SteamOS 2.0/"Brewmaster" performs like dog shit in comparison to Windows 10 for playing games accord
58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116216]Not to mention if you're stuck and need to do something on windows, google is full of info and various ways on doing what you need. On linux? You will need to dig. The options on linux are a lot more limited for casual users. And the options that are available are often harder to set up if you deviate from the path of "approved" apps. Linux is not ready for mainstream casual market, no idea why some people can't understand that. It also does not offer casual market anything that windows does not have. The opposite if anything. The only advantage obvious to a casual is that it's free, but then again they can call up their cousin's nephew and ask for a windows unlocker or something.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this. From what I've heard, if you [I]know what you're doing,[/I] Linux can be the best, in terms of what it can do versus how Windows and OSX does it. A friend made an analogy like this.
You're buying a chair. Buying OSX is buying a shiny, nice chair. It does what you need it to do, but you can't really mess with it. What you see on the tin is what you get. Going for Windows is getting a fairly decent chair, good quality. But it you can add little extensions to it, like a cupholder if you'd like, or make it recline, if you so desire. Getting Linux is getting a box full of different, seperate chair parts, with the instructions saying "build whatever kind of chair you want."
It's a stretch, obviously, but it's good for layman's terms.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116444]OSX is very good for mainstream and casual. Better than windows even. If it would run on every pc it would overtake windows in the casual market and not only. Linux tries but with no financial support or proper business management, cannot get to the audiences it strives to get. Ubuntu eats dirt when compared to OSX. Most distros do in the casual market. OSX has a large money backing, a lot of skilled professionals working on it, both programmers AND designers and it knows their target audience. Linux is kinda all over the place. Distros either lack direction or funding.[/QUOTE]
how does Ubuntu eat dirt compared to OS X? in what ways is it inferior? why do most distros fare so bad in the casual market? does a product need funding to be a good product? do you need to be a top of the line, highly paid, professional developer / designer to deliver something that's decent? are you saying the developers behind projects like Gnome, KDE and Unity which are very consistent in how they work have no idea what their target audience is?
I wouldn't say Linux as a whole attempts to cater to the casual audience, that's up to the distro creators. Linux is just the kernel, what you're thinking of are the distros. Ubuntu tries to reach the casual audience and they've done a great job with it, by eliminating the use of the terminal and instead replacing it with easy to use programs with a nice GUI.
Ubuntu has a perfectly clear target audience to reach, those who are new to Linux and need a place to start, or someone who just needs a working system, aka someone casual. Arch is also very clear in who they're trying to reach, they are trying to reach those who wish to have full control over their system, same can be said about Gentoo. I'd say most distros have a clear direction, but that can't be said about all of them. the most popular ones very clearly have a good direction they're going for though.
Linux has a very large developer community behind it, so yes, there are very many things to choose from. though in that big sea of stuff, there are actually organized and full packages of stuff available which offers consistent experiences.
[editline]14th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;49116496]Pretty much this. From what I've heard, if you [I]know what you're doing,[/I] Linux can be the best, in terms of what it can do versus how Windows and OSX does it. A friend made an analogy like this.
You're buying a chair. Buying OSX is buying a shiny, nice chair. It does what you need it to do, but you can't really mess with it. What you see on the tin is what you get. Going for Windows is getting a fairly decent chair, good quality. But it you can add little extensions to it, like a cupholder if you'd like, or make it recline, if you so desire. Getting Linux is getting a box full of different, seperate chair parts, with the instructions saying "build whatever kind of chair you want."
It's a stretch, obviously, but it's good for layman's terms.[/QUOTE]
I think I'd rather say with Linux, you have several different manufacturers using the same base but adding their own stuff to a complete chair. you can buy a package which tells you to build whatever chair you want, but you can also buy a nice chair which doesn't need any set up.
Not a surprise but there are steam machines that run SteamOS on Windows, yeah?
[QUOTE=Kidd;49116537]Not a surprise but there are steam machines that run SteamOS on Windows, yeah?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the alienware alpha is basically that, A windows version of their steam machine (which they released way before the official steam machines after valve pulled the rug out for them on release timetable, since they were already well into production over a year ago). Comes with a 360 controller even. SteamOS is nothing but big Picture mode running on top of a slightly modified debian, so something running big Picture on windows will be identical except that the game libray will be much larger.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116343]And yet ubuntu is clunky as fuck, ugly(imo) and awfully bloated. At this point dare I say even more than windows. It's an ok alternative if you're on a budget but otherwise it got nothing over windows.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure about the bloated idea or the clunky as fuck. With what Windows I've had the chance to use (which is 95, 98, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10), I'd much rather use Ubuntu above that. It has had a Software Center for a long time (and a centralized not-so-user-friendly software center for long than Apple has had anything called "apps"), it has a much tougher security, it works with things like LDAP (and therefore Active Directory), and supports Windows Shares (and you can even make your own shares in the same way), uses less than 60% of the space that Windows does on a default installation, allows you to use whatever language you want to, regardless of edition, comes with (optional!!) enterprise support, has no built in limit to the amount of RAM you can use regardless of edition (128GB RAM for your 64bit desktop? No problem!), supports video cards Microsoft hasn't even heard of, and works on more devices and archiechtures than Windows ever will.
How is that bloated?
Besides, just for the standard Ubuntu experience, you can pick
[url=http://www.kubuntu.org/]Kubuntu:[/url]
[URL="http://www.kubuntu.org/"][t]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qx1cox9up-o/UNh2S-ceZ4I/AAAAAAAAPQ8/ilv51SBLNHo/s1600/kubuntu+12.10+kde+4.9.95.png[/t][/URL]
[url=http://xubuntu.org/]Xubuntu:[/url]
[URL="http://xubuntu.org/"][t]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-96gcCfO9P94/U-U5aVRnz4I/AAAAAAAAFR4/iteTIe835lM/s1600/xubuntu.png[/t][/URL]
Or even others like [URL="http://ubuntugnome.org/"]Ubuntu GNOME[/URL] or [URL="http://lubuntu.net/"]Lubuntu[/URL]. There's a ton more to pick from, but these are some of the most obvious ones. How are they bloated? I mean the look is one thing, which can be argued about for decades, but bloated? You must've never used Windows.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;49116849]I'm not sure about the bloated idea or the clunky as fuck. With what Windows I've had the chance to use (which is 95, 98, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10), I'd much rather use Ubuntu above that. It has had a Software Center for a long time (and a centralized not-so-user-friendly software center for long than Apple has had anything called "apps"), it has a much tougher security, it works with things like LDAP (and therefore Active Directory), and supports Windows Shares (and you can even make your own shares in the same way), uses less than 60% of the space that Windows does on a default installation, allows you to use whatever language you want to, regardless of edition, comes with (optional!!) enterprise support, has no built in limit to the amount of RAM you can use regardless of edition (128GB RAM for your 64bit desktop? No problem!), supports video cards Microsoft hasn't even heard of, and works on more devices and archiechtures than Windows ever will.
How is that bloated?
Besides, just for the standard Ubuntu experience, you can pick
Or even others like [URL="http://ubuntugnome.org/"]Ubuntu GNOME[/URL] or [URL="http://lubuntu.net/"]Lubuntu[/URL]. There's a ton more to pick from, but these are some of the most obvious ones. How are they bloated? I mean the look is one thing, which can be argued about for decades, but bloated? You must've never used Windows.[/QUOTE]
Yeah because a casual user cares about all the <letter here>ubuntu versions. People already have enough trouble between windows pro/ultimate version meanings. And KUbuntu looks really ugly, don't show that abomination please.
How much money did they put in this engine ?
How much are they going to lose ?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116916]Yeah because a casual user cares about all the <letter here>ubuntu versions. People already have enough trouble between windows pro/ultimate version meanings. And KUbuntu looks really ugly, don't show that abomination please.[/QUOTE]
Are you here [I]just[/I] to argue a point that's already been made clear?
[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;49116996]Are you here [I]just[/I] to argue a point that's already been made clear?[/QUOTE]
I am arguing because people feel like linux(distros) are great for casual users when in reality that's hardly true.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116916]Yeah because a casual user cares about all the <letter here>ubuntu versions. People already have enough trouble between windows pro/ultimate version meanings. And KUbuntu looks really ugly, don't show that abomination please.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't look any worse than Windows 7 to me.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;49117362]Doesn't look any worse than Windows 7 to me.[/QUOTE]
Just look into bottom right corner. Does that not look terrible? Just me then?
Worth noting that the last two releases of Kubuntu look like the following:
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/KDE_Plasma_5.png[/t]
[QUOTE=mastersrp;49116849]ubuntu pictures[/QUOTE]
That looks like a terrible baby of OSx and WinXP. It doesn't look elegant. It doesn't useable. On top of that it's vasting incredible amounts of vertical space in both setups. I won't even start about the need for six virtual desktops.
Linux has a problems, and quite huge ones.
a) ubuntu is pretty much the only widely known distro
b) stuff constantly breaks in ubuntu, stuff that needs you to go into the terminal to fix. (hey remember when most laptop touchpads went awol? Yeah I do)
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49118039]That looks like a terrible baby of OSx and WinXP. It doesn't look elegant. It doesn't useable. On top of that it's vasting incredible amounts of vertical space in both setups.[b] I won't even start about the need for six virtual desktops. [/b]
Linux has a problems, and quite huge ones.
a) ubuntu is pretty much the only widely known distro
b) stuff constantly breaks in ubuntu, stuff that needs you to go into the terminal to fix. (hey remember when most laptop touchpads went awol? Yeah I do)[/QUOTE]
You do know you can just right click it and add a few more, right? Or 15 more. Or 96 more. There's not really a limit to these things, you see.
Besides, the look is what you make it. You can change the theme and style of each and every single Linux desktop to exactly suit your personal style. Oh, so people love the look of Windows 10? Well they'll feel right at home with the latest KDE then, because it looks pretty much just like it, except less Metro. I don't get these complaints. It's like a lot of consumers that are mad they bought their expensive toys, only to find that you can get a newer and better edition for free.
"Stuff" also doesn't constantly break in Ubuntu. I don't know where you've heard that. I haven't even heard of that issue you mentioned, but that does sound about as bad as Windows 10, where tens of thousands of users where unable to fully upgrade, or had upgraded their ASUS laptops and suddenly the driver for the touchpad broke, which could only be fixed by updating from the vendor website.
I've also seen that in order to get anything working, you have to download GPU drivers from some vendor or other, audio drivers from another, CPU drivers from a third, and so on, just to have the somewhat latest drivers for your computer? What kind of hell is that?
Also, a very relevant article that I've found about Linux and desktop usage;
[url]http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html[/url]
Worth noting is that from a purely objective point of view, Windows is not ready for general desktop usage either. We're just so used to its issues that we can overlook them without even a thought.
who is the steamos for REALLY?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49118039]That looks like a terrible baby of OSx and WinXP. It doesn't look elegant. It doesn't useable. On top of that it's vasting incredible amounts of vertical space in both setups. I won't even start about the need for six virtual desktops.
Linux has a problems, and quite huge ones.
a) ubuntu is pretty much the only widely known distro
b) stuff constantly breaks in ubuntu, stuff that needs you to go into the terminal to fix. (hey remember when most laptop touchpads went awol? Yeah I do)[/QUOTE]
Can you be more specific? I've argued with people like you before about linux and in the end it comes down to a few issues you had with it which somehow translates to "linux is completely broken"
You started making a list of issues but you only made 2 entries where your first point lacks an explanation as to why it's a huge problem in the first place. You're really exaggerating this and half your points are subjective like "it doesn't look elegant"
Also according to these benchmarks using the nvidia drivers linux is pretty much the same if not faster in some cases and slower in others:
[url]http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia-win10-ubuntu15&num=1[/url]
[url]http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-ubuntu-faster&num=1[/url]
The story would be different on an amd gpu though because their opengl driver isn't very good.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49120329]who is the steamos for REALLY?[/QUOTE]
I assumed it was for people using PCs plugged into their TVs like the Steam Machines
The main problem here is that a lot of people, especially big companies, don't consider Linux a viable alternative. As long as that thought stays, the problem stays. Without Valve pushing SteamOS, I don't think there would be much hope for Linux gaming soon. We just need more companies to ([B]properly[/B]) support Linux.
Also, Windows has been the standard for gaming for how many years? Of course it's easier to make games outperform on a platform where developers have had years to optimize for. "...they may release a hastily done port in order to just tick the box." is also something we don't need.
[QUOTE=Darkwater124;49121097]The main problem here is that a lot of people, especially big companies, don't consider Linux a viable alternative. As long as that thought stays, the problem stays. Without Valve pushing SteamOS, I don't think there would be much hope for Linux gaming soon. We just need more companies to ([B]properly[/B]) support Linux.[/QUOTE]
I hate it when manufacturers install FreeDos or some other random crap on a laptop and then I have to mess around with it just so my neighbors mom can go online and play Solitare. A pre-installed Ubuntu would save me so much trouble.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49120329]who is the steamos for REALLY?[/QUOTE]
It's for steam machines.
SteamOS is NOT FOR END USERS, it's for being preinstalled on Steam machines.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49115644]For general consuming linux is quite bad still. At least compared to Win or OSX.[/QUOTE]
Only for games. Linux is perfectly good in all other categories, especially since most people just use a web browser for everything on their machines.
[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49118039]That looks like a terrible baby of OSx and WinXP. It doesn't look elegant. It doesn't useable. On top of that it's vasting incredible amounts of vertical space in both setups. I won't even start about the need for six virtual desktops.
Linux has a problems, and quite huge ones.
a) ubuntu is pretty much the only widely known distro
b) stuff constantly breaks in ubuntu, stuff that needs you to go into the terminal to fix. (hey remember when most laptop touchpads went awol? Yeah I do)[/QUOTE]
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/CyO4dta.png[/img_thumb]
I think that the best desktop is no desktop.
The point is, there's a lot of choice into what you can do with your UI. Far more choice than windows or OSX.
if you want winxp-like, there's cinnamon
[img_thumb]http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/cinnamon-2-8-desktop-environment-gets-new-bugfix-releases-for-gnu-linux-496097-2.jpg[/img_thumb]
if you like the option to either minimalize OR rice your desktop, there's awesome
[img_thumb]http://sc.gentooligans.com/sites/default/files/image/Anonymous/gentoo_screenshot_contest2011.png[/img_thumb]
If you want a free version of OSX, there's Pantheon
[img_thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iy4F9qAclTM/UVAzDAesFiI/AAAAAAAAOpw/McCKSivgiZM/s1600/elementary-appcenter.png[/img_thumb]
if you want a minimal yet GUI look, there's XFCE4
[img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Xubuntu_13.04_English.png[/img_thumb]
If you want a tiling WM (like me), there's subtle
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/NQfd7l.png[/img_thumb]
and if you're really into the tablet/touchscreen look, there is, of course, Unity
[img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Ubuntu_Unity_Keyboard_shortcuts_-_En.png[/img_thumb]
Lots of customization available.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens after the Vulkan API's finished
[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;49121738]It's for steam machines.
SteamOS is NOT FOR END USERS, it's for being preinstalled on Steam machines.[/QUOTE]
So it's for end users
[QUOTE=Darkwater124;49133326]So it's for end users[/QUOTE]
No. Steam Big Picture mode is. You're not supposed to use the actual SteamOS, only incidentally while using Steam BPM.
people who want a steam linux install should just use ubuntu + [url]https://github.com/thor27/steam-login[/url]
once its set up its basically the same thing as steamos (but with a normal linux install behind it)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.