Re:which card does xfree86 love most?
on
Xfree86 4.2.0 Out
·
· Score: 2
Sorry, as far as I know, the best way to go is to buy nVidia and use their binary drivers - if you want to have decent OpenGL support that is.
On the bright side, it's so damn easy that even a Red Hat user could do it (can I start saying that already?;) ) - install two RPMs, add 4 words to the config file and start XFree, works like a charm.
I actually am a bit surprised that Mandrake doesn't include nVidia drivers itself, and I'd say that unless some sort of licensing troubles are involved (hey, you never know) they probably will at some point.
Having read through much of this thread, I can agree with a lot of arguments from both sides, but one this I don't get - why do people think that AOL/TimeWarner (yes, not just AOL, that is an important distinction) is somehow a 'nicer' company than MS? Because they don't have the computer market by the balls?
It'd be nice if they took enough OS market share from MS to create serious competition for them, but what if - as some (undoubtedly a little overly excited) readers have suggested - they "crush" MS and, therefore become the ones dominating the OS market? Then you'll have a monopoly to make you cry for the good old days of the loveable and friendly Microsoft.
Mind you, none of that will happen of course, even if AOL/TimeWarner does buy RedHat. What really bothers me is the distro they picked (mostly likely going by the most known name, I presume), RH has always been the enterprise distro, used for serious applications and very rarely for the desktop - i.e. precisely the opposite of AOL's target audience. On the other hand, I am glad they didn't go for a better desktop distro, such as Mandrake (I am ready to listen to compelling arguments of why RH is a better desktop than Mandrake - oh, and for 7.2 vs 8.1; not 6.2 and 7.0;) ), because I just wouldn't be able to stand being an "AOL User"!
Haven't played enought to say anything about gameplay yet, but it certainly looks sweet as hell with all the eye candy jacked up and at high resolution (runs like a champ too - better hope BillyG doesn't see it, he might have a heart attack)
Just might have to go out and buy a copy - will that make me one of the 50 or so people who've bought Linux games?;)
Oh yeah - anyone know how I can get it to display fps? Just idle curiousity...
If it performed better in 16 bpp, I don't see why it would not at 32 bpp...Are you saying that WinXP is more efficient at higher color depths?
Different results at different colour depths aren't that uncommon, at least when hardware is being compared (remember when teh Radeon first came out and was put up against the GeForce all over the place?), though I am not sure if the same difference would occur on the same hardware with a different OS - not like I know anything about it.
I was actually hoping that someone would clear something up for me - I run X at 16 bits but it cites the same number of colours as I used to have in Windows under 24; I also vaguely remember reading something about Linux and Windows doing these things differently - am I just making things up again, or is it true? Or something that doesn't apply to 3D? just curious...
Having read The Reg for a few years now, I'd say it's very unlikely that they purposefuly tried to stack things against Windows and conceal it from the readers - say what you want about their quality, but they just don't do things like that.
But yes, they do (for the most part) like Linux and they do (for the most part) hate The Great Beast of Redmont. More importantly, this whole hardware and benchmarking kick they've been on, only started a few weeks ago. They just aren't the [H] and are pretty new to the whole thing (from what I know at least) and I wouldn't rely on their benchmarks as being able to hold up against the exacting standards we are used to.
All that said, I find it completely plausable that QIII would perform better (actually, make that "run faster" to be precise) under Linux than WinXP - for many different reasons (not excluding the ones that make XP look bad).
No need to get your panties in a knot - just one benchmark on one persons two systems - interesting, but hardly conclusive.
I loved Opera on Windows and used in exclusively way back when I was an MS bitch. But on Linux its just lacking for some reason - just isn't "linuxy"
Galleon is probably currently the best browser for Linux, though I personally use Konqueror since it integrates so well with the rest of KDE. Imagine that, choosing one browser over another because it comes with your environment and works well with it... weird eh?;)
Considering the whole XBox arrangement (i.e. pretty much the same technology as nVidia retail cards but in MS's hands) I'd say the chances are nil - regardless of who owns what patents. My uninformed opinion only, of course.
I seriously doubt that less people are on broadband - sure a lot of broadband companies have died off, but only because they were incorporated or destroyed by much larger broadband companies.
I would be really, really (really) surprised if considerably more people don't have real internet access now, compared to last year, or two years ago.
MySQL is a great engine, unfortunately it's often (more often than not, in fact) misapplied.
It was designed, and always worked very well, as a single (to very few) user data mining tool. In that environment absolutely nothing beats it for speed (my own experience only of course, but it wiped the floor with Oracle in certain applications). On the other hand multi user read/write environments are precisely what MySQL is not good at.
It especially pains me to see people use it for message boards - that's just plain wrong.
So no, it's not a "toy database" but you have to use for applications it was designed for.
hmm... my company used a dialup connection, also usually no one knew how to use the remote for the damn teleconferencing gadget, so one side would get a blue screen (not the BSOD variety, just blue), and the other a picture of the wall.
The system itself did, but I am not sure about the name - do you have a source for that of some sort? I don't even remember (or know, rather) when 'X' was renamed to 'X' from 'W' (some geeky Latin alphabet thing; I am gonna take a guess that 'W' stood for a 'window' derived word of some kind); but I seriously doubt that anything was known as the "X Window System" any time before the MIT project... I'd love to know if anyone has more concrete information.
the term Lindows DOES infringe on the name Windows
Unless you are the judge handling the case (which I doubt, for some reason), the name MIGHT infringe on the Windows trademark. It certainly looks like it may, but it's certainly not we who will decide.
I for one don't play 99.9% of the new games coming out because they are shit; I stopped playing games a few years earlier then I switched to Linux - can I then keep using it?
I tend to agree, except for one point - "window" is a common word, in fact, one used to describe what err.. windowing systems do.
I don't think anyone would say that a "GNU/Linux Operating System" should not be called such because MS's is the most popular "Operating System" on the desktop? So where's that line?
Not really trying to go one way or another, just you know, doing that devil's advocate thingy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, as far as I know, the best way to go is to buy nVidia and use their binary drivers - if you want to have decent OpenGL support that is.
On the bright side, it's so damn easy that even a Red Hat user could do it (can I start saying that already? ;) ) - install two RPMs, add 4 words to the config file and start XFree, works like a charm.
I actually am a bit surprised that Mandrake doesn't include nVidia drivers itself, and I'd say that unless some sort of licensing troubles are involved (hey, you never know) they probably will at some point.
Having read through much of this thread, I can agree with a lot of arguments from both sides, but one this I don't get - why do people think that AOL/TimeWarner (yes, not just AOL, that is an important distinction) is somehow a 'nicer' company than MS? Because they don't have the computer market by the balls?
It'd be nice if they took enough OS market share from MS to create serious competition for them, but what if - as some (undoubtedly a little overly excited) readers have suggested - they "crush" MS and, therefore become the ones dominating the OS market? Then you'll have a monopoly to make you cry for the good old days of the loveable and friendly Microsoft.
Mind you, none of that will happen of course, even if AOL/TimeWarner does buy RedHat. What really bothers me is the distro they picked (mostly likely going by the most known name, I presume), RH has always been the enterprise distro, used for serious applications and very rarely for the desktop - i.e. precisely the opposite of AOL's target audience. On the other hand, I am glad they didn't go for a better desktop distro, such as Mandrake (I am ready to listen to compelling arguments of why RH is a better desktop than Mandrake - oh, and for 7.2 vs 8.1; not 6.2 and 7.0 ;) ), because I just wouldn't be able to stand being an "AOL User"!
Haven't played enought to say anything about gameplay yet, but it certainly looks sweet as hell with all the eye candy jacked up and at high resolution (runs like a champ too - better hope BillyG doesn't see it, he might have a heart attack)
Just might have to go out and buy a copy - will that make me one of the 50 or so people who've bought Linux games? ;)
Oh yeah - anyone know how I can get it to display fps? Just idle curiousity...
If it performed better in 16 bpp, I don't see why it would not at 32 bpp...Are you saying that WinXP is more efficient at higher color depths?
Different results at different colour depths aren't that uncommon, at least when hardware is being compared (remember when teh Radeon first came out and was put up against the GeForce all over the place?), though I am not sure if the same difference would occur on the same hardware with a different OS - not like I know anything about it.
I was actually hoping that someone would clear something up for me - I run X at 16 bits but it cites the same number of colours as I used to have in Windows under 24; I also vaguely remember reading something about Linux and Windows doing these things differently - am I just making things up again, or is it true? Or something that doesn't apply to 3D? just curious...
Having read The Reg for a few years now, I'd say it's very unlikely that they purposefuly tried to stack things against Windows and conceal it from the readers - say what you want about their quality, but they just don't do things like that.
But yes, they do (for the most part) like Linux and they do (for the most part) hate The Great Beast of Redmont. More importantly, this whole hardware and benchmarking kick they've been on, only started a few weeks ago. They just aren't the [H] and are pretty new to the whole thing (from what I know at least) and I wouldn't rely on their benchmarks as being able to hold up against the exacting standards we are used to.
All that said, I find it completely plausable that QIII would perform better (actually, make that "run faster" to be precise) under Linux than WinXP - for many different reasons (not excluding the ones that make XP look bad).
No need to get your panties in a knot - just one benchmark on one persons two systems - interesting, but hardly conclusive.
Galleon is probably currently the best browser for Linux, though I personally use Konqueror since it integrates so well with the rest of KDE. Imagine that, choosing one browser over another because it comes with your environment and works well with it... weird eh? ;)
(Not that I am pushing Gnome here, I use KDE myself.)
Screw the kernel updates and Microsoft vulnerabilties
of course that might change when a buffer overflow exploit is discovered in your MS Windows XBot ActiveSuit Edition.
overly boastful advertising
uh huh, as opposed to your regular, modest, humble advertising that we usually see.
Nah, you know the national ID card database will run on MS Access on Windows Me.
Next thing you know, they are gonna be telling us that Windows XP isn't the most secure OS ever. Shocking!
Considering the whole XBox arrangement (i.e. pretty much the same technology as nVidia retail cards but in MS's hands) I'd say the chances are nil - regardless of who owns what patents. My uninformed opinion only, of course.
does anyone, anywhere still think that patents are used to "foster innovation"? If so, then they are among the most gullible people on this planet.
I have a theory that FOX doesn't really exist and it's only a conpiracy to make us think we are dumber than we really are.
(did I do it right?)
I would be really, really (really) surprised if considerably more people don't have real internet access now, compared to last year, or two years ago.
It was designed, and always worked very well, as a single (to very few) user data mining tool. In that environment absolutely nothing beats it for speed (my own experience only of course, but it wiped the floor with Oracle in certain applications). On the other hand multi user read/write environments are precisely what MySQL is not good at.
It especially pains me to see people use it for message boards - that's just plain wrong.
So no, it's not a "toy database" but you have to use for applications it was designed for.
Then my bet is 2.5 will be what makes you afraid again ;)
Typical ESO problem.
The idea here isn't that we all don't know that it's been released, but we do want to know what other /.ers think about it.
If a thread doesn't interest you, by all means don't read it - what's the point of whining?
The system itself did, but I am not sure about the name - do you have a source for that of some sort? I don't even remember (or know, rather) when 'X' was renamed to 'X' from 'W' (some geeky Latin alphabet thing; I am gonna take a guess that 'W' stood for a 'window' derived word of some kind); but I seriously doubt that anything was known as the "X Window System" any time before the MIT project... I'd love to know if anyone has more concrete information.
the term Lindows DOES infringe on the name Windows
Unless you are the judge handling the case (which I doubt, for some reason), the name MIGHT infringe on the Windows trademark. It certainly looks like it may, but it's certainly not we who will decide.
I for one don't play 99.9% of the new games coming out because they are shit; I stopped playing games a few years earlier then I switched to Linux - can I then keep using it?
I tend to agree, except for one point - "window" is a common word, in fact, one used to describe what err.. windowing systems do.
I don't think anyone would say that a "GNU/Linux Operating System" should not be called such because MS's is the most popular "Operating System" on the desktop? So where's that line?
Not really trying to go one way or another, just you know, doing that devil's advocate thingy.
Well, Windows was first released in 1985 and the Athena Project was started in MIT in 1984 - I am not sure about the actual "X Window System" name.
BTW, "X Windows" is not the proper name, just something people call X because it sounds like MS Windows ;)