OS doesn't want to wake up

[Brian d marge]

From Windows? No they're not. Most of the drifting is from Linux to MacOS.

yes the are , cos i said so , so there

Stephen

[imdying]

yes the are , cos i said so , so there

Stephen

Sure. By the way, the 5% for Linux is the highest figure I could find, most analysts estimate that actual desktop usage is less than one percent. Developing for Linux on the desktop is basically developing for a dead operating system.

[NordieBoy]

Quite a few people bought the Asus Eee with Linux rather than windows as it had more storage. The desktop environment was a handful of buttons with "Internet", "Photos", "Writing" type stuff. If asked they couldn't tell you what linux was but maybe just some buttons on a screen.

[iYRe]

I got one for my wife, and then it died so I got another with windows on it.. she said can you make it work like the other one, this one sucks.. So i installed ubuntu netbook remix on it.

It's hard to know really, what % of the market is owned by whom. Mac OS for example, is a form of unix (like linux) and has a fancy window manager(the flashy clicky bit that most people think is the operating system), it runs on pc hardware and costs a gazillion bucks. Linux is a form of unix, that runs on PC hardware, and has a number of different window managers, most of which can be made to "look like" a mac :P and is FREE!

Fact is, people use windows because they have some experience with it, and there is fear, uncertainty and doubt about their ability to use/learn anything else. Another fact is, most people would find using something like ubuntu easier, cheaper, safer, and more reliable. But they wont change...

Gaming is not a "legitimate" reason for using windows, any more that it is legitimate to buy a car to use for sleeping in. Sure, you can sleep in it, but if you cant use it for work/travel/etc then its not fulfilling its purpose. Beds are for sleeping in, consoles are for gaming on, computers are like cars (or bikes for that matter).

[imdying]

consoles are for gaming on

No, consoles are not powerful enough for the best gaming. They can't render much more than cut down things in 1080P. Take Gran Turismo 5 for example. Lovely game, nice driving physics, beautifully rendered cars, but sparse scenery, and a very limited number of cars on the track at one time (16?). GTAIV is another example... low res and it chugs like a beyatch on a PS3 if you start blowing things up. That's your lot... but on a PC, just throw more hardware at it and you can render anything you like at anything you like. Consoles aren't for any sort of serious gamer, consoles are for kids. My PS3 is basically just a glorified BD/CD player/DVR.... other than ripping it up in a 787B, I'd rather game on a PC any time. It is however good when I need to amuse some young cousins/nieces and nephews for a few hours though.

[iYRe]

No, consoles are not powerful enough for the best gaming. They can't render much more than cut down things in 1080P. Take Gran Turismo 5 for example. Lovely game, nice driving physics, beautifully rendered cars, but sparse scenery, and a very limited number of cars on the track at one time (16?). GTAIV is another example... low res and it chugs like a beyatch on a PS3 if you start blowing things up. That's your lot... but on a PC, just throw more hardware at it and you can render anything you like at anything you like. Consoles aren't for any sort of serious gamer, consoles are for kids. My PS3 is basically just a glorified BD/CD player/DVR.... other than ripping it up in a 787B, I'd rather game on a PC any time. It is however good when I need to amuse some young cousins/nieces and nephews for a few hours though.

none of that changes the fact that gaming is not the main use for a PC. Besides, the new consoles that are coming out are more and more powerful

[imdying]

none of that changes the fact that gaming is not the main use for a PC

Right, lets get something straight right off the bat. Just because you think something does not make it a fact. A fact is something that is 100% accurate, and probably citable. To say that the most versatile complicated machine ever designed by humanity has a main use is nothing less that fucking stupid. The only 'main use' that you could possibly attribute to a PC is running software. It would be no less retarded to say that the main use of a PC is to view pron on the interwebs

Besides, the new consoles that are coming out are more and more powerful

Well fucking yippeee... I'll just go play GT5 or GTAIV on a product that doesn't even exist yet. The reality is that consoles are underpowered compared to their PC cousins before they're even released, and then they start on a 6+ year cycle of getting out run by progressively cheaper and cheaper PCs). Consoles have two things over PCs; price and ease of use. That's it. FFS there are even entire aspects of gaming that can't be handled by a console.

Please, save my fucking sanity and don't bother replying till you actually put some though into the tripe you're typing

[iYRe]

Ignoring all the other redundant strawmen you have come up with..

I didnt tell you to play on a non existant console.. you CAN play on a console now, its just not as pretty as you would like it..

Honestly..

[imdying]

Yes, that's right, you've been talking shit. Run along now

[SMOKEU]

The PS3 and Xbox 360 consoles are around 6 years old. Even the newer versions still have the same basic hardware. Sure, the newer ones have bigger HDDs and a few more features but it's still a 6 year old machine which has no where near the power of a good, modern gaming PC. My gaming rig will kill any current gaming console.

[avgas]

The PS3 and Xbox 360 consoles are around 6 years old. Even the newer versions still have the same basic hardware. Sure, the newer ones have bigger HDDs and a few more features but it's still a 6 year old machine which has no where near the power of a good, modern gaming PC. My gaming rig will kill any current gaming console.

Yeah but in the time its taken you, and the money its cost you I have been playing games for 6 years

I used to be a big PC gamer, but got to the point where I was buying a new rig ever 2 years.....and I got sick of it.
Console its easy, plug in, turn on, play game. And I have been playing 1920x1080 res for the last year or so.

So far my console+TV+games is still less that what I payed for a gaming BOX in 2005 let alone monitor, razor KB&mouse....

No brainer for me these days.

[SMOKEU]

Consoles are not true 1080p, it's just 720p upscaled to 1080p. Yes, gaming computers are very expensive compared to consoles but at least with a PC it's easier to pirate games so that's a lot of money saved right there. 6 years in computers is like 20 years for bikes. Comparing a console with a good modern gaming rig is like comparing a late 1980s CBR1000F with the latest CBR1000RR.

I have spent around $3K building up a gaming PC this year so I could have bought a console and a lot of games with that money...

[Scuba_Steve]

Consoles are not true 1080p, it's just 720p upscaled to 1080p.

Thats dependent on the game some are true 1080p some aren't even 720p all dependent on the game & PC's are no better they too just upscale, yes they can upscale further & throw on more "smoke n mirror" effects but they are still upscaling from console res (as thats where most are ported from) & still using console textures (unless hi-res texture pack is released).

Yes, gaming computers are very expensive compared to consoles but at least with a PC it's easier to pirate games so that's a lot of money saved right there.

It's getting harder to do that especially with games you want to play online which most of the popular ones are.

End of da day consoles will give you good graphics, good performance, ease of use & good value for money & they are still holding their own 6yrs in. Also, consoles have the games or have them 1st.

PC's will give you better gfx, better performance, more flexibility round moding & servers etc but it comes with a heavy cost both financial & time
Fact: it takes a PC 4-20x (yes upto twenty times) the graphical processing power to achieve the same gfx as a console.
I too dropped PC gaming a few years back mainly because of cost but also because consoles have all the best games*

(*IMO dependent on the type of games you like to play)

[SMOKEU]

Fact: it takes a PC 4-20x (yes upto twenty times) [/SIZE]

I'm not trying to dispute that (take a look at a 6 year old gaming PC), but does anyone here know why that is?

[pete376403]

Using your history books the English would have conquered the world in 20 days.

While the "PC" side of things was usually DOS/Windows......business sales was a different beast
For IBM it was:
OS-2 warp........1990's
IBM LINUX.........1990's-2000's
IBM/DELL UBUNTU's....2000's

.

Yous seem to miss the bit between the introduction of the IBM PC model 5150 in the early 80's and OS/2 in the 90's - thats a 10 year head start that Microsoft had. (FWIW I was working at IBM and got to try the very first 5150 in this country straight out of the box - my part in that was to get the 110-230 volt transformers that were necessary because these were US spec machines).
OS/2 - original version built by MS was pretty crappy. No business would want to stick with that. OS2 v2 built by IBM was a little better. Warp was better again but by the too late, Win3.11 and NT pissed all over it.