Any clue if it works with on Intel graphics at all?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I guess I'm the only one that did a Wiki search...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

- Why do you dual boot?

Edit: As the comments on this article kind of remind me of some organisation that may be safely called "Linux Anonymous" I think it would be appropriate to start with:

"Hello, my name is Pavel and I'm proud to say that I've been Windows free for 2 years and Wine free pretty much for all my life." (Hehe, I know I'm not funny)

I think if there was a prize for the most ridiculous reason to dual boot it would most definitely go to me. My laptop came with Windows 8 pre-installed (included in the price for sure) and I still keep a small partition with that untouched installation as I'd feel like I'm donating money to Microsoft.

Another reason I guess is how minimal I am on storage space having more than 700GB free space out of 1TB (including that Windows partition) so formatting the partition wouldn't really do much for me though next month I'm buying an 240GB SSD and Windows won't be getting there.

Then again I guess I'm in quite a privileged position being a student in the UK as last year .odf was voted as the national standard as well as my whole college running on Macs using OpenOffice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Maelrane

Quoting: crunchpaste

Quoting: Maelrane

Quoting: crunchpaste

Quoting: Maelrane

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?

Revivng laptops from 1998 seems to kinda impossible using Windows unless you're going for win98. Other than that.. mostly whatever Apple says to advertise their products - just works, no viruses, ease of use which translates into almost no time spent in maintaining my family's and my girlfriend's computers. My mother doesn't care if she uses Windows or Linux and certainly doesn't care if it is "free" or "free".

Yes, but (I've not made this clear I guess, sorry) I was referring to the context of gaming. You would not play "today's" games with a 1998 laptop, no matter the operating system.

I - as a hardcore linux advocate - see no benefit in using linux for the purpose of gaming alone. Not today, not any time soon (although I'm hyped as you're).
Really, if gaming was that important to me I'd still have dual-bootet during the last year.

What I can think of right now is that you don't have to wonder if newer version of Direct3D is coming to your OS or not. I still remember visiting the Tropico5 Steam forums on Day1 as I had some minor problems with getting the game to actually run and there were an awful lot of threads demanding refunds and generally being rather verbally aggressive as the game wasn't compatible with XP and Vista... So I guess that's an advantage in terms of gaming?

Depends. I think the average gamer doesn't care for that, he'll always switch to the next Windows version.

He may not care about that but he cares for sure when someone tells him to pay $100 for a new OS and install it (a thing the average user has probably never done before and will most likely have to pay someone to do) just to play a game he pre-ordered. But I guess that takes us back to the money issue...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Maelrane

Quoting: crunchpaste

Quoting: Maelrane

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?

Revivng laptops from 1998 seems to kinda impossible using Windows unless you're going for win98. Other than that.. mostly whatever Apple says to advertise their products - just works, no viruses, ease of use which translates into almost no time spent in maintaining my family's and my girlfriend's computers. My mother doesn't care if she uses Windows or Linux and certainly doesn't care if it is "free" or "free".

Yes, but (I've not made this clear I guess, sorry) I was referring to the context of gaming. You would not play "today's" games with a 1998 laptop, no matter the operating system.

I - as a hardcore linux advocate - see no benefit in using linux for the purpose of gaming alone. Not today, not any time soon (although I'm hyped as you're).
Really, if gaming was that important to me I'd still have dual-bootet during the last year.

What I can think of right now is that you don't have to wonder if newer version of Direct3D is coming to your OS or not. I still remember visiting the Tropico5 Steam forums on Day1 as I had some minor problems with getting the game to actually run and there were an awful lot of threads demanding refunds and generally being rather verbally aggressive as the game wasn't compatible with XP and Vista... So I guess that's an advantage in terms of gaming?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Maelrane

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?

Revivng laptops from 1998 seems to kinda impossible using Windows unless you're going for win98. Other than that.. mostly whatever Apple says to advertise their products - just works, no viruses, ease of use which translates into almost no time spent in maintaining my family's and my girlfriend's computers. My mother doesn't care if she uses Windows or Linux and certainly doesn't care if it is "free" or "free".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EKRboi

Quoting: crunchpaste

Quoting: EKRboiI think the big problem here compared to XBone and PS4 is that the people making these have to make a profit on them. MS and Sony can sell theirs as a loss leader. Segata is right. Valve needs to produce these themselves for either 0 profit or even at a bit of a loss.

And then lock the software down so that you could only buy from Steam, sell games for twice the price and make you pay a monthly subscription to play online? Don't worry about the price... having multiple OEMs guarantees that free market will take care of it.

I believe Steam Machines shouldn't compete with consoles in price as if you just buy 2-3 AAA games at console prices and pay the subscription for just an year makes a console with inferior performance more expensive (or at least balances the prices) than a low-mid range Steam Machine.

Edit: So as it comes to price I just decided to calculate how much I've spent on Steam. It's a total of £92.28 for a total of 47 games I own. And I know that buying on sale is not supporting the developers but I'm poor and believe giving back less is better than nothing. And these games were equal to hundreds of hours of fun. So the point I'm trying to make is why would they lower the price of hardware therefore lowering the profits of the OEMs, lowering the chances of them making a second generation of Steam Machines and therefore lowering the general interest in the platform when consoles couldn't even get close in terms of game prices?

Because that would be shooting themselves(valve) in the foot. The cost if these are not going to get console gamers to buy one. That is who steam machines are aimed at. I didn't say NOT to allow other companies to make them, I just said valve needs to get the cost of them down. The easiest way I can think to do that would be to also make them themselves. Another route could be that they subsidize the cost of the more modest ones to OriginPC, Alienware, etc.

I know exactly what you're saying about saving money on games and subscriptions, but people who are not already apart of PC gaming are not going to see it that way. What they are going to see is a $600-700 game console that will produce graphics only marginally better (if at all) than an XBone or PS4. At best they can hope for better frame rates.

There is definitely some truth in what you say, but at the end of the day isn't it easier and a little bit more honest to just "educate" said users of the benefits of an open platform instead of using Microsoft tactics? Anyway I guess at this point all I could do is wish them best of luck, buy games and be thankful for all they've done for Linux gaming and Linux in general.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EKRboiI think the big problem here compared to XBone and PS4 is that the people making these have to make a profit on them. MS and Sony can sell theirs as a loss leader. Segata is right. Valve needs to produce these themselves for either 0 profit or even at a bit of a loss.

And then lock the software down so that you could only buy from Steam, sell games for twice the price and make you pay a monthly subscription to play online? Don't worry about the price... having multiple OEMs guarantees that free market will take care of it.

I believe Steam Machines shouldn't compete with consoles in price as if you just buy 2-3 AAA games at console prices and pay the subscription for just an year makes a console with inferior performance more expensive (or at least balances the prices) than a low-mid range Steam Machine.

Edit: So as it comes to price I just decided to calculate how much I've spent on Steam. It's a total of £92.28 for a total of 47 games I own. And I know that buying on sale is not supporting the developers but I'm poor and believe giving back less is better than nothing. And these games were equal to hundreds of hours of fun. So the point I'm trying to make is why would they lower the price of hardware therefore lowering the profits of the OEMs, lowering the chances of them making a second generation of Steam Machines and therefore lowering the general interest in the platform when consoles couldn't even get close in terms of game prices?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: maodzedunNot to be a Negative Nancy but how is the Borderlands 2 port good, if it only works properly with Nvidia hardware.

Works quite decently on an Intel HD4400. Medium settings 30+ FPS.. I think that's good enough for a cheap laptop.

View this comment - View article - View full comments