do anything to play them.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Your are[sic] obviously totally oblivious of how multitasking actually works. Then you can talk about CPU performance hits due to cache misses and context switches.[sic]

I wasn't talking about cache misses or context switches. I was talking about the reported CPU usage for an application that is sitting idle in the background. Believe it or not I can both read and run the included applications to display this information on several OSs. In any case, I don't need to be able to read to notice a 10 second delay after I click a mouse button, but before the system registers that click.

You are completely correct RE memory usage however for CPU, there is a point to shutting down running tasks before starting a game.

And that is the problem. You should not have to shut down tasks before running a game because the OS should be able to tell that you are running a full-screen application and allocate enough resources to it (to the exclusion of other applications if necessary) so that it runs smoothly. The OS should also be able to always allocate enough resources so that the mouse and keyboard are responsive. It works on pretty much every OS except Windows the vast majority of the time and I sure don't need a benchmark to tell me that. It is bloody obvious to anyone who has tried using multiple OSs to actually do something more intensive than check their e-mail.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

I never claimed otherwise, but it's not like gaming is some sort of technical field that requires a lot of training to understand. I play games occasionally when I'm not busy working or doing something in the real world. It is a diversion, not a lifestyle.

You can understand then that standing up and saying that one shouldn't close things down to play games is made out of ignorance. Windows (again, only so because to be a PC gamer, you are forced to use Windows) does not require shutdown of other processes, it does nearly as well as OS X and many multitudes better than MacOS prior to OS X (which was admitted to only after OS X became more ubiquitous). The point here is gamers CHOOSE to shut everything down to free up that last bit or RAM, that tiniest bit of resource that could otherwise be used by the game. It's not a matter of "crappy multitasking" (albeit, MS has a lot to learn in this area) it is about The Game.

You see apparently unlike you, I use my computer to do work primarily, and gaming is very secondary.

No, I use my machines primarily for work too (dev for 25 years now), but am also a gamer (oh, for a day to be payed to game! Too old for that dream!). So I get where you're from, but like you did above, made a prejudicial assumption. Mine being: using a Mac only = NOT a gamer. That's likely wrong, but usually correct. Yours being: shutting everything down = bad OS. No. Just freaky gamer etiquette (or superstition).

I really should be more ashamed of that whole gamer thing, shouldn't I? sigh

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Windows (again, only so because to be a PC gamer, you are forced to use Windows) does not require shutdown of other processes

Actually, the problem the originator of this thread was commenting upon was that it does require shutdown of other programs in order to get a game to work well enough to be usable. I must say, I agree for the most part. On an average machine with an average game, it is unplayable or at least severely detrimental to gameplay to leave a resource hungry application open while trying to play a game (or use another resource intensive application.)

If I try to play a game in Windows while leaving for example Adobe InDesign open in the background with a few hundred page book I'm working on open in it, I have my game stutter and run poorly. The mouse will have problems with responsiveness and I'll likely be beaten to death by orcs while helpless to do anything about it. Using the same game with the same file open in InDesign on a slightly less powerful Mac OS X machine I don't have a problem. Both systems work just fine without InDesign open. Thus the problem is Windows can't allocate the resources well enough.

It's not true just for games, but they are a good illustration of a place where Windows really needs improvement. Mac users have been conditioned by their environment to not like to close down applications and files or for that matter ever reboot. As game developers target the mac market, I think they'll have a very hard time convincing users to reboot in order to play a game. That was the original point. Windows needing work when it comes to multitasking is just an aside.

Please note, I'm not a mac zealot. I use a variety of systems and they all have strengths and weaknesses. Windows has a great catalog of certain types of application available that far surpasses the Mac. Macs have some very big problems with accessing network shares. As several people have pointed out, they also have a smaller selection of games (although still better than anything else other than Windows). Multitasking, however, is one of Windows problems and I don't think many people recognize it because they don't run alternate systems for comparison.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[aybiss]

I wasn't talking about cache misses or context switches. I was talking about the reported CPU usage for an application that is sitting idle in the background. Believe it or not I can both read and run the included applications to display this information on several OSs. In any case, I don't need to be able to read to notice a 10 second delay after I click a mouse button, but before the system registers that click.

By definition the usage of an idle task is zero. The kernel still checks to see if that task has to do anything on each task switch, and the more tasks are running the longer and the more memory accesses (cache interference) this will take. This happens on any OS whether you like it or not, unless Linux coders have discovered some magic way to run instructions without using the CPU. (The way some people carry on I'd just about believe it.)

If you're running applications that don't play nice when they are supposed to be idle, you can't blame the OS you're running.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you're running applications that don't play nice when they are supposed to be idle, you can't blame the OS you're running.

The OS is responsible for scheduling tasks. If an application that is open, but which is not even being displayed wants to use 100% of the CPU you think the proper behavior is for the OS to let it have all the CPU time... to the exclusion of processing input through the keyboard and mouse? Wow you must work at Microsoft.

Linux systems generally use "Nice" to prioritize tasks by hand, but the system should (and does) have reasonable defaults. One of the reasons Graphic artists hate to use Windows is because mouse input is not given enough priority (and even when it is the multitasking does not work correctly) and if you are running other applications occasionally the mouse will stop recording input while you're drawing a line.

Your theoretical method (which does not exist in any OS, they all have methods for prioritizing application's access to resources) would let one poorly written piece of software ruin performance on the whole system. It is absurd. What do you think multitasking is? Is it where all the applications magically know how much resources they should consume on a given system at a given time and tell the OS?

In summary, I can and do blame the OS if it fails to correctly prioritize application's access to resources and I specifically blame MS for its poor implementation of this.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[aybiss]

Wow you really are a rabid zealot aren't you.

If an application on my computer has a higher 'nice' than anything else I'm doing (we like to call it task priority here at MS Land) and it's time to schedule a task, then yes I expect it to be given processor time whether it is being displayed or not. To expect my system to do anything else would be a very unuseful situation - I couldn't just turn down the priority of the task I wanted to 'get in front of', could I? Do you really believe that is the situation on Windows all the time, or that I couldn't recreate the scenario under Linux?

Do you honestly believe I can't move my mouse or launch Battlefield 2 while running LAME? Windows does in fact boost the priority of the Window that has focus (something Linux can't do as well since Windows and Threads aren't so tightly bound).

I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any graphic artists I know claiming their mouse freezes while they work *all day every day* with Windows.

Mouse input is driven by interrupts, which work outside the usual system of task scheduling - they gain access to CPU cycles through hardware, so your example is particularly bad in this case.

To assert that my view of task scheduling is 'theoretical' is outrageous. It is and will be for the foreseeable future exactly how Linux, OS X and Windows schedule tasks. And yes they all have a priority system both for processes and the threads they run.

Oh that's right, you can't have threads belonging to processes in Linux can you? Its implementation of multitasking is so poor that if I start a new thread in Java I get another java.exe running.

I don't know when you last used Windows, but I've never seen my mouse stop working when it shouldn't. It will do it if you mess with the system default priorities for tasks. ...and yes we can do that in Windows too.

Believe it or not, it really is up to the application to set its default values for 'niceness' and to be friendly with allocation of resources. To believe that a poorly written application can't ruin your peformance under Linux is what is absurd. You are free to blame your OS for the shortcomings of your software, just don't expect to ever fix the problem.

Try running the following code on your box (you will need to write it in some language you are familiar with) and then complain to the Linux developers about their scheduling and see what they say.

System.Threading.Thread.ThreadPriority = REALTIME;
while(true); ... wow did you realise you can regain control over your computer by lowering the priority of this task? Reckon maybe every OS on the market has a way of doing this perhaps?

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any graphic artists I know claiming their mouse freezes while they work *all day every day* with Windows.

Heh, and what percentage of professional graphic artists work in Windows? It's about the same as are still using SGI, which is to say very few. Graphic artists generally use macs. There are exceptions, like people who do rendered models, or tight textures, but for the most part those are areas where having perfect mouse or tablet control is unnecessary.

Mouse input is driven by interrupts, which work outside the usual system of task scheduling - they gain access to CPU cycles through hardware

Mice use hardware? Holy shit, I never would have guessed that. Oh wait, doesn't that hardware eventually talk to a driver that talks to the rest of the OS which then prioritizes it's access to cpu and the window manager? Yes, it does.

Oh that's right, you can't have threads belonging to processes in Linux can you? Its implementation of multitasking is so poor that if I start a new thread in Java I get another java.exe running.

Umm, if you are running a java.exe on a Linux box you're probably in a very small percentage of people. You know there are a few security concerns regarding sandboxed applications... oh wait you're a Windows zealot, you don't believe in security, never mind.

I don't know when you last used Windows, but I've never seen my mouse stop working when it shouldn't. It will do it if you mess with the system default priorities for tasks. ...and yes we can do that in Windows too.

I used Windows about 20 minutes ago and yes the mouse stopped responding for several seconds while a program monopolized the resources. No I did not modify the priorities.

To believe that a poorly written application can't ruin your peformance under Linux is what is absurd. You are free to blame your OS for the shortcomings of your software, just don't expect to ever fix the problem.

Actually since Linux, like most modern OSs except Windows can actually be used with a variety of levels of user permissions, it is easy to restrict any given userspace application from monopolizing the processor. In fact, it is the default for userland applications in every distro I've tried lately.

Your understanding of threading is weak at best and your assertions can be disproved just by trying a few basic tasks on a variety of OSs. I am not, as you claim, a zealot. I use Windows, OS X, and NetBSD daily for different tasks. They all have their weak spots.

One of Windows weak spots is properly distributing system resources. You just can't run several large applications at a time and expect them to function properly and you can't count on the system to always register input. This is not a weak spot of Linux, NetBSD, or OS X. The latter two have some work to do regarding multithreading, but they still pound Windows into the dust in real world performance. Accept it already.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[aybiss]

OK, for the record, since you seem to think my arguments are all false:

I am a regular user and multi-threaded programmer of both Windows and Linux.

Macs I'm not so crash hot on, but they are peripheral to our main discussion.

Now for the percentage of Graphic Artists I know that are using Windows: basically all of them. In fact my GF is a journalist, and the company she works for just threw out all their Macs. I'll remember to ask her if her mouse froze up at work all the time after that.

About mice and hardware: you are no doubt aware of the serious limitations in the ATX standard regarding the number of available interrupts. This requires IRQ steering and so forth. To drag this into a discussion about kernel task prioritisation, while perfectly valid, is only complicating the issue.

Small percentage of people running Java: Try telling that to all the web developers using Tomcat. As for now attempting to drag security into the converstion to further complicate the issue and give you another subject with which to make baseless accusations about my supposed lack of knowledge - do you know me? F*ck off.

Besides which you totally failed to respond to my point - that being that Linux threading is still in the dark ages.

Your freezing mouse: What program? What hardware setup? What version of Windows? The last time my mouse froze up it was because I overclocked my Radeon and played a DirectX game - causing major system instability.

User permissions: I am now totally convinced that you are running Windows 98 or really have not used it since then. I will (unlike you) concede the fact that Windows does not have user levels for tasks that affect their prioritisation. Again as a multithreaded programmer of both OSes I'd point to your software if such a scheme is necessary.

I will withdraw my claim of you being a zealot if you stop and think for five seconds about accusing someone who gets their hands dirty with both implementations of multithreading on a regular basis of having a 'weak' understanding. In fact unless you can tell me you have the same understanding I'm still going to dismiss most of your arguments as hearsay and zealotry.

Your final argument pretty much sums things up - you expect me to accept something I've never observed simply because you assert that it is so. Furthermore you attempt to generalise real-world performance using OS as a category - something noone with any truly varied experience would ever do.

Work with them long enough and I'm sure you will see any OS pounded into the ground by several bloated apps hogging all the resources they can pre-allocate. Why do large hosts run separate database boxes and web servers? Because you get better (more than double) performance out of both applications.

Anyway I think the discussion has gone around in circles enough times. I will await your reply but will not continue the thread (unless you bait me real good).

To make my original argument clear one more time: The less things you have running, the less time a task switch takes. If you have many things running on the one priority level with the app you are interested in, the time taken to switch tasks is linearly related to the number of tasks running at that level.

Unless you can explain/demonstrate to me the exact method by which this is avoided in Linux, I'm afraid I must (for the record) declare myself correct at least on my original argument.

Take it easy,
Aaron.

Re:Wow, I wonder why nobody thought of that

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it will, because everyone knows "open apps" won't be paged out, right? Jesus wept... OK, I'm evidently going to have to explain this, aren't I? If an application isn't active, just "open", then it will be paged out, leaving lots of free memory for tasks that are actually running, not just "open". Got it now? Fucking hell, I remember when /. used at least to attract technical people who knew what the fuck they were talking about. If you've got nothing coherent to say, DON'T POST!

Hmm..

[Bananatree3]

If it can do what they say it can do, they should be able to tweak the program to run Windows ordinary programs with ease. Yes, Wine does an excellent job, but imagine if they tried making it for ALL Windows programs!

Re:Hmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

If it can do what they say it can do, they should be able to tweak the program to run Windows ordinary programs with ease. Yes, Wine does an excellent job, but imagine if they tried making it for ALL Windows programs!

Cedega is essentially a branch of Wine tweaked for gaming. Your comment makes no sense. Clearly the moderators are on crack today... oh, every day? Sorry, forgot.

Your forgot the cost of Linspire

[strongmace]

Other posters have pointed out that you forgot to add the price of Game X in your Windows numbers.

However, you also forgot to add in the price of Linspire which is ~$80-90 I think.

So 80+40+45=165 for Linspire and $140 for Windows Home or $170 for Windows XP.

Re:Your forgot the cost of Linspire

[Anonymous Coward]

You and other posters are wrong about the price of Game X. The quote is:

Kevin Carmony, president and CEO of Linspire, Inc. ..."Point2Play with Cedega is so easy and affordable, you'll be able to play Windows games on Linspire for less than it would cost to purchase a Windows system."

Put on those reading goggles and note how it's comparing playing Windows games on Linspire to a *gameless* Windows system.

Re:Your forgot the cost of Linspire

[swv3752]

One of the Linux Magazines had a copy of Linspire bundled so it could be considered about $10.

Not interested

[Thomas DM]

Not really interesting.

Cedaga costs $44.95 and you also need Linspire Five-0 which costs $49.95 so that's almost $95.

I'd rather have a dual-boot system with Windows than some sort of emulation software that may not boot a quarter of my games.

Re:Not interested

[Cyph]

Free Linspire Five-0: http://slickdeals.net/#p6196

Re:Not interested

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... Wine is not an emulator.

Re:Not interested

[elgatozorbas]

Cedaga costs $44.95 and you also need Linspire Five-0 which costs $49.95 so that's almost $95. I'd rather have a dual-boot system with Windows than some sort of emulation software that may not boot a quarter of my games.

How much does your Windows license cost?

Re:Not interested

[radish]

About $120-$130, if it didn't come included with a PC. So limited support for ~$100 or full support (including graphics & sound card drivers) for 20% more? Not a tough choice.

Re:Not interested

[Anonymous Coward]

Liscence? Puhleeezeeeee

Hundreds eh?...

[Timbo]

What they say: "allowing Linspire users to play hundreds of popular Windows-format games right out of the box."

What they mean: "about 90 or so games run after spending hours changing config files and trying different version of cedega. 90 is nearly 100 right?"

Re:Hundreds eh?...

[jargoone]

90 is nearly 100 right?

It can't be 100, they said "hundreds".

90 is "hundreds". 0.9 of them. :-)

Re:Hundreds eh?...

[Rallion]

Well, the plural form is often used with decimals, even if the number is less than 1.

0.9 hundreds.

Meanwhile, my dick is hundreds of feet long.

Re:Hundreds eh?...

[gui_tarzan2000]

"Well, the plural form is often used with decimals, even if the number is less than 1. "

I hope what you really meant to say was "hundredths". Anything under 1 is a hundredth, thousandth, etc. The "th" is used with a fractional amount, the "s" is used with multiples.

Re:Hundreds eh?...

[Mornelithe]

No.

0.9 hundredths = 0.9 * 0.01 = 0.009 = 9 thousandths

0.9 hundreds = 0.9 * 100 = 90

"Hundredths" is a noun that means a unit of 1/100.

"Hundreds" means a unit of 100, and can be used even when preceded by a fractional number, like "I have 0.9 hundreds of wildebeests," which would mean I have 90 of them. "Hundreds" by itself usually means "multiple hundreds," but if you're a sneaky marketing guy, I suppose you could use it to mean less than 100.

Viruses?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised we haven't seen an advertisement (I mean article) on their linux virus protection software http://www.linspire.com/products_virussafe_whatis. php.

Re:Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentenc

[MikeBabcock]

Aside from the obvious flambebaitness of your comment, you're right.

Making most games work with Cedega is dead simple if you use Point2Play (recommended by Transgaming unless you "know what you're doing").

Most every game I've tried on the supported list has worked the first time.

Bad Comparision

[ad0gg]

They forgot about purchasing Linspire. So you'll add $60 for linspire and $45 for Cedega and its more expensive then OEM windows xp Home. Wow, thats competive. I'll probably get modded down for this because i'm pointing out the facts.

Re:Bad Comparision

[d3bruts1d]

Bah, you got to it before I did.

Though... if someone were to use the coupon code LycorisWelcome between 7:30AM and 1:00PM PST they could get Linspire 5.0 for free. ;)

Re:Bad Comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, but the cost of Windows + game is still more than Linspire + game + Cedega.

Windows + game = ~170
Cedega + game + Linspire = ~140

The Linux solution is, in fact, slightly cheaper.

That said, I still think Windows is currently the correct choice for gaming, between ease of installation and the fact that Windows is basically included 'for free' in the mind of the user, even if it isn't actually free.

Just pointing out the facts.

Re:Bad Comparision

[gbulmash]

He ain't kidding! The LycorisWelcome coupon works! It's 11:29 a.m. PST, I've purchased Linspire 5 for $0.00 (didn't even have to enter a credit card since the cost was $0.00) and am downloading the ISO now. I've got a testbed box (Celeron 1.7, 512 RAM, 200gb ATA hdd) I'll put it on and try it out.

The video card is crap though, thus so much for trying gaming on it, but after installing Suse 9, Ubuntu Hoary HedgeHog, and CentOS 4 to see what's what, I'll be interested to see what the install and "out of the box" usability are like with Linspire.

- Greg

Re:Bad Comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they wouldn't add the cost of linspire. They gotta make it sound really cheap. They just don't let on the to fact that their values are for those who already have purchased Linspire.

Re:Bad Comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd still rather shell out a little more money for a Linux solution than have any of that money go to Microsoft. I think a lot of Linux users would agree.

Re:Bad Comparision

[Mafia$oft]

Pointing out the WHAT? "facts"!?

Well, the Facts (tm) are:

Lindows = $40something
Cedega = $44.95
Game X = $40-50
Total = $120-135

Windows Home = $100~
Windows Pro = $130~
Windows Longhorn = Unknown
Antivirus = $0-$100
Firewall = $0-$100
Windows "Repair" tool = $0-$100
HDD Imaging tool = $0-$50
Total = $100-$480
(and that's not even listing that very important word processor and so on...)

So you'd better leave me the h*ll alone with your "facts"...

Re:Bad Comparision

[Misgiven]

Whew! I got it at 3:58PM EST(12:58pm PST) and it was still working! I guess it was a close call. Now I can check this thing out.

Re:Bad Comparision

[DARKFORCE123]

Except that there is antivirus software on Windows for free, firewall software for free, and open source repair and imaging tools that are FREE and I can run OpenOffice on Windows for all my word processing needs.

You need to recheck your facts sir or at least do a better analysis.

Re:Bad Comparision

[pllewis]

Yet if you want it even cheaper:

Forget Linspire and go with another distro:

Mandriva or Fedora Core = $0 ( Free download )
Cedega Membership = $15 ( $5 a month with 3 month minimum)
GameX = $40-60
Total = $55-75

Re:Bad Comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

I got it at lunch earlier today....*uploads to DC++*

Re:Bad Comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cedega Membership = $15 ( $5 a month with 3 month minimum)"

I was beginning to wonder if ANYbody was gonna point that out..

Where did everyone get that $45 figure for the "cost of Cedega"? I think I missed it in the flood of BS and flames. (or is it flaming BS? whichever. :P)

Anyway.. you aren't actually paying for Cedega, itself. You're paying for a subscription to the TransGaming site, which includes user-support, forums, unlimited downloads of new versions of Cedega and Point-2-Play, among other things.

That's a damn good use of $5/month to me, especially if it means I never have to reboot to Windows again.

Please note that

[hyperstation]

using an "it costs less" argument will not work:

Windows XP Pro, via bittorrent: $0
Game X, Y, Z, *and* A, via bittorrent: $0
Total: $0

Re:Please note that

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Sad but true. People don't care about price, they'll just pirate it anyway.

Amusing quote

[4lex]

"Gamers don't have to choose between Linux and Windows anymore,"

Could they, until now?
(just joking! or should be...)

Sooo...

[robpoe]

They released Cedega for Linspire that costs $45 (and includes a WHOLE YEAR) to download and install .. through Linspires "buy software" function...

Am I missing something here?

Isn't Cedega / P2P like $5 a month??

Oh, and isn't the redundant "Click here to pay for a software that will let you click to play a game.." kinda .. well .. weird?

Flame away.

Cedega is not an answer..

[kuzb]

...It's a gateway to thousands more user problems. While my hat is off to the Transgaming team for their countless hours of time, effort and dedication to the winex project, and gaming on linux in general, it's far from a good solution. Certainly not one I would unleash on the clueless.

Most games don't play well, or play with really annoying issues. For example, many in-game videos do not play properly in Cedega, and if you can't skip them, you might be sitting there a long time waiting for them to finish. A good example of this is Black and White, where the opening video can't be skipped, and plays at about 3fps.

There was (may be fixed now, I don't know) another issue where you couldn't install games spanning multiple CDs without copying the contents of those CDs to the hard drive. So now you're involving the commandline, and/or file managers in order to install a game. Not quite as point-and-click easy as windows.

Many games which rely on Directplay for their multiplayer functionality do not work at all. Warcraft 3 is a good example of this. Works great single player (assuming you skip all the in-game videos) but fails horribly in multiplayer.

Lastly, most copy protections are not recognised under Cedega/Linux, forcing the user to go out and find a crack for their game.

The solution here is not to run Windows games, but to find more ways to convince major game developers that they should release ports to linux directly. All this Linspire/Transgaming thing is going to do is frustrate people who just want to play games. It will unquestionably leave more with a negative opinion of Linux in general.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[Anonymous Coward]

"The solution here is not to run Windows games, but to find more ways to convince major game developers that they should release ports to linux directly."

Id Software has done this and always takes a bath on the poor sales.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[MindStalker]

Generally id software releases a windows version that can easily be run on linux with a small download. And a linux version thats tough to get to run on windows. Which would you buy? Most pople buy the windows version even if they plan on playing it on linux. So the stats on linux sales for id are a bit off. And I seriously doupt id lost any money on the linux boxes. Obviously the correct path is to release both linux and windows on the same CD (generally just an extra executable). And not to release extra boxes, that may or may not sell.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[Spy der Mann]

Id Software has done this and always takes a bath on the poor sales.

Oh, yeah, Linux users are a MASSIVE representative proportion of PC Gamers. Yeah. Uh huh. *nods* (/sarcasm)

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to your experiences, I can say that multi-player Warcraft III works perfectly for me. The program itself takes a little longer to load, but after that, I can't tell a difference between playing in WinXP or Ubuntu. (Using Cedega 4.2.1)

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[jeblucas]

Most games don't play well, or play with really annoying issues. For example, many in-game videos do not play properly in Cedega, and if you can't skip them, you might be sitting there a long time waiting for them to finish. A good example of this is Black and White, where the opening video can't be skipped, and plays at about 3fps.

AMEN. The only game I try to play is Magic Online, and the start-up video takes almost 10 minutes. And it's not 3 fps--it's like 0.75 fps. I run my little script to start the game and go get some coffee or a sandwich. I pity the Wal-Mart shopper that thinks this is how it's meant to be.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[SkinnyTurkey]

The solution here is not to run Windows games, but to find more ways to convince major game developers that they should release ports to linux directly.

Ironically, one way to convince the major game developers to have native Linux port is to have transgaming succeed.

When Loki Games existed, I enjoyed playing Heroes III, Kohan and Myth 2 on my Linux box. Too bad Loki could not last.

The ports by Loki were decent, especially for games where performance isn't critical. For e.g., playing Kohan was fine, but then try speeding up the playback to 8x (800%), and I notice it was playing maybe just at 3x the speed... on Windows, it really could playback at 8x.

I think the market for Linux gaming has to grow a lot more before game companies can justify the engineering cost of native Linux port. Some way to grow Linux desktop is through improvements on KDE/GNOME, OpenOffice, FireFox, Thunderbird, etc., but efforts like transgaming also help grow the Linux desktop share.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[rincebrain]

I've actually found that WINE plays Warcraft III under Linux better for me.

YMMV of course.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[Baloo Ursidae]

Most games don't play well, or play with really annoying issues. For example, many in-game videos do not play properly in Cedega, and if you can't skip them, you might be sitting there a long time waiting for them to finish. A good example of this is Black and White, where the opening video can't be skipped, and plays at about 3fps.

Odd, the opening video can be skipped and is perfectly watchable in the current Cedega. And as for glitchiness in Cedega, this is something game developers need to take into account now. It's the third millennium, Windows is obsolete and it's time to move on.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[spitzak]

They wouldn't take a "bath" if they put it on the same CD as the Windows one.

It seems to me that spending 100% of the cost of supporting Linux (ie in writing the port) and then purposely desiging the distribution so that unsold boxes are returned, is some scheme by management to "prove" that supporting Linux loses money.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[fishlet]

"The solution here is not to run Windows games, but to find more ways to convince major game developers that they should release ports to linux directly."

Hmnn, lets see. Convince the gaming companys to spend a wad of cash to develop native linux versions of their games for .... 5% of the market?. Of that, knock off half since many only use Linux as a serverside OS. Half that again for all those linux users who have the philosophy that all software must be free(tm). Without real $$$ potential, there's not much to talk about.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but Warcraft III does not use Directplay.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL
Right...

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[Anonymous Coward]

unsold boxes are returned for many products. It is a good way to judge the user acceptance. If they made a million copies sold them all to stores with no return then no one buys they have no real way of knowing how successfull they were and more importantly whether they should continue such an investment.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[spitzak]

Linux usage could be easily gauged by some sort of on-line registration of the purchased copy.

Re:Cedega is not an answer..

[kuzb]

Game developers need to take in to account emulation layers that they don't support in the first place? Windows is obsolete? I think you should wake up from whatever dream you're having. I don't care how good looking she is.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Forget games

[Anonymous Coward]

I think consumers are more worried about anti-virus software and spyware blockers. I mean, I looked around and I found virtually *no* anti-virus software for linux desktops! If only I could run Norton Antivirus in Wine, then I could *really* make the switch!

Heck, Linux also needs to get up-to-speed on good defrag software, desktop-icon cleaner software, and maybe a closely bundled browser and media player! There are _a lot_ of opportunites for Wine in this space I believe.

Heck, couldn't someone make a linux distro that boots into X/Wine by default?

Re:Forget games

[Anonymous Coward]

and you will also find *no* viruses or spyware that have any effect on Linux. Thats why there is no anti-virus.

Re:Forget games

[The_Wilschon]

That is a good point, sad to say. I can envision a lot of people considering the switch to Linux, and then rejecting it because the utilities that they are familiar with needing are not available. Perhaps we need to make it more clear to the general public that Linux doesn't need defrag software or anti-spyware software, etc. Not that I have any idea how we'd go about doing this, of course....

Re:Forget games

[h0ts4uc3]

Kaspersky Makes linux antivirus software, you must not know how to use google.

When you use linux you dont need to worry about spyware and adware, these things mainly affect windows machines and arent even a concern in linux.

Obviously you use Internet Explorer and you should get a clue before posting on slashdot like an uneducated fucking moron. Have you heard of firefox? Opera?

There are plenty of distros that boot into X i have no idea wtf you're talking about

Re:Forget games

[Anonymous Coward]

* - JOKE

O - Your head

Re:Forget games

[Neoncow]

I guess I'm just a noob, but I never knew that Linux doesn't require defrag tools.

Curious as I am, I found this: Linux file system defrag
Hope that helps anyone else who is wondering about this.

Re:Forget games

[strider44]

Actually there are plenty of anti-virus solutions for Linux desktops. Unfortunately they only filter out *Windows* viruses.

Developers - Share the Responsibility

[hexed_2050]

This is a great way to give people diversity when choosing which OS they wish to use to play their favourite games.

However, shouldn't the responsibility to provide a Linux gaming platform be on the software engineers and companies that create these games? There's nothing more enjoyable knowing that a company and their programming team took the time to acknowledge the Linux community and create a port of the game specifically for the Linux platform. Not only does it create a game that can be widely played on many platforms by many different types of people, it also gives the company a massive amount of creditability with real computer nerds.

Overall, I for one see this as a step in the correct direction, but I think some responsibility should lie with the developers as well.

Re:Developers - Share the Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

However, shouldn't the responsibility to provide a Linux gaming platform be on the software engineers and companies that create these games?

The second someone publishes a game on Linux and it returns enough of a profit to justify that level of development effort versus spending the time on another Windows game, I'm sure more developers and companies will be happy to. But while it'd be enjoyable to port stuff to Linux and might get bonus points with nerds, that doesn't necessarily pay the bills.

The best bet here is to keep improving libraries like SDL with an LGPL or BSD license. The commercial Torque engine is also pretty exciting on that front. If those are able to get close enough to the state-of-the-art speed and feature-set to be viable on a major production, it might make more sense to use them - making porting much much simpler and cheaper.

WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

Try running world of warcraft on linux.

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

I do. Daily. My install has never seen a Windows partition. Works fine.

Now - I've had some problems playing with OpenGL. So I don't get some of the lighting effects my wife gets on her Win2K box. That's kinda sad - 'cause they ARE purty.

But I can live without some of the flash. After all, that means I don't have to sacrifice drive space to Windows nor keep switching out between environments.

Yearly fees, AHHH!!

[skarps]

Some games(MMORPGs) are already forcing the gamer to pay a montly/yearly fee(i.e. World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, etc...)to play, now in order to play a non-montly fee game (Doom 3, HL2) on my linux box, I'm forced to pay a yearly fee. So now I've went from paying a montly fee for just my MMORPGs to paying an additional yearly fee for all my games.

No thanks, I'll stick to my Windows box for gaming.

Re:Yearly fees, AHHH!!

[frkiii]

EverQuest (the first one) has been charging monthly subscription fees since, what, 1996?

So, with WoW and EverQuest, it is not new, new more of the same.

I sometimes look at my subscription fees as a "monthly maintenance" cost, get upgrades, etc. But I also get the possibility of being totally hosed by SoE also. Mostly good, sometimes a serious gamble. (Reference to release of Gates of Discord where a number of people could not log in for a day or more right after that expansion was released. Needless to say, some people were a bit miffed).

Re:Yearly fees, AHHH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm... Doom3 is playable natively in Linux.
There is a simple installer available on the iD page.

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic Linspire (the version you mention for $49.95) is actually free.

Linspire offers a coupon that chops $49.95 off the shopping cart's total if Linspire 5.0 is in the cart. Right now it's "LycorisWelcome". They do seem to change it every so often...

Glad it's someone else...

[AuraOfDeath]

Having tried Transgaming's software and gui front end, and only getting 1 game out of the 15 I have to work. It definately isn't worth the $5.00 usd that they want you to pay per month to use their services. Hours of frustrated tweaking, redownloading, reinstalling, reeverything... and still end up with a useless gui that takes up much needed anime room. Save the dough until they actually put some effort into game support. Transgaming forums are full of help requests and zilch for feedback from transgaming. Mr M.

Play WC3? Oh, no, no, no...

[artemis67]

They meant you can still play with the packaging... if you fold up the included pieces of paper, you can make one of those triangle football thingies.

Hrrrrrm.

[WWWWolf]

Given the general idea on average geek's opinion on Linspire's suitability for anything, and how Transgaming has kept up their relations with Wine folks and rest of the opensource community, wouldn't it just make sense to call this "Linspire Evil-in-a-Box" and bundle Doom III with it (Not native, of course - running in Cedega!) to draw people's attention away from the true "evil" in the box? =)

But seriously, I've been playing a lot of games in DOSBox lately, and I just wish there was something as brilliant for Windows apps too. A self-contained distro for just playing Windows games might be a great idea - too bad plain Wine just isn't up to the task yet and Cedega isn't open.

(a letter to editor from "a worried Windows 98SE license owner who can't get the damn thing to even boot on the new machine and XP upgrade costs too damn much")

Wrong solution

[suitepotato]

Pure and simple if the Linux community is going to squak about Windows, bash Microsoft, and copy everything they do, then they might as well quit now. Innovation and providing the end users with what they want is where it is at. Microsoft does it, Linux doesn't. Simple.

TuxRacer proves that decent graphics and speed are possible natively on Linux. Linux based game design and publishing is needed, not using Windows games on Linux. As Linux is proven to be capable of running games of its own just fine, more publishers will port their games natively to Linux. Trying to co-opt Windows apps onto Linux is kludgy and ultimately screams "we're unoriginal me-too hacks". The Linux world needs to innovate, carve its own path, and create not copy. Until then, it isn't going to be getting where we want it to go, which is to be loved for being what it is and not used simply because we are angry with Microsoft.

Re:Wrong solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Um yeah ignore the fact that Doom 3, UT2003 and UT2004 run NATIVELY under linux.

Linux needs to force the developers to put things in consistent places, get over the stupid phobia of statically built binaries (funny, the real programmers at ID and Epic dont get in a freakoid mindbash when they ship statically build binaries..)

If linus were to dictate a filesystem layout and tell these dev's to quit acting like little babies and start using installers, statically linked with they use the bleeding edge libs that are not standard and compatable with current distros then it will stay a fringe/backroom OS.

as servers Linux and BSD can not be beat, not even by the best that redmond could ever try to create. but on the desktop, ESPICALLY the home moron desktop you have to make it click and drool.

Dumb it down, remove security and stability... just like windows did.

Re:Wrong solution

[deaddrunk]

Which is indeed the case until you remember that one OS has a stranglehold on the market. Look at the alternatives to MS Office. What's the first thing they need to offer to stand a chance? Compatibility with the beast.

Microsoft did this themselves with their ability to read and write Lotus and guides to using Word if you're used to Wordperfect.

If there were 10 equal games in town instead of one Linux would already be shining; as it is it has to be compatible with the platform that the overwhelming majority of software only runs on.

Re:Wrong solution

[KingBahamut]

Im often reminded of Loki's work, a large portion of which was run from http://www.lokigames.com/ , and all the installer work thats been done -- http://www.liflg.org/.

Its proven that Games run natively in linux fine. UT2004 clearly proved this. I still support Transgaming in their aims, but ultimately, for PCgamers , its native installers that we need to support, not wrappers to emulate the envoirnment.

Re:Wrong solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were 10 equal games in town instead of one Linux would already be shining; as it is it has to be compatible with the platform that the overwhelming majority of software only runs on.

You mean, like this running on Linux, via emulation? :-)

(Sorry, had to get that one in...)

Re:Wrong solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont ever ever ever ever put microsoft and innovate in the same sentence again!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Wrong solution

[strider44]

What the hell are you talking about? Sorry for blasting out but I have a uni test tomorrow so I'm a bit pissed off.

Firstly, TuxRacer doesn't prove that decent graphics and speed are possible natively on Linux. TuxRacer's graphics aren't anything special.

Doom 3 proves that decent graphics and speed are possible natively on Linux.

Secondly, you're saying that *Microsoft* are the innovative ones? Show me some point of innovation they have made over the past ten years that equals stuff like the LiveCDs, Dcop, slaves, etc. Have you seen Enlightenment, Luminosity, or the Looking Glass? There's eye candy there that Microsoft and even OS-X aren't even *close* to achieving. And don't say some piece of shit like "OMG, KDE HAS A TASKBAR" when Microsoft stole that idea from Macintosh ages ago.

I can't believe you got modded up to +5

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so you're a true believer.

"Sell my soul", "uptime of several months", "illegal bundling". Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds?

You are a posterboy for the cancer that's eating up the open source revolution from the inside: to people like you the ideology comes first and practicality the second. What the hell is uptime worth anyway? Bragging rights?

If you don't want to boot your computer to play games, maybe you should have bought all the parts but not the assembly of your desktop and buy the OEM Windows. I don't see why that would be a problem. It has never been a problem to me. Then, after installing Windows for the games, you can install Linux for whatever obscure reasons you might need it for. what's stopping you? Don't tell me it's the fact that "it's not ideologically pure", "I end up paying the M$-tax!" or something along those lines.

Re:I can't believe you got modded up to +5

[EvilSporkMan]

What's the point of ideology if it doesn't come first?

Easy as PIE - WINE runs WC3 aswell

[sygin]

Easy as PIE - even WINE runs WC3 Your video card/linux setup support is your problem.

Re:Easy as PIE - WINE runs WC3 aswell

[WWWWolf]

Funky. Tried a raw fresh setup: rm -rf .wine, use winesetuptk to generate "didn't touch a damn thing" defaults, and tried to run WC3 installer. Doesn't work at all: says it can't stick blizzard.ax in some .mpq file or something.

Diablo II installs, but won't run. (Didn't try if it'd run better with the expansion - didn't have enough disk space in /home to install both.)

A lot of games often get cranky at the install phase, it seems, yet a lot of people claim to be able to run them without any problems, even with no actual Windows DLLs present... I really need to look at this.

(-1, Reverse Psychology Troll)

[orasio]

"I'll probably get modded down for this because i'm pointing out the facts."

Stop saying that, please!
I would mod down every guy who says that, if I ever got mod points. It's just a cheap shot a getting modded up, and the most annoying thing is that it works.

I would really like mods to stop modding up people who say "I'll probably get modded down", because most people who do say things that matter, don't care that much about their karma.

Re:(-1, Reverse Psychology Troll)

[BaudKarma]

I think I'll just start modding them down. They seem to expect it, and I hate for people to be disappointed.

Could this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?

Win is a dead end for games

[WillAffleckUW]

Most gamers have moved on to platforms like PS2, and are drooling while they see the specs on the PS3 (or whatever they were calling it last week) and the GameFrog (or whatever the Nintendo thing is).

Seriously, I can't remember the last time I bought a Windows game. Maybe a few years ago? So long as I can get Fable (ya ya, so it's xBox, but it's not even that great) and Lego Star Wars and Sims: The Urbz and suchlike, why would I want to buy a Win game?

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahaha... have any more jokes?

Oh, you were serious. Nevermind.

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[Yaotzin]

GameFrog? Where ever did you hear that? The only name I've ever heard is Nintendo Revolution which is what Nintendo also mentions as the official name.

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[WillAffleckUW]

GameFrog? Where ever did you hear that? The only name I've ever heard is Nintendo Revolution which is what Nintendo also mentions as the official name.

Well, maybe that's the name in English. I think it's GameFrog or GameJewel in other places.

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[yRabbit]

I recently bought Thief: Deadly Shadows, and Unreal Tournament 2004, for Windows..
Why? User modifications/maps. Nevermind that I don't have a PS2 or XBox. Even if I did I would still have bought the PC versions.
It really adds some replay value (or will, in the case of TDS. I haven't looked for maps in a couple of months. ;) )
And.. keyboard/mouse control is nice too.
I hope PC games continue, really.. But, it really is a pain to get Windows games and programs working properly in linux, at least in my experience. :\
(Except for companies that are nice enough to provide linux executables. I had Quake 3 work in FreeBSD before. :) 3d accelerated graphics, with sound, even.)

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[imsabbel]

As long as i can get winword and excel on windows, why should i get linux/k/open office?

Its the same: Console is everything for money, no free content, no nothing (encrypted binarys, ect).
PC is mods, user made content, freeware games, emulators, ect.

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[snuf23]

I have several consoles. They are good for some types of gaming. Not so for others.
So why own a Windows machine for gaming? These are my personal answers:

There are very few strategy (RTS and turn based) for consoles. The console controller is terrible for these types of games and the TV resolution is terrible at displaying the complexity needed.
Examples:

Rise of Nations
Civilization 3
Age of Mythology
And tons more on the way (AOE 3, Civ 4, Heroes of Might and Magic 5 etc.)

Games that have lots of user modifiable content. Easy to do on a PC, hard to do on a console.

Examples:
Unreal Tournament
Battlefield 1942
Half Life
Quake
Thief

Top of the line graphics still are only on PC. Maybe this will change, but the next generation consoles will stay at the same level for years - where the PC will keep getting better:

Examples:
Half-Life 2
Doom 3

Online multiplayer gaming. This is the big one. While consoles have made strides (in particularly with Xbox Live) on the PC tons of games have free online playability.

Examples:
Just about any FPS or RTS
Guild Wars
Diablo

Massively Multiplayer Online gaming. I love MMOs.
I still can't see how one would work without a keyboard. I mean voice chat is great for a small group, but how do you handle large groups of people in a capitol city?

Examples:
World of Warcraft
City of Heroes
Everquest 2

One other great thing is tons of freeware, and shareware games. Another is the large amount of emulators (yes I know you can do this on a modded Xbox as well).

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[__aamkky7574]

why would I want to buy a Win game?

Modability? There's nothing I love better than a good game of Day of Defeat - a game that never would have happened if we only played on consoles.

Oh, and mouses; I still cannot for the life of me enjoy a first person shooter using a gamepad. Tried it, tried it again, tried it three times... nope. Ugh.

Then there is the hell that is the memory card.

There's also the fact I don't want to buy yet another console which I know will become obsolete, cluttering up my already small apartment. Not to mention with the PC, it has its own monitor, while with a console I'd have to hog the living room TV.

Not to mention PC graphics are better simply because they are constantly evolving. Sure, PS3 and XBox 360 are coming out soon, and I'm sure they'll look great. But played a PS2 game lately? I tried one here in work and cannot get over how crude the games look compared to the most recent PC games - especially those whose roots are not based in console games.

There's also the thrill of the occasional upgrade. Some people might say this is a negative... me, I loved putting another gig of memory into my machine recently and watching Half-Life 2 getting even prettier. Compare that with a console, when no matter how good it looks, you know that'll be as good as it ever gets.

PCs? I love 'em. Consoles? Meh.

P.

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[martian265]

Who modded this guy insightful?

Most gamers do NOT only play on consoles! The PC game market is more alive and well than at any other time in the history of gaming.

I had a large post written up with so many reasons why you are wrong, and then I realized, if you are clueless enough to make such an idiotic blanket statement you would never be able to grasp any explanation of why you are wrong.

While the next gen of gaming consoles are looking incredible, they will still never be able to take away any real significant share from many of the portions of the gaming market from PCs. While they have their niche, they still can't touch a PC in the FPS and RTS genre, which of course is where the money is at. Sure, there are a lot of kids playing those types of games on their PS2 or Xbox, but that really is because their parents won't buy them a modern computer.

If you seriously still think that PC games are passe, find a computer shop that has a modern game running on a modern PC and give it a shot. Then go over to the PS2 or Xbox demo machine and compare the 2. If you're being at least semi-impartial you'll immediately see what PC games have to offer.

P.S. I hope that Linspire and Transgaming can get this together, then maybe it will flow back to Cedega for Linux. It would be nice to be able play real games on Linux without losing half the performance of my machine or spending 10 hours per game to get it setup and 10-20 mins each session getting it to run again.

Re:Win is a dead end for games

[WillAffleckUW]

Most gamers do NOT only play on consoles! The PC game market is more alive and well than at any other time in the history of gaming.

the market hears your frustration and cares nothing - reality says that the money flows have decided otherwise.

We can discuss purity of gaming and if PC is better than console, but it's pretty pointless.

Re:B.F.D.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that all it takes to develop commercial games is an "average no talent hack that thinks they're eleet" then you're seriously misinformed.

ATI?

[phorm]

Actually, if you're using an ATI card you won't be doing too badly. They are making linux drivers which seem to be improving over time. There are issues with the drivers and they aren't as good as the NVidia ones, but then again even my windows ATI drivers have done some pretty funky things before.

Now, for other craptacular cards such as the various intel, etc brands... you're going to be in trouble indeed. Many laptops and onboard video sets use them. They don't perform well in windows, and - in my experience - are even more troublesome (and unsupported) in 'nix thus far.

Great for current & older games, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't PC gaming on the way out anyway? I'm hearing that PC game sales are sliding.

With the performance boosts in the nextgen consoles & all the online play I just wonder how long Cedega will be relevant.

-CowboyJake

Re:Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentenc

[Anonymous Coward]

Warcraft 3 ran flawlessly on my debianbox two years ago. You must've been doing something wrong.

Hardware

[phorm]

The failing point is often the hardware though. It will install fine if you have an NVidia card or possibly an ATI... but with others it can be pretty hit-and-miss.

Cedega has never liked my Epia's Unichrome cards (even for games that seem usable - though not spectacular - in windows)... and I'd bet that it sucks equally on Intel/etc cards.

Re:Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd bet that it sucks equally on Intel/etc cards.

I hate to break the bad news to you but everything equally sucks on intel cards, its not biased :).
If you're playing games; ATI and NVidia chipsets will be normally recommended no matter who you speak to, no matter what platform you're running.

Re:B.F.D.

[tomstdenis]

Have you looked at the average game? Basically Q3A engine with a few new graphics and a title like "medal of honour!".

Same shit different day.

Not to say they're not partially fun. Just not worth being in windows for.

I'd rather [and do] do without then install windows.

I do play UT2K4 once in a while because they made a Linux port that works well.

Tom

Re: Yes but...

[Dhrakar]

Will it run OS X?

uhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

that title should read "Linspire to occationally run some Windows games in a degraded state with random inconsistancies in an attempt to generate frustration and ill-will amongst the walmart pc userbase"

Longer, and slightly more awkward, but much more accurate.

Re:Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentenc

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be using redhat

Wait before buying...

[loose_cannon_gamer]

I'm not a fully crazed gamer, but I do enjoy playing games a lot, and my hardware isn't that bad. That said, I split my time between development work and gaming, and dual boot (windows being purely for games and finance management).

For a while I tried to be windows free, pure linux, and I even got a cedega subscription. I was disappointed, in that I could only get about 1 title in 10 to actually work, and none without serious UI gotchas, visual artifacts, crashes, etc. This was 6 months ago, and it is possible that things have changed.

So while this is a fine idea, I highly recommend proving it out. I know I am not going to be an early adopter, as I felt like the claims made by cedega were, in my experience, wholly unsubstantiated back then. The idea is great, but the last time I tried it, the technology and stability just weren't there.

Re:Wait before buying...

[KlausBreuer]

Depends on which games you play. The latest ones - nope, forget it.

But the older ones... aaah, yes. Things like "Settlers II" or "HoMM", "Omega" or "Dungeon Master". Good games. Not the latest graphics, but a heck of a lot of fun - and cheap.

Not Completely Accurate

[c_spencer100]

Lindows actually had some sort of agreement with CodeWeavers, but Robertson had some sort of falling out with CodeWeavers and the partnership (for lack of a better word) was dissolved.

The horrible truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lastly, most copy protections are not recognised under Cedega/Linux, forcing the user to go out and find a crack for their game."

Change that sentence to read, "Lastly, most copy protections are not recognised, forcing the user to go out and find a crack for their game."

That's been my experience with the games I own legitimately. It's even worse when the company makes additional hoops. It's easier for me to download the full version of Doom 3 than download the demo of Doom 3. Don't even get me started on Half-Life 2 for those who are not on a direct internet connection.

Re:The horrible truth...

[MegaFur]

Re Half-Life 2: I think you'd find the lack of a direct internet connection to be just as much a pain if you were installing HL2 under Windoze instead of Linux. The Steam content serving/authentication thing is neat, but the major, major flaw is how things fail to work when you can't get a connection. If you're extra patient, I think you can get single player to work... not sure about multiplayer, and I wouldn't even want to try to register the game that way, and that's assuming that it even lets me.

Re:The horrible truth...

[kuzb]

I'm sorry, I've never heard of this "Windoze" operating system you speak of. Must be a new thing.

NOT EXPENSIVE

[tolkienfan]

There are so many things wrong with this attitude, it's not even funny.

Keep paying Microsoft their licensing fee:

• They won't use that money to shove DRM down our throats.
• Or lobby congress to further restrict our rights.
• Or fund monopolizing new markets.
• Or fund their patent portfolio to use in the future against their biggest competitor: GNU/Linux.

Come on! Get with the program. QUIT FUNDING THIS CRAP!

I've been to Id...

[Anonymous Coward]

They could use the bath.

Educational reduced cost?

[The_Wilschon]

Does Linspire offer any sort of student licensing? For example, I can imagine a lot of my friends at college being interested in this, however, my school sells student license copies of winXP for $16. At $95, Linspire+cedega is not even going to be considered, and even if it were considered, it would not really be a viable option. In fact, I suspect that for a number of students, without the 16$ Xp, they would not have a computer. There's always the library after all.

Re:B.F.D.

[drsquare]

Of course, those millions of dollars and teams of programmers working for years are obviously spending their time working out how to do a for loop...

Perhaps they don't make Linux because the cost and effort aren't worth the rewards. Coding for a new architecture is more than re-writing a few API calls. You often have to completely write most of it from scratch. Then TEST IT ALL OVER AGAIN. Testing takes months. Testing for Linux would take even longer. All for a potential extra 10,000 customers, 9,000 of whom are convinced that 'information wants to be free' and look for your game on bittorrent.

Eich Bein!!

[Craig_P92669]

error 500: Interner Serverfehler
Das angegebene Skript konnte nicht fehlerfrei ausgeführt werden!

We had better watch /.ing German servers. I think we all know how testy Germans can be.

Re:Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentenc

[vector_prime]

funny, WC3 base and frozen throne work beautifully on my system (Cedega on Gentoo) and did right out of the box. So does WoW, Diablo II, and every other blizzard title I've tried. The only thing that I've not been able to get working is Halo.

informative? how about completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact 1) basic Linspire 5.0 is $49.95
Fact 2) "LycorisWelcome" coupon code take $49.95 off of the shopping cart total if Linspire 5.0 is in the cart
Fact 3) $49.95 - $49.95 = $0

take your trolling elsewhere

Re:Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentenc

[rincebrain]

Hey, what a coincidence.

WINE plays all of those too, and doesn't cost anything.

Sweet!

[kayak334]

"...allowing Linspire users to play hundreds of popular Windows-format games right out of the box"

At about 1/3 the framerate with none of the special effects and only after about 6 hours of headache to get the game running at all!!

Seriously, I give money to transgaming...but it's just not there. Use Linux for whatever you use it for, just not games.

Windows >>> Linux... when it comes to games.

Re: Yes but...

[Craig_P92669]

Will it run Windows running Linux running Windows running Linux running Windows running Linux running Windows....this would give Daryl and Bill aneurisms.

Re:Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentenc

[WhiteWolf666]

Weird hardware, or a weird linux distribution.

Don't expect everything 'mainstream' to work properly on the plethora of hardware/distribution combinations out there.

On SuSE linux (~8.2-9.3) Warcraft III in Cedega/Point2Play really is easy. No settings to configure, everything works out-of-box.
I'm sorry to say that the current situation is unfortunate; the truth of that matter is that it will work out-of-box, but only with certain configurations, and there is no real way to improve that without greater unification among distributions (which, I believe, is a mixed blessing), and more support from hardware manufacturers (which will be extremely positive).

Also, Transgaming has made noises about going completely opensource, but this is really only likely if they get some large licensing deals, like funding support from RedHat, Mandriva, and/or SuSE, or if they are purchased by Crossover or something.

Re:B.F.D.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying that most games that come out are innovative in design.. just that to suggest that the games aren't ported to linux because the developers can't code is preposterous. Whether or not you think the games are fun to play has little bearing on the fact that the code is enourmously complex compared to a lot of other types of apps.

You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching someone goto jail for copyright infringement: Priceless

Happy Cedega User

[Bob9113]

I use Cedega on Ubuntu and Debian, so far only to play World of Warcraft. I get 20 FPS with a fairly anemic NVidia card (GeForce 2 MX 400) at 1024x768. Installation was dead simple (they provide .debs). There's usually a minor bug or two when a new release of WoW comes out (Blizzard, understandably, doesn't test on Cedega before releasing patches), but they have consistently been fixed within 24 hours. I have maybe 200 hours in the game, and am completely satisfied with Cedega. I haven't tried Point2Play, but I hear it makes it easier if you're not comfortable with dpkg -i from the command line.

Windows multitasks just as well

[Frangible]

Windows multitasks just as well, those processes will slow down your gaming and eat RAM on any OS, period. If that's a sacrifice you want to make, fine, that's your perogative, but it has nothing to do with a platform war. Windows will run games literally twice, if not more, quickly than any other desktop OS, including Linux and OS X. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Linux and OS X just aren't good gaming environments, and probably never will be.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Windows multitasks just as well, those processes will slow down your gaming and eat RAM on any OS, period.

No, it doesn't. Windows can run one application quickly, but is terrible about running multiple applications. I know I have a Windows box, an OS X box, and a NetBSD box all handy at work. Ever wonder why so many people hate PDFs? I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with so may people being Windows users. Click on the wrong link and suddenly your computer is useless while the plug-in and the PDF load. That is not the case on OS X, Linux, or NetBSD. All of those OSs let you switch to a new browser tab, or another application and keep working happily.

I'm typing this on an OS X box with about a dozen major applications running in my user space. My browser is currently using 18% of my cpu and all the other applications and the OS together are using 8%. That is because although photoshop is open and InDesign is open and both are resource hogs, neither is actually doing anything and neither is using more than a percent or two of the CPU. My Windows box has Indesign open in the background too. It is using 55% of the somewhat faster CPU in that machine.

Windows will run games literally twice, if not more, quickly than any other desktop OS, including Linux and OS X

Umm, have you ever run a game (not in emulation) on all three platforms? The performance difference is usually not even noticeable on comparable hardware.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Linux and OS X just aren't good gaming environments, and probably never will be.

You know what, for the most part you are right. But that is because the lack of titles, not because of any problem with the OS. I occasionally go to LAN parties and play games. I always bring along my relatively slow mac laptop if we're playing a game that runs on that platform. I never had any problems with it being too slow, but I certainly had some advantages when it came to stability and functionality. I once ended up hosting the games on my laptop because all three of the windows towers were having issues. One was blue-screening every 30 minutes or so due to a video card conflict with the motherboard. One was having network problems and kept dropping off and the third could join the game, but no one could see the game while hosted on that machine. Tell me, which was the superior gaming platform that day?

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also noticed the productivity gains of the Windows platform in another area. With Linux and OS X, thin-air-to-statistic converters only run at 67% efficiency. You, using only the power of Windows, have easily doubled that.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[idonthack]

Actually...
UT2004 runs faster under Linux than Windows, especially if you use the 64-bit version.

And Doom 3 looks slightly better, even if it does run a bit slower:
Linux screenshot
Windows Screenshot
Look at the sides of the crates, and where the flashlight shines on the wall.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[Superfarstucker]

That's incredibly interesting because for shits and giggles I decided to load the entire adobe cs2 suite into memory and see just how many cpu cycles it hogs? Less than 1% with the gui drawn or sent to the taskbar. PROGRAMS DONT ARBITRARILY EAT CPU AND IO TIME UNLESS THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING MORON. If you have pdf's set to load in a new window you can merrily continue about your work. I don't know if your an idiot or just a fraud but I suspect a bit of both.

I guess the worms have had a feast on your appled brain.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I decided to load the entire adobe cs2 suite into memory and see just how many cpu cycles it hogs? Less than 1% with the gui drawn or sent to the taskbar. PROGRAMS DONT ARBITRARILY EAT CPU AND IO TIME UNLESS THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING MORON.

OK, now open a large file, with lot's of pictures in it make a random change and save that change. Now switch do another application, like Firefox or explorer, leaving the file open but not doing anything. Now take a look at your CPU usage. Up around 50% maybe smartass?

If you have pdf's set to load in a new window you can merrily continue about your work.

...And if you don't? Oh yeah, your machine grinds to a halt and you can't even switch windows. Nice multitasking.

I don't know if your an idiot or just a fraud but I suspect a bit of both

I'll tell you what I am, I'm a person who actually uses the software and judges it based upon real-world performance rather than loads it without doing anything. Perhaps you and the QA people from both MS and Adobe got your education from the box of cracker jacks. If you're going to start calling someone a moron, maybe you should take a hard look in the mirror.

I quoted real worlds statistics from boxes sitting in front of me, right now, and you think your half-assed, poorly thought out "test" somehow makes for a valid argument. Programs on Windows that are not being used, but do have resources open certainly do arbitrarily eat cpu cycles and interfere with the operation of other programs as anyone who has tried to run an resource intensive game or application on Windows can tell you. Get a clue and pull your head out of your ass already. And next time you decide to refute a claim how about asking for some information on the setup and procedure before doing so? You know little things like what version of Windows and InDesign and number of processors and what exactly was done and how the numbers were gathered. You know, like facts.

Jerkoffs like you that are impolite as well as incompetent should really learn to either keep their mouths shut or spend at least 5 minutes thinking before being allowed to type. Congrats, you're the first person I've ever bothered to ban from my viewing list.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[ad0gg]

No, it doesn't. Windows can run one application quickly, but is terrible about running multiple applications.

Yawn.. Do you know anything about multitasking? Do you know NT was built on for multithreading? It wasn't a hacked up much like how PThreads was hacked into BSD. PThreads can't compete against Windows threads, hell windows supports PThreads but no one uses it, i wonder why? And how the fuck does PDF have to do with anything? Wow apple uses quartz which is PS rendering engine. Quart can rendering PDF Files which is part of PS 3.0 specification. You can view PDF files faster than windows user and Adobe Acrobat reader! Lets compare apples os x finder to XP shell, and talk about responsiveness. Open a samba share to a share with a few thousand files and tell me how long it takes. Or hell do anything with webdav. Twirling raibow disk for the win.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

"PROGRAMS DONT ARBITRARILY EAT CPU AND IO TIME UNLESS THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING MORON"

Like screwing up?

Filler text to convince slashdot that I'm just quoting this dudes lameness ("Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."), rather than indulging in it myself.

ladidadidadida

That should do it

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. UT2k4 runs noticeably slower in linux, which isn't even remotely surprising if you know the differences between the layout in Direct3D and OpenGL. You can even ask Ryanb Gordon, since he wrote the port of the engine.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

So a 32-bit version of Doom 3 runs slower on 32-bit Windows on a 32-bit CPU than 64-bit Doom3 on a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU.

Since the application being run and the CPU are radically different, why is the OS choice relevant to the performance outcome?

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[MidnightBrewer]

It has everything to do with a platform war. Game manufacturers work very long hours to make sure that their games are optimized for Windows before they ever even think (if ever) of porting their game to another platform. The ports are usually "if it runs without crashing and at a decent frame rate, call it good and cash the check." Does this make Linux or OSX bad gaming environments? Of course not. It simply means they are being treated as an afterthought.

Windows, on the other hand, is terrible at multi-tasking; sorry. As an animator and videographer, I have used both Macs and PCs for over ten years, both on the 9x series and NT side, and have found that Windows' ability to multi-task seems to have actually gotten worse with each iteration. It just can't handle heavy task loads well if it involves more than one application at a time.

I will agree, though, that if I'm going to play a game I shut down whatever I don't need. I keep a memory monitor in my task bar, though, and can tell you that a lot of RAM gets wasted on a per-process basis regardless of whether or not it's in use.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

They may do that on Windows, but the whole point is that it shouldn't happen, and on Linux it doesn't happen. Programs that are not doing anything don't eat CPU cycles. If they put the CPU usage up to 50% on Windows, that's a problem with Windows.

Windows users may be used to closing everything else while playing games, Linux users are generally not.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[spauldo]

What does multithreading have to do with multiple processes? Especially when talking UNIX derivatives? They're different concepts, and (at least on UNIX) handled differently by the scheduler.

UNIX uses separate processes more then threading. Mozilla and evolution aren't threads (although they are both multithreaded, I'm sure) - they're processes. UNIX boxes were optimized for multiple processes before CP/M was dreamed of, much less its derivatives. That's why most server programs running on UNIX use fork() instead of threads.

Windows wasn't optimized from the get-go for multiple applications at once. It was designed to one thing at a time, and it shows. Sure, multithreading is great for one application, but that doesn't help if you've trying to run a game and have photoshop in the background doing a complex filter or bryce rendering a scene.

Right now I'm posting this in mozilla with applications open on eight other desktops - two of which are currently doing things (I've got a render going and some downloads running in pan). There's no slowdown at all, until processes start fighting over I/O - and if I was doing this on my sparc (can't beat 'em for I/O, especially with solaris), I wouldn't even have that slowdown.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[ad0gg]

"UNIX uses separate processes more then threading. Mozilla and evolution aren't threads (although they are both multithreaded, I'm sure) - they're processes. UNIX boxes were optimized for multiple processes before CP/M was dreamed of, much less its derivatives. That's why most server programs running on UNIX use fork() instead of threads."

Modern OS's have moved away from processes(I'd love to see multitask test against osx vs YellowTAB's Zeta). They are very inefficient, we are talking 100s of cycles(on solaris) cycles to clone the process not to mention the overhead of copy on write flag for the memory. Lets not even talk about the context switching between processes and threads or interprocess communications.

Reason why most things in the unix world uses processes is because the developers are lazy, multithreaded programming is one of the most difficult things to do. Do a search for "processes vs theads" theres a sun powerpoint presentation talking about how developers should stay away from threads because of the complexity. The funny thing is, they had list exemptions, one them being performance. Or better yet go buy a book on parallel processing.

And btw, i have 9 instances of IE, Google desktop crawling my system, winamp streaming, MS Sql Server,My Sql,couple putty windows, along with 100 other processes yet it functions just fine. I could even do this while defragging my drive without any notice.

Re:Windows multitasks just as well

[katakis]

You dont know what are you talking about... When you play UT2004 on a Linux box you will change your opinion

Why are people talking about the cost of linspire?

[Coopa]

Since when did Cedega run just under Linspire? It's always been linux software. Ok so they now have a major ditro backing them but Cedega will still run under other linux ditros...so the cost of that would be nothing. Most linux ditros are free.

no problem here....

[Cutting_Crew]

i have 2 or 3 IE windows up, AIM & MSN messenger running, and photoshop and Visual.NET for some openGL programming and then i decide to run the new game Battlefield 2.... so i run it.. high res, no problem. i dont have to shut anything down. why does everyone else complain about this? i dont get it really unless they are out just to flame off their anti-MS personal agenda. btw my specs are: 3.4 Ghz Pci-express mobo L2 Cache 2 GB DDR RAM @ 533 Mhz Geforce 6800 SLI(256 RAM per card)

Re:no problem here....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

why does everyone else complain about this? i dont get it really unless they are out just to flame off their anti-MS personal agenda. btw my specs are: 3.4 Ghz Pci-express mobo L2 Cache 2 GB DDR RAM @ 533 Mhz Geforce 6800 SLI(256 RAM per card)

Take a look at what applications you are running, but not using, are consuming in terms of resources. Your machine is pretty well specced compared to most. The laptop I run dozens of applications on all the time, plus a game on top, has about 1/3 the cpu and ram, and even less video ram. It is several years old, a laptop (obviously), and was not top of the line even when I bought it. Maybe that is immaterial, but in my experience, Windows does not do a very good job of resource allocation when under high loads, while other OSs do just fine. Maybe you don't have a problem because you are not taxing your system, or maybe your machine does a better job than most for some reason. I can tell you that when I play games on my windows box, I shut all the other major applications or performance suffers.

Re:no problem here....

[snuf23]

As you quoted previously:

"Note, this is on a couple year old laptop running OS X. The games I usually play are some older ones, like UT2003, Warcraft 3, Neverwinter nights, and a handful of less cpu/gpu intensive but fun games."

These are old games. You shouldn't have any problem doing the same thing on a comparable Windows box from a couple of years ago. I sure could on my old 2.4GHz box just fine.
The biggest issue is RAM. If you have a gig of RAM this is mostly a non-issue. Leaving apps open isn't going to cause a problem. Even without enough memory, Windows will dump your apps into virtual memory and free up the RAM for use with the active application as necessary.
I run World of Warcraft full speed with all the whiz bango effects on. I alt-tab out to use my web browser. I run background tasks such as newsgroup binary downloads (huge memory hog btw, when you have millions of posts in a group) without any in game slowdown.
If you are talking about Windows 98 or something you have a point I guess, but I haven't had an issue with 2000 or XP.
So maybe it doesn't work well with your system, but I sure don't know why. Maybe you don't know how to properly take care of a Windows system or something.
Just because YOUR Windows computer doesn't work well, doesn't mean that everyone else is having the same trouble. I think this is evidenced by the number of posts citing that their Windows systems can handle it just fine.

Re:no problem here....

[Anonymous Coward]

NT is much more efficient than OS X at basically all kernel functions. It has a better scheduler, system calls are faster, it has finer-grained locking, its virtual memory system is better.

OS X isn't a high-performance operating system.

People that close programs on Windows while playing games are running expensive programs or are stupid. Plain and simple.

Re:no problem here....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

NT is much more efficient than OS X at basically all kernel functions. It has a better scheduler, system calls are faster, it has finer-grained locking, its virtual memory system is better.

Theoretically that may be true, but it does not seem to hold up in the real world, possibly due to flaws in the implementation.

People that close programs on Windows while playing games are running expensive programs or are stupid. Plain and simple.

You seem to have missed the point. Just because you are running expensive programs does not mean you should have to shut them down to play a game. I leave several very expensive programs like photoshop and InDesign running and can still play cpu/memory hungry games without a problem. Theoretically you might be able to do that with Windows, but in reality it does not work for me. I have two machines with comparable CPUs and RAM but the OS X machine can run the same games or other intensive programs smoothly while the Windows machine becomes unresponsive to clicks. There is a certain build process I run every few days and often run on both machines. If I run it on my mac it runs and I do normal tasks like writing in a text editor, checking my mail, or web browsing. If I run it on the Windows machine it takes 10 seconds or so to register a mouse click and then doing anything else is like working on a 486/66.

I'm sure adding tons of RAM or using a different set of applications may provide different results, but for me NT's fabulous scheduler and virtual memory system performs like crap in the real world. Plain and simple.

Re:no problem here....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So maybe it doesn't work well with your system, but I sure don't know why. Maybe you don't know how to properly take care of a Windows system or something. Just because YOUR Windows computer doesn't work well, doesn't mean that everyone else is having the same trouble.

Well, I've had the same problem with both my Win2K box and XP box. I've also had problems with borrowed systems and at LAN parties it's easy to see everyone shutting everything down on Windows machines before starting a game.

I also noticed something interesting. When I mentioned how slow things were to various people I got two responses. One was, "Oh always shut down all your other programs" and the other was "That's not slow, Windows always does that." The first group was working around the problem and the second were so used to it they did not realize it was a problem. How many of the people who responded saying they never have problems regularly use other OSs on modern hardware so that they can compare and contrast? My bet is few or none of them.

Right Solution

[zoomba]

Cedega and bringing Windows games to Linux is essential. It's a key transition product to get people over to Linux that were holding out for their favorite games.

Developers don't develop for Linux right now because for the most part, the additional development time does not result in equal payback in terms of purchases. Developers and publishers have to target the largest audiences possible, and despite all the claims made on /. Linux on the desktop is very much a niche market. It's the same reason you don't see many games for Macs (yes there are some... and more than Windows, but even Macs have a larger install base).

To convince the companies that Linux is a worthwhile platform to develop for, you need to bring Linux to the Gamers, you need to show them that they can play their favorite titles on something aside from a Windows box. Once you have enough moved over, then you have numbers to show to publishers and devs and say "We've got X people gaming on Linux... It's worth your time now!"

Cedega is an olive branch extended to Gamers. It's a sign that says "Come on over, the people here are smart, funny... and we'll even let you play your games!"

You need gamers to shift over to Linux in fairly large numbers. To get gamers they have to be able to play their games. Once you have the gamers, only then will the big guys take notice and start developing for you.

responsibility is on linux programmers

[Anonymous Coward]

game companies do not want to devote dozens of hours of programmer time just jumping through the hoops it would take for a linux distro. compiling for 8 different versions of libc, X11, rpm, debian, writing autoconf and makefiles, figuring out which drivers to use, etc etc etc.
now thats not the hard part, the hard part is tracking down the millions of weird bugs that are caused by minor inconsistencies between distros. all 'trivial' in linux l33tspeak, but pile on 5,000 trivial issues and surprise your next game doesnt come out because your programmers spent all their time dealing with linux's inability to supply a consistent 'it just works' API for something as basic as installing software, and opening up a full screen graphics window, which windows and macintosh have had for 5+ years.

the problem is that linux distro people don't care about making things backward compatable, simple, user friendly, etc. that is why almost nobody releases a linux port.

And what is the performance like?

[jozeph78]

So... spend $5 a month to use my $400 gfx card at half speed? 50% of my machine cost is my video card. Why would I want to emulate the software it's supposed to accelerate? I don't think so. I'll continue to run Windows as a main OS and VMWare my Linux installation(s). Linux, because it is better (smller at least), runs quite well in VMWare whereas CS:Source would probably scream under emulation.

Alternative?

[dot_borg]

I just don't understand the desire to run Windows software on a another commercial OS. If I wanted to play Windows games then I'd purchase and install a copy of Windows and avoid all the associated hassles. However, I'm not about to purchase or install Windows, or any Windows game. I'll gladly shell out cash for pretty much any game that's ported to Linux though.

just wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a relatively new Linux user. i may be way off track but isnt cedega a fork from wine? A commercial fork to be more precise? As in, take an OSS package, build on it, never share code back and sell the resulting product? Just like apple did? I know OSS allows this, but should it? I wouldnt support such and endeavour by giving them my cash. I'd rather push the free and still OSS original. The whole reason i took on Linux is to get away from licensing schemes. does this put me in the zealots bunch?

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that article is about linspire and Cedega.

On other news

[HishamMuhammad]

Wine (which Cedega is based on) runs of hundreds of other Linux distributions.

"-1, buy an ad" -- oops, wrong site.

Bleah, tired old arguement.

[cbreaker]

I see someone already mentioned OS/2, as well.

That's only one part as to why OS/2 failed. And Linux is already strong is some segments.

The Wine project website used to have a good explination as to why they do it, and to answer these claims. Problem is, I can't seem to locate it at the moment.

But the jist is, by making these programs compatible with Linux it might discourage SOME developers from writing Linux native apps; but the truth of the matter is that those houses never had a plan in the first place.

Whatever gets more people over to Linux the better, and we're already seeing more native things being written all the time. Core technologies.

If this discouragement thing were a rule, then how come OpenOffice keeps on truckin' along? I mean, you can run MS Office nearly flawlessly with CrossOver office. Same with IE; that runs great in CrossOver too.

If I'm already running a few of my favorite Windows games in Linux, when the next game comes out they might look at the stats and see, hey, there's a lot of gamers running Linux these days - let's develop our app for both at the same time.

I think it's an encouragement. It shows that people are willing to run their games under sub-optimal conditions in order to use the system they like. Imagine how willing people will be to buy your game if it runs natively?

Re:Bleah, tired old arguement.

[Ma�djeurtam]

The Wine project website used to have a good explination as to why they do it, and to answer these claims. Problem is, I can't seem to locate it at the moment.

http://www.winehq.com/

Required Reading . . .

[npsimons]

Why you shouldn't use Cedega/WineX and why you should discourage others from using it.

Go ahead, mod me troll if you must, that doesn't mean the reasons listed at the above link are wrong.

Re: Yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to think exponentially, my friend. Running multiple instances of Linux in one box...each running wine...each running windows...running multiple copies of Linux virtually...

lather, rinse, repeat.

It's like pop-up hell where each popup spawns at least 100 other ones. (fun trick to try on IE, btw, if you like watching the process monitor thingy ramp up to 100%)

LAN party machines

[netdudeuk]

Well, at a guess, I'd say that the first two machines were simply not set up right and that the third PC maybe had the Windows firewall running.

Some people just don't know how to make their machines work well !

Re:LAN party machines

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Some people just don't know how to make their machines work well !

Given most everyone there was either a software engineer, or systems administrator I'd say maybe Windows is very difficult to set up correctly. All I know is that Windows seems to sporadically develop problems that for some reason require a lot of rebooting, while more stable OSs seem to behave more consistently. And, as I mentioned before, Windows cannot multitask it's was out of a soggy paper bag.

what about a gaming console?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of the $100 linspire+cedega you could buy a $150 PS2, so you can play top commercial games, and you don't have to reboot Linux. Not good idea if you already have windows games, though.

With friends like these...

[westlake]

It has the evil Wal-Mart Empire behind it, and as long as Lindows is for sale preinstalled at Wal-Mart, they remain one of the most significant distributions going

Wal-Mart stocks a single $600 Linspire laptop, online sales only: Balance 14.1" Notebook, 1.2 GHz VIA C3 Processor, w/ Linspire. There is a Xandros desktop at $600 which bundles Skype and a Codeweavers demo, Microtel Desktop, 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4, DVD-RW Drive

But I think Wal-Mart's commitment to Linux is fragile. The chain has been losing middle class buyers to more upscale retailers like Target. It says something when Wal-Mart pushes Linux to the back burner in favor of Windows MCE at $1000-#1500 and considers Linux marketable only with Windows emulation and proprietary add-ons.

Re:With friends like these...

[ShieldW0lf]

It says something when Wal-Mart pushes Linux to the back burner in favor of Windows MCE at $1000-#1500 and considers Linux marketable only with Windows emulation and proprietary add-ons.

Wal-Mart is a lowest-common-denominator shop from the ground up and always has been. That being the case, another way to phrase might be "It says something when Wal-Mart considers Linux with Windows emulation marketable".

Re:With friends like these...

[westlake]

That being the case, another way to phrase might be "It says something when Wal-Mart considers Linux with Windows emulation marketable"

I would lay odds that WalMart-Skype-Linux at $600 will go the way of JDS and Linspire. The middle class isn't buying Windows emulation, it is buying Windows.

Legal copy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it that you actually bought your computer instead of building it yourself, and you dare to post on Slashdot.

what killed OS/2...

[benjamindees]

I can tell you that this hypothesis is wrong. When OS/2 came out, I *was* the mass-market audience for it: intermediate Windows user, sick of constantly having to fix it.

I came very close to purchasing OS/2. The thing that killed it for me wasn't that it *did* run Windows apps, but that it didn't run them flawlessly. Reviews in the major computer magazines that spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt were enough to keep me away. That, and the price tag. It just wasn't worth the risk in case Word didn't run correctly.

Re:what killed OS/2...

[cheesybagel]

Windows compatibility is a moving target. The problem was that OS/2 emulated Windows 3.1 flawlessly, but then Windows 3.11 came out, then Windows 95 came out, etc.

Trying to push Linux as a way to just run mainstream Windows apps is a suicidal tactic. Not to mention that you are bound to bump into a software patent on something down the road eventually. Until there is a Windows spec made by a neutral source, unencumbered, this is always going to be a losing proposition.

You may be able to run old Windows software, but they will keep finding ways to make new software not run on other platforms.

Re:what killed OS/2...

[pyser]

Windows compatibility is a moving target.

Not only that, it's Microsoft's business model! Fortunately, there are those who do their part by carefully aiming and re-aiming, like wine, and the Odin project which provides OS/2 users a similar Win32 layer to run those apps natively.

you are bound to bump into a software patent on something down the road eventually

In the case of OS/2's Windows compatibility, that was provided by using genuine Microsoft Windows code within OS/2, the alimony in the corporate divorce of IBM and Microsoft. The children of that divorce, of course, were OS/2 and Windows NT. A good timeline on all this can be found here.

Re:what killed OS/2...

[pyser]

The thing that killed it for me wasn't that it *did* run Windows apps, but that it didn't run them flawlessly.

Okay, it didn't run them flawlessly, but it did run OS/2 native apps more or less flawlessly. The presentation manager (desktop) was extremely intuitive to an extent that I've yet to encounter in any other OS including MacOS or any of the Linux PMs (I don't need to dwell on what is to me the utter unusability of the MS_Windows interface. And OS/2 just didn't crash. Well, sometimes the PM got hung until they fixed the single input queue problem, but the kernel kept on ticking.

Rather than trying to run M$ software under OS/2, what I did was seek out native OS/2 applications. Unfortunately though, many of them are out of business and their file formats ended up being just as proprietary as M$'s.

Inconvenience

[Trejkaz]

Reboot into Windows? Huh? And stop all my torrents from downloading?

Yes, and?

[l'obscurit]

Yeah that's great but any Linux variation still blows compared to Windows, outside of security. Chearp( read: free ) does NOT mean better, I don't care if it now runs some Windows games, probably very badly.
--
l'obscurite
Seduction Home

Uh, huh...

[benjamindees]

Why don't you, and this guy start talking about when the Linux userbase will be large enough for games to be directly ported. Until you two can come to an agreement, I don't see it happening. I'm happy to be able to run Windows games (and programs) on a Free OS for now. I think asking for more is pie-in-the-sky dreaming at the moment.

Re:Uh, huh...

[npsimons]

Why don't you, and this guy start talking about when the Linux userbase will be large enough for games to be directly ported.

Trying to foist me on a troll to get us both embroiled in a flamefest, eh? Not very sporting. How about this: why don't you put your money where your mouth is (like I have) and actually BUY some Linux games that have been "directly ported".

It's not "pie-in-the-sky dreaming", and no it's not a gamer's paradise either, but for now, I have more games for native Linux than I have time to play, and more are being ported all the time.

what's in a name?

[MegaFur]

heh. Well, I can come up with two possible reasons for that spelling of "MS Windows". First, there's the idea that it's terribly slow. (like it's asleep or like, you need No-Doze to stay awake while it's loading) Not very often true these days, but there was a time way back when... Second, there's the mental image of MS Windows plowing down everything in it's path like a bulldozer.

Of course, poking fun at operating systems by changing their spelling is not particularly new... nor is it restricted to just OSes and comptuer geek things (Taco Hell comes to mind). In the Jargon File, I've seen names like HP-sUX, Slowlaris, and sun-stools. Oh, and the original name UNICS itself was making fun of the name MULTICS.

I wonder, does anyone ever play that name game with "Linux"? If not, I would guess it's because they'd probably get cyber-lynched here on slashdot.

(Facetiously and tounge-in-cheekly, I here write): It would be nice if MS did lose its dominance of the desktop computer market to Linux specifically. Doubtless a large minority of people would be unhappy with the state of affairs under Linux domination--then they'd make fun of it. That'd be cool.

It's bad to not be able to make fun of something.

Re:what's in a name?

[kuzb]

I suppose you could call it 'loonix' or something similar, and yes, it would get you lynched. It's much the same as if you tried to make fun of Apple and OS X (OSuX anyone?). I'm not a big fan of Apple, but somehow despite my hatred for them, I manage to restrain myself and refer to the company, and it's operating system by their respective given names.

The difference is only in that it is socially acceptable to bash windows here, but not our *cough*cough* oh-so-problem-free linux. I guess that's why openoffice segfaults for some mysterious reason in my Ubuntu installation (it's only a month and a half old, and mostly running stock). It's a good thing I don't actually need an office suite at my job, or I'd be reinstalling the OS because tracing the problem would take more time than a complete reinstalltion.

Personally, I think it reeks of childish stupidity to run around using "windoze" and "M$" and similar tokens of ignorance. It makes it impossible for me to take the person seriously. I love linux for it's obvious attributes, but for all the horn-tooting, it's still not a complete replacement for windows, and yes, it can break. Just as crypticly, and just as badly.

Mind you, someone out there right now is going to read this and say "oh, but I run openoffice, on distro XYZ, and it works great!". Well, I run windows on my other partition (same installation, going on 3 years now) and it works great.

Anyhow, if you want to advocate Linux, it makes far more sense to advocate it through it's strengths, rather than to try to poke at something else's weaknesses. Sounding like a zealot does not get you followers, rather, it repels the followers you were trying to acquire.

Re:what's in a name?

[MegaFur]

You make good points.

I'll consider diminishing the frequency with which I use pejorative terms for Microsoft and its products in the future. (But I'll probably still use those negative terms for them sometimes 'cause... I think they're kinda funny.)

So do I still get to use "Co$" for "Church of Scientology"? Or is that childish as well? :-)

Really Insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

ability ... just download a file, double click it and install (for all distros, not just one)

That ability is _actually_ here: http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/

Though I really don't like this very much; but I am a terminal junkie familiar with both apt-get and ./configure && make.

As others told you, you should _only_ use the programs provided by your distro unless you can build from source yourself. Never install packages from another distro (unless you have to).

Finally there are GUI wrappers around "rpm" and "apt", probably even for portage; but you shouldn't even think about Gentoo until you are no longer afraid of a terminal/gcc/make/completely_broken_system.

here, cut your nose off

[Matt_Joyce]

Any serious gamer will take an unhealthy interest in game machine performance, and therefore is not going to add layers of software tech which *will* slow performace and *may* not actually work.

this is product for linux users who want to play games, not for gamers who want to use linux.

If you want to play games get xp.

I'm not saying this is a good situation, but until games are developed for portability, linux users will mostly have old shit games to play.

I for one do not care enough about which OS has the biggest halo, but linux is not for gaming and it embarressing when people suggest otherwise.

Anyone who really want to play decent games and run linux, should dual boot xp, hell, they don't even have to tell anyone.

Standards

[ImaLamer]

You are 100% right. If companies moved to OpenGL or other standards and got away from using DirectX for everything we could rejoice.

I say that software developers need to band together with gaming card makers like Nvidia, ATI, Creative Labs, etc and maybe even Microsoft to help develop an "open enough" standard framework (get RMS in there to remind them of his points, however they aren't going to listen). Game developers are going to use some non-standard mechanisms to enhance games or restrict their platforms, that is a no brainer. Halo isn't going to use entirely open standards - never. Some MMORPG's just aren't going to open everything up (Blizzard).

If we agree on, say GL, we can do what we always have done: let everyone implement their own solution - letting Microsoft think theirs is the best. Make the agreed upon reference code BSD licensed, or all of the functions BSD licensed so that even from corporations we see open, free (as in beer) snippits of code.

It sure would allow Apple owners to get into the market more. Microsft likes using BSD licensed code, DirectX 20 (Or DirectXXX) could rely on it like the TCP stack has - I see nothing wrong with that. Open ideas that can be implemented privately are good when you can't reach totally free software. Microsoft will no doubt use the BSD type of license to tie their implementation into Windows really tight - they like doing that and are good at it.

If game developers started developing with Linux and Apple* computers in mind a few years ago, they would see right now the danger of using a proprietary extension. Once the market is made you don't want 1000 angry customers compaining online and on the phone - this would keep them in check. Problem is, the voice of the linux gamer isn't that loud because he doesn't get suprised when something doesn't work. Gamers should be talking to developers, not complaining about DirectX or blaming Microsoft.

This is all speculation/theory and really isn't based on any facts... (*games often work on the Macintosh but not always of course)

Re:Cedega and "Out of the box" in the same sentenc

[westlake]

Most every game I've tried on the supported list has worked the first time

Well, that is damning with faint praise, if you are trying to sell Linspire+Caldega to a PC gamer.

Re:Warcraft and cedega

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only Warcraft plays perfectly on my debian sarge with nvidia kernel modules form debian non-free, but I managed to install it with cedega, old winex version, plain wine on different distros (knoppix included).

It's easy once your hardware is properly setup, I suggest an NVidia not too recent (5000+ seriers is just fine) and an old soundblaster (emu 10k1 chipset).

If your glx ability, audio, cdrom are properly setup you can just type "cedega /media/cdrom0/install.exe" or doubleclick and set "cedega" as mimetype for windows's ".exe", use point to play and click "install" as you wish.

The main point is that in order to play it you need a cracked version with the plain wine and the original cd with cedega. If you are going to go through the cracked path you will get in trouble.

I'm not anymore a transgamer supporter but I paid 5$ a month for 1 year in order to put my money where my mouth is, and you?

Btw: search google "warcraft cedega", a lot of troubles regards hardware setup. I don't know about a Linux distribution that setup a default gaming stations with few clicks.

In debian after a fresh install you need to build the kernel modules for nvidia driver, is not so easy if you are new, you need to get kernel-headers and nvidia-kernel-source packages and use a long line to build a .deb.

Maybe other distro goes more gently about proprietary graphics drivers, I don't know, but I will like to know from Slashdot if they will share this information, tnx.

correction

[Dext]

what i meant to say was

If your NOT keeping your system up to date you are asking for problems.

lame

[pyster]

this thread is lame. bunch of one sided holier than thou theological zealots spewing their extremist stance. Christians, Muslims, OS zealots, same thing. Not even a different guise. I suppose it is too much to ask that a bus hit each of you.

Cedega

[Anonymous Coward]

So? I've used it for over a year now. I am unimpressed with the number of games it supports and how it only partially supports many of today's popular games. The performance of so many games isn't up to par. The really poor support one receives is also a factor in how I feel.

1) partial support for even hot modern games
2) poor performance in alot of games
3) somewhat buggy across most games
4) poor support from Transgaming

I guess it could be worse.