Point taken.

Quoting: rick01457I'm also not particularly concerned with the whole proprietary/open source argument, I mean I wish I cared more but then I watch the news and realise that my care could be better directed somewhere else.

A well, I have enough care for both here. I do care a lot about this world and many things that have nothing to do with computers.

But personally I think one can always make a difference, hence I try to choose the right thing for the majority (and myself) even in small things.

I do think that it would be a very, very bad development if companies like nvidia (once again) get a monopoly. Not just because of the gaming or other gpu-based things, but for the message it carries.

Whenever I have the chance to support open source, I do it. Be it with my own programming skills or via money or other means.

I'm an arch-user as well and I could not be bothered to use the proprietary drivers, neither on my notebook with an nvidia, nor on my desktop with and amd gpu. The proprietary amd drivers always performed worse for me and the updates on arch wouldn't go as smoothly as with the open source ones. For the nvidia ones the second argument still holds, so I always used the open source implementation.

Of course on my nvidia-rig I couldn't and can't play many games, but the notebook - although a gaming one - is outdated anyway, so I couldn't care less.

For university I had to reinstall a windows version because the game I'm working on has to be able to run on a windows-7 pc, else I fail the course.

Back to topic: I see things as Nvidia's PhysX very critically because it always only ran on their platform in an acceptable way. And I don't see this as an argument like "you may need a 120hz monitor to run this game", because every vendor could potentially create a 120hz monitor, while not every manufacturer can create a PhysX-card because it's proprietary technology.

And again: I don't think many people out there buy nvidia because they think "Hell ya, I want my games with PhysX, baby!", they buy for other reasons.

But if games (like Dungeon Defenders) can't be played on Linux with AMD in highend (progress-wise) then, because of PhysX I think it's time for this technology to die.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: MaelraneWell, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

Some people want their computer to work, actually.

Come on, now it's stupid bashing.

Windows works. Of course sometimes you run into errors and stupid design decisions, but in the end it doesn't work worse than Linux for the average user.

I'm not talking about scientific approaches here, because that would turn out to be a bit silly in regards to gaming. The gaming-group is mostly made up by average users and they could game on Windows as good as (or even better than) on Linux.

I'm still waiting for comprehensible arguments for switching to Linux - coming from Windows - that do not involve in any way monetary thoughts nor idealism.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: MaelraneWell, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

You don't get it at all if you think money and idealism are the only valid reasons one could have for using Linux.

Then enlighten me! What other reasons are there for *solely* using Linux and not having a dual-boot system?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Skully

Quoting: sleortI must admint that I'm biased since I have AMD gpu's in my main rig and intel in my laptop, but I still don't get it that I should have a "worse" experience in some games only because I went with the open solution from AMD and intel.

Thats like saying "I don't get why I should have a worse experience in games because I have a 60hz monitor instead of 120hz"
If you want Physx buy an Nvidia card.

But I do NOT want PhysX, I want games and sadly some of these use proprietary technology of one of the *beep* companies on this planet.

AMD >>> nvidia. Not for performance, but for openness. I really don't get how anyone can switch to Linux and still support a company that nearly solely uses proprietary technology.
Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness. But then again, the money one could save not buying totally overpriced hardware you could buy the operating system from the good company in redmond :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To be honest, I don't care anymore. I've learnt my lesson tho.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Only the CPU-portion, so very uninteresting. I hope PhysX dies and devs dump it and use Havoc, Bullet or an even better non-proprietary solution.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Very nice, unique graphics... sadly singleplayer only. I don't often buy sp games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

As far as I know Blizzard hasn't updated their OpenGL Renderer in World of Warcraft since 2010. Meaning it still can be run under MacOS but certain features are not available there.

Out of curiosity I tried it out again under Wine and it runs perfectly fine, but still sad that there is no official support. Not that I would play that game again, but generally speaking some Blizzard games (like StarCraft 2) would be really great to have natively on my favorite platform.

But then again I'd love to see Guild Wars 2 above all :/

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Runs perfectly fine on my 6950HD and with mesa

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorne

Quoting: MaelraneCan you, in any way, bring evidence for this claim? I mean, I'm a happy AMD user. On Linux I use the open source drivers with mesa and can play 96 of my 99 Linux-Games in Steam just fine. Some run better than on Windows, others slightly worse, but 96 of them are absolutely playable.

Well, first I'm not talking about Mesa but Catalyst. I too prefer using Mesa because it generally works better (the only problem being that some games don't work at all with Mesa and I don't think 96/99 games is acceptable: all games should work).
Catalyst doesn't integrate well with X, it randomly crashes in some games, it's a mess.

But the drivers suck on Windows? I know they had problems, like 10 years ago, but today? Sorry, this sounds like an old myth to me, people keep spreading and spreading.

AMD cards have generally less performances than nVidia ones on equivalent hardware, they still occasionally have issues with some games that need to be addressed by new drivers. Sorry, I can't be more specific, I don't keep a list of issues when I see them around, I see some two or three times per year. I remember issues with Brink in 2010/2011, though, because they happened to me and they pretty much killed the game.

Believe me, I'd be more than happy to say that AMD make good drivers and it's a joy to use their cards on Linux, as I own one (and was pretty specific in buying an AMD card with my new PC 5 years ago), but in the recent monthes I've really been tempted to ditch it and buy a nVidia card. And when you know that I bought an AMD card because I was really mad at nVidia for some of their commercial attitude and swore to never buy something from them again, that's a thing.

Well, at least one of the games I can't play is made by community devs and they simply don't seem to care at all. Like every linux-user I know has some issues with the game.

Another one is Dead Island... this doesn't compile shaders for me since the last update.

But thanks for the heads up!

View this comment - View article - View full comments