Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
StevenC21

What's your Opinion on Linux?

Linux Opinions.  

74 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your opinion on Linux?

    • Only pure Open-Source Distros.
      9
    • Ehh, Linux is Linux, it's all good.
      21
    • I prefer Windows.
      39
    • I'm a Mac Heathen.
      5


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Catpho said:

Whats with those round things on its chest?

Well if I were to assume... never mind xD

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Catpho said:

Whats with those round things on its chest?

 

I don't know, honestly. The image was from the Tux Factory website which is no longer online :(

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, MrDeAD1313 said:

I've actually been learning to use Ubuntu a bit lately and I gotta say, the more I learn and become comfortable, the more I can understand the love of Linux. I'm not comfortable enough to switch to Ubuntu as my main OS just yet but I'm definitely enjoying my time learning the basics. I'm currently compiling gzdoom as I type this. Can't wait to try it out :D

 

I compiled GZDoom last week and got to play Brutal Doom for the first time, I was pleasantly entertained!

Share this post


Link to post

Love me some CentOS.  If it weren't for Windows' domination of the gaming sphere and Linux's utter failure when it comes to audio recording/production, I'd probably use it at home as well as at work.

Share this post


Link to post

@Cynical I found the DAW's and post-processing software tools on Linux very decent, the problem I suspect your refer to is the lack of hardware support for some equipment. This is due to the hardware vendors not bothering to add official support to their products, or refuse to release technical specifications so that the community can implement drivers and software. The vendors do not believe there is any monetary gain in offering their products on *nix based platforms so they don't bother or give a damn about the rest of us. This is the same story for graphics hardware, albeit in the last decade some vendors provide working yet buggy binary blobs of their drivers (*ahem* nvidia). Intel seems to be the only vendor who provide their full specification and open sourced their drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

My only other problem with Linux is that the programs are often compiled dynamically, not statically, which can lead to portability and stability issues with programs.

 

Edit: As for Windows, I believe Windows 2000 is the only OS that has got the Win9x and NT Backend merged properly. Windows XP only overhauls the UI. Windows 2000 is also the only OS in the NT series which is able to play DirectDraw games without any palette issues that Windows XP to 7 suffer from. It is also the only OS in the NT line to have stuff from Windows 98 like the Desktop Update and WDM which stabilizes Windows NT, alongside an ability to play sound and music right from the Explorer without the need to open Media Player, an ability which is absent from all the other Windows OSs.

Edited by Cacodemon345

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/1/2018 at 5:50 AM, Cacodemon345 said:

My only other problem with Linux is that the programs are often compiled dynamically, not statically, which can lead to portability and stability issues with programs.

 

Edit: As for Windows, I believe Windows 2000 is the only OS that has got the Win9x and NT Backend merged properly. Windows XP only overhauls the UI. Windows 2000 is also the only OS in the NT series which is able to play DirectDraw games without any palette issues that Windows XP to 7 suffer from. It is also the only OS in the NT line to have stuff from Windows 98 like the Desktop Update and WDM which stabilizes Windows NT, alongside an ability to play sound and music right from the Explorer without the need to open Media Player, an ability which is absent from all the other Windows OSs.

For programmers, the dynamic compile thing is awesome, cause you know exactly what your getting...and you can change it.

 

About Windows 2000, I don't have much experience, but I believe you. See, after 2000, MS made a concentrated effort to destroy the very things you describe, slowly, but surely, by subtle changes. With each new OS, things that used to just work, you had to do a little hack to get them to work. Then you had to do a bigger hack. Then you might have to download stuff. Finally, you'd need an emulator. These were all things that could have worked if MS hadn't intentionally broken them, to try to force people to stop using old stuff. I get it - it's hard to support all that old stuff and new stuff too. But they didn't have to be sneaky about it - that's what pisses me off about the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, kb1 said:

These were all things that could have worked if MS hadn't intentionally broken them, to try to force people to stop using old stuff

If this was even remotely true, I wouldn't be able to run a good chunk of Windows 95 software. I can still run a good chunk of Windows 95 software. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can still run Office 95 in Windows 10.

 

There is a few main reasons why software compatibility breaks between versions of Windows:

  • 64bit Windows can't run 16bit software and extensions. This strangely affects a lot of installer applications that were programmed in 16bit, despite the program itself being 32bit. Among the presented reasons, this is the only one that is actually Microsoft's fault in that they could actually write a 16bit VDM. There reasons for not doing so have never been publicly stated however, and I'd imagine it'd come down to security. However, 32bit windows still does run 16bit software, so a lot of those installers actually still work, just not in the version of Windows most people normally use (there is still a 32bit version of Windows 10, fun fact).
  • The program uses undefined behavior of the Windows SDK. This is what is most frequently struck with incompatible 32bit programs, and is not something Microsoft can actively support. @Quasar and I have struck one game that for whatever reason mixed window rendering extensions, and drew outside of the defined window space. This is especially egregious as we are damn sure the Windows SDK told you not to do this even back then, and it has predictably stopped working making the game completely inoperable.
  • The program was built around mistaken assumptions of hardware progression. Typically games make this mistake, usually related to available RAM (>2GB causes them to upchuck). Amazingly, this bug also exists for some hardware accelerated games when checking VRAM.
  • The program relies on hardware extensions that have been forcibly removed for obvious security reasons. Typically, this is anti-piracy methods involving CD checking, as a lot of it either required custom drivers that mimicked behavior of a root-kit, or required access to information that was ill-defined for the environment. On of the more blatant examples of the latter is the game Driver, which explicitly requested a CD in drive D, no other location.
Edited by Edward850

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

64bit Windows can't run 16bit software and extensions. This strangely affects a lot of installer applications that were programmed in 16bit, despite the program itself being 32bit. Among the presented reasons, this is the only one that is actually Microsoft's fault in that they could actually write a 16bit VDM. There reasons for not doing so have never been publicly stated however, and I'd imagine it'd come down to security. However, 32bit windows still does run 16bit software, so a lot of those installers actually still work, just not in the version of Windows most people normally use (there is still a 32bit version of Windows 10, fun fact).

Microsoft didn't want to emulate 16-bit stuff in Windows XP 64-bit and higher like they did on the old Windows NT 3.xx days, when support for anything other than x86 was still available and running DOS required emulation.

As for 16-Bit VDM, I highly doubt that would be fully functional in Windows 64-bit. Linux's 16-bit support is crippled in 64-bit, requiring Wine to resort to the 16-Bit segments to run 16-bit Windows programs.

42 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

If this was even remotely true, I wouldn't be able to run a good chunk of Windows 95 software. I can still run a good chunk of Windows 95 software. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can still run Office 95 in Windows 10.

For software, it is true. But for older games, it is not true.

34 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

The program uses undefined behavior of the Windows SDK. This is what is most frequently struck with incompatible 32bit programs, and is not something Microsoft can actively support. @Quasar and I have struck one game that for whatever reason mixed window rendering extensions, and drew outside of the defined window space. This is especially egregious as we are damn sure the Windows SDK told you not to do this even back then, and it has predictably stopped working making the game completely inoperable.

And that's one of the reasons why older games from EA and the like either require biggest hacks or not even run in the modern versions of Windows.

 

37 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

The program relies on hardware extensions that have been forcibly removed for obvious security reasons. Typically, this is anti-piracy methods involving CD checking, as a lot of it either required custom drivers that mimicked behavior of a root-kit, or required access to information that was ill-defined for the environment. On of the more blatant examples of the latter is the game Driver, which explicitly requested a CD in drive D, no other location.

The anti-piracy methods used in such games make them unplayable in modern versions of Windows, requiring installation of the required drivers, often going as far as disabling the driver protections in Windows 64-bit and then installing it. It is annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

For software, it is true. But for older games, it is not true.

Actually, I am indeed talking about games (also games are software by definition). For a bit of context, my job involves releasing older games on newer platforms, so playing around with older software titles and seeing what still works and doesn't and why is pretty much what I do, sometimes for days on end. The number of older games that still function on modern Windows, even 64bit (even the ones that need getting around the installer problems), is much higher than people think.

 

38 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

The anti-piracy methods used in such games make them unplayable in modern versions of Windows, requiring installation of the required drivers, often going as far as disabling the driver protections in Windows 64-bit and then installing it. It is annoying.

You basically just repeated what I said back to me, just in different words.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

You basically just repeated what I said back to me, just in different words.

I think I should've said "I agree" rather than repeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2018 at 12:00 AM, Edward850 said:

If this was even remotely true, I wouldn't be able to run a good chunk of Windows 95 software. I can still run a good chunk of Windows 95 software. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can still run Office 95 in Windows 10.

It's more than remotely true, it's simply true, that's why I said it. The fact that you can run some software, as I can, disproves nothing. An example, you ask? .INI file caching. Sure, .INI files can still be read. At 1/100th the previous speed, causing some programs to be so slow they might as well be broken. Just a simple example. There's plenty - that's an example of an unnecessary feature removal to attempt to force programmers to move over to the registry.

 

Of course Office works. Office will always work.

 

Quote

 

There is a few main reasons why software compatibility breaks between versions of Windows:

You mean there "are" a few... all of which could have been handled. One that REALLY annoys me: Why won't the shell let me seamlessly set up icons to my DOS apps that launch DOSBox? (not a funky .lnk with DOSBox.exe in it, not a pointer to a .bat, an honest-to-goodness shortcut to a 16-bit app that launches my defined 16-bit solution, defined in one place within Windows.) Or I am simply ignorant to the method, though I know it is not obvious.

 

I mean, look, man, I understand what you're saying, and your answers have a lot of merit, and make a lot of sense at face value, and are quite informative to most people. But, I've been doing this stuff for long enough to know what I'm talking about, and reading things like "If this was even remotely true" causes me to immediately question just who you're trying to impress. You see, I've been on the other end of the war MS has been waging with the very folks that put it where it is today, and I get their motivations, and I see and deal with their handiwork, often at the byte-level, on a daily basis, and all of that has admittedly left me a bit disgruntled.

 

Having said all that, for you to claim that something that I have been experiencing for the past few decades isn't even remotely true leaves me with the following possibilities:

  • You are completely knowledgeable of all of the inner workings of all of the components of all of the versions of Windows since Windows 95 - sorry, not buying it
  • I've been hallucinating for the past few decades - not likely
  • You are well intentioned, yet not completely knowledgeable in the same areas as me, and you have not been experiencing the same difficulties with technologies being slowly deprecated for non-technical reasons
  • You are attempting to simultaneously sound authoritative, and to discredit me a bit. I'd like to think this wasn't so.

Anyway, all I'm saying is the "not even remotely" stuff is kinda disrespectful, unless you're all-knowing. I'd rather not start breakin' you off a chunk of that example bar, you know? Let's just leave it at that, can we? Again, I know MS does bend over backwards for compatibility in a lot of ways, and they always have, for the big boys. It's the subtle stuff that kills.

Share this post


Link to post

@kb1:

 

What are you trying to say here? Edward850 countered your point that Microsoft "intentionally" broke backwards compatibility with old software when this is clearly not true, save for the 16 bit issue. Unlike on Macs, where stuff regularly breaks, any cleanly programmed software from the Windows 95 days will still work. The only exception I experienced is that 8 bit DirectDraw games show issues on modern systems, crashes on overlong OpenGL extension strings by Quake engine games and that they cannot use 320x200 video modes anymore. But these are both issues mainly caused by removed support in modern video drivers, not the operating system itself.

 

The main roadblock with older software is not system incompatibilities but bad assumptions by that software's programmers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

And back to topic:

 

No, I don't use Linux. Why should I? Yes, it's surely a free operating system but it also shows all the drawbacks of that. Unlike Windows and macOS which are mostly homogenous systems where components cleanly interact, Linux often strikes me as an unpolished hodgepodge, where for every task some free library was chosen but nobody saw any need to polish the whole thing and make it a consistent experience.

 

Share this post


Link to post

@kb1 I can't claim to be "all knowing" (only a Microsoft employee would be able to give clear details), but as I previously stated I investigate this stuff as a job. Sorry if I came off a bit strong, that wasn't my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

8 bit DirectDraw games show issues on modern systems, crashes on overlong OpenGL extension strings by Quake engine games and that they cannot use 320x200 video modes anymore. But these are both issues mainly caused by removed support in modern video drivers, not the operating system itself.

What the fuck do you mean exactly? People has been able to run older DOS games like Doom on real hardware. You do realise how were the displays back in the 90s looked, right?

 

As for 8-bit DirectDraw games, a lot of people also has been able to run them using programs and hacks. And as for overlong OpenGL strings, they are pretty much suppressed with the new source ports of Quake. Even games from the late 90s-early 2000s that used OpenGL was perfectly working on my modern PC.

3 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

any cleanly programmed software from the Windows 95 days will still work.

...which is subjective, as a lot of programs made in that day was built on APIs that has been either deprecated or removed entirely. A lot of installers in that day was 16-bit, requiring 32-bit Windows to be even installable out-of-the-box. Official programs from Microsoft back in that day will still work, through in less numbers.

 

As for the bad assumptions by programmers, system incompatibilities are clearly the reason why programs don't want to work, and bad assumptions by programmers only happen in games where the coding methods are weird.

Edited by Cacodemon345

Share this post


Link to post

WTF? Do you even know how much nonsense your post contains?

 

 

31 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

What the fuck do you mean exactly? People has been able to run older DOS games like Doom on real hardware. You do realise how were the displays back in the 90s looked, right?

 

Try any 320x200 Windows game on a driver from the last 10 years and let's talk again.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

 

As for 8-bit DirectDraw games, a lot of people also has been able to run them using programs and hacks.

 

Yes, they require "Programs and hacks". The main problem being that modern Windows's drivers have problems with palettes. That's why, for example, all modern Doom ports have dumped native paletted support by now.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

 

 

And as for overlong OpenGL strings, they are pretty much suppressed with the new source ports of Quake. Even games from the late 90s-early 2000s that used OpenGL was perfectly working on my modern PC.

 

Yes, new ports suppress them, but you clearly did not read what I said, namely that the ORIGINAL games from 20 years ago suffer from this problem. And not all have source ports to offer. To get around this you need a graphics driver-side workaround to give them a shorter extension string.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

...which is subjective, as a lot of programs made in that day was built on APIs that has been either deprecated or removed entirely. A lot of installers in that day was 16-bit, requiring 32-bit Windows to be even installable out-of-the-box. Official programs from Microsoft back in that day will still work, through in less numbers.

 

Yes, a lot of APIS were deprecated. But very few were REMOVED! Even DirectDraw still exists in modern Windows  - even the 64 bit version!

The 16 bit installer problem was acknowledged but you conveniently ignore that acknowledgement - and if you get a working installation you normally can make it work on a modern system. Been there, done that a few times.

 

31 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

 

As for the bad assumptions by programmers, system incompatibilities are clearly the reason why programs don't want to work, and bad assumptions by programmers only happen in games where the coding methods are weird.

 

Wrong!

Most old software fails for a relatively small number of reasons:

 

1. Underestimating the maximum size of a resource and not being able to handle the case if the assumed maximum gets exceeded.

2. Underestimating the maximum performance of a modern system and getting into problems when a too coarse counter gets set to a value that's too low or too high to be handled reliably.

3. Depending on certain hardware quirks - the most prominent example being some CD checks that abused system bugs.

4. Depending on undefined behavior of the system's API or not using it properly.

 

 

All of these were extremely common in games programming 20 years ago, and they all lead to stuff not working any lionger today.

It is very rare that a clean program will break and many games of that vintage still work fine today - at least those that use hardware accelerated 3D, because those APIs haven't changed much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Hell Theatre said:

Even DirectDraw still exists in modern Windows  - even the 64 bit version!

DirectDraw emulation was clearly removed in Windows 8, requiring hacks.

Yes, it exists, but you clearly need a Wine DirectDraw DLL if you expect them to work on games.

 

18 minutes ago, Hell Theatre said:

Try any 320x200 Windows game on a driver from the last 10 years and let's talk again.

Do you even realize what are you even talking about? Pretty much anything from the 2008 should've switched to newer DirectX stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cacodemon345 said:

DirectDraw emulation was clearly removed in Windows 8, requiring hacks.

Yes, it exists, but you clearly need a Wine DirectDraw DLL if you expect them to work on games.

 

You are contradicting yourself here.

"Emulation" is there, but it doesn't work in all cases. But that's the inevitable thing with evolving hardware. At some point it simply becomes incompatible with old implementations and all that's left is hacks. The last GZDoom release which still has the DirectDraw backend works on my system, but obviously shows some of the issues with wanting a paletted display.

 

1 hour ago, Cacodemon345 said:

Do you even realize what are you even talking about? Pretty much anything from the 2008 should've switched to newer DirectX stuff.

 

Did I miss something? The entire discussion I read was about 1990's games and you suddenly jump to 2008?

Share this post


Link to post

I think I half-read something.

But on my old computer (from 2007), DirectDraw games worked perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I think my post was much more foolish-looking than it was intended, so here it goes:

1. Most 320x200 Windows games supported higher resolutions and you could modify the registry/INI to make them start in a higher resolution, solving the problem. But it is true that some Windows games that are 320x200 only will not run, if ever.

2. DirectDraw was perfectly working on a 2012 Windows 7 laptop that I used once on a game. As for APIs being deprecated, they are left alone rotting in software, and eventually become unusable.

3. If you are on a 64-bit UEFI system, then you can't run the 16-bit installers at all unless you got a 32-bit UEFI and you're ready to format everything out on your hard drive and install a 32-bit Windows OS. You have to resort to VMs to install it and if it resorts to CD checks, it is even worse as you can't run it in real hardware you've got in first place and you're forced to run it in a VM.

4. As for programming errors, I have to agree. It is a main reason why a lot of games from that day doesn't work properly in modern hardware.

(Yes, I know it's a double post, but editing a post to contain this text isn't good)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Cacodemon345 said:

I think I half-read something.

But on my old computer (from 2007), DirectDraw games worked perfectly.

 

That was around the time when the drivers started to remove support for legacy stuff so it doesn't surprise me.

 

41 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

2. DirectDraw was perfectly working on a 2012 Windows 7 laptop that I used once on a game. As for APIs being deprecated, they are left alone rotting in software, and eventually become unusable.

 

I personally never had these problems back then but I heard from lots of people that they started getting problems with paletted DirectDraw games around 2007 and those got progressively worse. If you check current source ports you may find that most of them started updating their video backends during this time and updated to something being built on a hardware accelerated 3D API, either Direct3D or OpenGL.

 

On my current system fullscreen DirectDraw is of course unusable, unless using a third party replacement. Taking an old ZDoom from 2005, I get 180 fps in 1920x1080 windowed and 29 fps in fullscreen. I have no idea what Microsoft did wrong here but they must have screwed up something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Been getting pretty comfortable in Ubuntu lately. Really enjoying it a lot. Since I've installed it, it's really changed what I do on my computer completely. Instead of coming home from work and always wanting to hop on a game or become a YouTube zombie for the 1.5 hours of free time I have, I instead look for new things to do within the terminal. And there are a LOT of cool little things to do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Edward850 said:

@kb1 I can't claim to be "all knowing" (only a Microsoft employee would be able to give clear details), but as I previously stated I investigate this stuff as a job. Sorry if I came off a bit strong, that wasn't my intention.

Hey, I'm sorry too, man - I can tell you know your stuff.

 

16 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

"clearly" ...

Yes, clearly, the bulk of your vast collection of Win 95 games still play, so, clearly, I must have been delirious for a couple dozen years - heh. Subtle breaks. Sometimes, it's as simple as no longer bundling the software, or making certain software REALLY difficult to install, despite the installers running fine. You know, I'm really kinda sorry I even mentioned it. I know that I use my computer differently than most, and, I get that most people are either not affected by such issues, have good alternatives, forget about it, or assume it's their fault. Let's just leave it at that. I grow weary.

Edited by kb1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, ETTiNGRiNDER said:

Remember when this thread was about Linux?

This topic was derailed from the start if you see the first few posts.

 

8 hours ago, Jerry.C said:

I personally never had these problems back then but I heard from lots of people that they started getting problems with paletted DirectDraw games around 2007 and those got progressively worse. If you check current source ports you may find that most of them started updating their video backends during this time and updated to something being built on a hardware accelerated 3D API, either Direct3D or OpenGL.

 

On my current system fullscreen DirectDraw is of course unusable, unless using a third party replacement. Taking an old ZDoom from 2005, I get 180 fps in 1920x1080 windowed and 29 fps in fullscreen. I have no idea what Microsoft did wrong here but they must have screwed up something.

I believe the introduction of WDDM display driver model and DirectX 10.0 messed up DirectDraw support. You do know 256 color mode is still available, right? You need to enable it, or install a dusty XDDM driver, else you aren't going to run those 8-bit paletted stuff properly. The updates made to the drivers over the years to support new stuff required removing the old stuff, that's why they no longer work.

As for DirectDraw getting worse, it already started getting worse back in 2001 when Windows XP was released. It was having issues with DirectDraw games. Then it gained speed when Windows Vista was released which made this problem worse and now it is unusable.

In case of Linux, I believe the backward compatibility issue is worse than Windows. I haven't really attempted to compile and run vanilla Linux Doom so I can't really say.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

And back to topic:

 

No, I don't use Linux. Why should I? Yes, it's surely a free operating system but it also shows all the drawbacks of that. Unlike Windows and macOS which are mostly homogenous systems where components cleanly interact, Linux often strikes me as an unpolished hodgepodge, where for every task some free library was chosen but nobody saw any need to polish the whole thing and make it a consistent experience.

 

Wow - I just read this. Your word "experience" explains why an OS is "striking you". But, depending on your age, and other factors, I suppose it's not really your fault - that line was blurred a long time ago. A true "OS" provides no substantial experience, other than it either works or doesn't. It's supposed to be in the background, providing resources to "the Experience", which has actually come a long way in recent years. The polish is inside.

 

It's probably fair to say that you either get it now, or you probably never will.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

No, I don't use Linux. Why should I? Yes, it's surely a free operating system but it also shows all the drawbacks of that. Unlike Windows and macOS which are mostly homogenous systems where components cleanly interact, Linux often strikes me as an unpolished hodgepodge, where for every task some free library was chosen but nobody saw any need to polish the whole thing and make it a consistent experience.

I find this to be a bit of a bizarre perspective. Every single time I ever see a Windows machine, it strikes me as totally unpolished and made haphazardly without care. That's even without going into any applications installed on top of it -- the stuff built in is inconsistent as all hell. As mentioned previously in the thread, Windows 3.1 is the last time that it ever felt like it had any real care put forth to keeping things consistent. Windows 95 had a nice effort but it was destroyed almost immediately by Microsoft and non-Microsoft applications alike.

 

To the contrary, go fire up the GNOME desktop (even a couple others) and you can see real care to make sure that everything not only plays along with each other, but also that applications are designed and behave similar among each other. Keyboard shortcuts, UI layout and button placement, and widget controls are all entirely consistent. Quite unlike Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, chungy said:

To the contrary, go fire up the GNOME desktop (even a couple others) and you can see real care to make sure that everything not only plays along with each other, but also that applications are designed and behave similar among each other. Keyboard shortcuts, UI layout and button placement, and widget controls are all entirely consistent. Quite unlike Windows.

 

To each their own, I guess. I'm more on Hell Theatre's side here of finding Linux desktops not being that appealing, especially Gnome. In terms of visual consistency macOS is clearly the best, although hampered by Apple's silly insistence on, for example, only having one menu visible at the top of the screen, which, to be blunt, is a major annoyance.

 

On Windows 10 I have to agree that it has become a visual joke with all those crappy looking "modern" apps being part of the system, but on 7 and 8 only those apps which go out of their way to reskin themselves it mostly looks consistent. (I don't use the app store so the excrement that's on offer there does not count.)

But every single time I open a Linux desktop - which mostly is Gnome - or look at some screenshot the first question that pops up is "Why do those fonts look so amateurish?" And to me it's not just the font, it's the entire appearance that somehow puts me off. I cannot pinpoint the exact reason, but something about the visual presentation just does not click with me. I'd just call it "frumpy", for lack of a better term.

 

But in the end the main reason I do not use Linux is simply that it amounts to too much work for too little gain. Need some specialty software? You are very likely to find something for Windows for free. You are very likely to find something for macOS for $$$ but on Linux, most of the times all I find is some badly set up source repos providing an inane terminal solution.

And that's why I stick to Windows. I wouldn't mind using Macs, but the cost-benefit ratio is too low. Not only does the computer cost more, but on top of that there's far, far less free software. But finding good GUI-based solutions on Linux can quickly end up in frustration, because apparently far too many users are die-hard fans of the terminal.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Cacodemon345 said:

This topic was derailed from the start if you see the first few posts.

 

I believe the introduction of WDDM display driver model and DirectX 10.0 messed up DirectDraw support. You do know 256 color mode is still available, right? You need to enable it, or install a dusty XDDM driver, else you aren't going to run those 8-bit paletted stuff properly. The updates made to the drivers over the years to support new stuff required removing the old stuff, that's why they no longer work.

As for DirectDraw getting worse, it already started getting worse back in 2001 when Windows XP was released. It was having issues with DirectDraw games. Then it gained speed when Windows Vista was released which made this problem worse and now it is unusable.

 

 

Sure. But what baffles me is why they just don't drop in a thin wrapper around Direct3D that provides the needed functions. Even lowly third party developers manage to create something better. Using one of those, I can still run most older source ports without problem, either something like ZDoom which uses DirectDraw directly or older SDL-based stuff that also ultimately use DDraw as the rendering backend.

 

The only good thing is that DirectDraw only had a few years to thrive. Right after Windows 95's release it was unviable to produce Windows-only games, so most were still for DOS and can be run through DOSBox these days, but by XP's release hardware accelerated 3D was so common that almost nobody was using DDraw anymore. So the number of affected games is fortunately limited.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×