Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

UT2K4 Performance Help

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 2:06:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

I have two systems:

Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro

The home computer is OK, but...

The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.

Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
controlled by the card is useless.

I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
times but not FPS.

Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
in the work machine to play games.

More about : ut2k4 performance

Anonymous
April 20, 2004 4:52:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
<brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have two systems:
>
>Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
>Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>
>The home computer is OK, but...
>
>The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
>set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
>alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>
>Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
>controlled by the card is useless.
>
>I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
>times but not FPS.
>
>Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
>totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
>in the work machine to play games.

You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 6:24:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Yeah, actually after a shitload of debugging and testing I found out its
Onslaught and/or big maps, not UT2K4 itself, which is the problem.

Playing Onslaught on say, ArticWhatever, I get about 17-18 FPS, while on
Face3 Capture the Flag I get >30 FPS.





"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:s3la80pagv03sivqbd71f59hvs0j59dt4r@4ax.com...
> On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
> <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have two systems:
> >
> >Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
> >Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
> >
> >The home computer is OK, but...
> >
> >The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how
low I
> >set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS.
When I
> >alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
> >
> >Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
> >controlled by the card is useless.
> >
> >I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
> >times but not FPS.
> >
> >Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> >totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon
card
> >in the work machine to play games.
>
> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.
>
>
Related resources
April 20, 2004 7:35:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Seth Brundle enlightened us with:
> The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how
> low I set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24
> FPS.

That's pretty bad...

> When I alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU
> time.

So? Of course the game is fully using your CPU. Or should it throttle
back and not optimally use it's power?

> Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound

Why is that obvious?

> and changing video settings controlled by the card is useless.

Why???

> Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and
> Radeon card in the work machine to play games.

It should play better than this. What OS are you using? What other
programs are running? You don't give any info about your system.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 7:35:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

> > When I alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU
> > time.
> So? Of course the game is fully using your CPU. Or should it throttle
> back and not optimally use it's power?

It should use whatever is necessary unless it is running a demo, in which
case it will run as fast as it can.
At a certain point it would need to run the game faster then it is being
played in order to utilize extra CPU.
For example, it only uses 59% CPU on the P4 3.2GHz system as it has all the
CPU it needs at the current settings and video performance.

> > Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound
> > and changing video settings controlled by the card is useless.
> Why is that obvious?

Because I have throttled down the video resolution and all settings to their
lowest level with virtually no gain in performance.

> It should play better than this. What OS are you using? What other
> programs are running? You don't give any info about your system.

Yeah, I did give some info, you clipped it out:
AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro

OS is Windows XP Pro, I have been shutting down all unnecessary programs
running in the background.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 8:14:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message news:<s3la80pagv03sivqbd71f59hvs0j59dt4r@4ax.com>...
> On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
> <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have two systems:
> >
> >Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
> >Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
> >
> >The home computer is OK, but...
> >
> >The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
> >set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
> >alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
> >
> >Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
> >controlled by the card is useless.
> >
> >I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
> >times but not FPS.
> >
> >Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> >totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
> >in the work machine to play games.
>
> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.

24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768, everything maxed out and
only a GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.
April 20, 2004 8:19:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"Seth Brundle" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40853bab$0$65126$45beb828@newscene.com...
> I have two systems:
>
> Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
> Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>
> The home computer is OK, but...
>
> The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low
I
> set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When
I
> alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>
> Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
> controlled by the card is useless.
>
> I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
> times but not FPS.
>
> Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon
card
> in the work machine to play games.
>
>
>
>
Don't feel bad. I have an Athlon XP at 1.6 gig. 512 DDR. A nvidia 5200 fx
ultra with 128mg ddr on it
I'm running XP.

Last night I was playing a guy with 3 times my lag. I had 38 and he had
over 200. He was totally kicking my ass. I was getting packet loss up the
ass.
When I play bots, my game is very jerky and at times I can be in another
room with the screen and actions of me still from the room I just left.
Then it all catches up with me.
When I'm online, I can be walking under a platform and the next thing I know
I've fallen off the edge of something because of at least a 5 sec delay. I
have to stop the game, then start it back up to play again.

I even have 2 80 gig drives running in a RAID config.

I have totally taken the game off because it is unplayable on my system. I
refuse at this point to build another system just to play a game. Tonight,
the game goes to work with me and I will give it to whom ever wants it.

I've waited since UT to buy the latest Unreal because of performance issues
with the game. There are still things they haven't figured out yet.

I'm not looking for flames here, I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It's a
beautiful game and I hope that they get their communications issues ironed
out.
Until then, I'll wait until late this year when I build my next system or
when the game sells for 10 dollars in the bargain bin. Which is what
happened to 2003.

That's why I didn't buy it. I figured there were problems with it...so I
waited for 2004. Go figure.

Good luck to all with the online gaming.
April 20, 2004 10:22:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Seth Brundle enlightened us with:
> It should use whatever is necessary unless it is running a demo, in
> which case it will run as fast as it can. At a certain point it would
> need to run the game faster then it is being played in order to
> utilize extra CPU. For example, it only uses 59% CPU on the P4 3.2GHz
> system as it has all the CPU it needs at the current settings and
> video performance.

Maybe it's different in windows, but when I run a program on Linux it
uses whatever CPU it can get. Then again, maybe that's because I "only"
have an AthlonXP 2000+.

> Because I have throttled down the video resolution and all settings to
> their lowest level with virtually no gain in performance.

Ok.

> Yeah, I did give some info, you clipped it out:

Sure you gave /some/ info, but only about your hardware, not your
software.

> OS is Windows XP Pro, I have been shutting down all unnecessary
> programs running in the background.

There are some decent XP tweaking guides out there. Have you followed
some? Perhaps you can squeeze a few FPS more out of the box. Can't help
you further, since I don't use windoze.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 11:51:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:12:10 -0500, Seth Brundle wrote:

>> It should play better than this. What OS are you using? What other
>> programs are running? You don't give any info about your system.

> Yeah, I did give some info, you clipped it out:
> AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
> OS is Windows XP Pro, I have been shutting down all unnecessary programs
> running in the background.

I agree, it should be running better than that on that hardware. Here's
what I recommend: Dump Windows and the Radeon. Use Linux and an Nvidia.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 12:02:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2004 16:14:48 -0700, comeand@kissmyfatarse.com (Mattias
Honrendgard) wrote:

>Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message news:<s3la80pagv03sivqbd71f59hvs0j59dt4r@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
>> <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have two systems:
>> >
>> >Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
>> >Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>> >
>> >The home computer is OK, but...
>> >
>> >The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
>> >set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
>> >alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>> >
>> >Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
>> >controlled by the card is useless.
>> >
>> >I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
>> >times but not FPS.
>> >
>> >Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
>> >totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
>> >in the work machine to play games.
>>
>> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
>> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
>> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
>> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
>> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
>> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
>> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.
>
>24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768, everything maxed out and
>only a GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.

I wish I could say the same. I'm currently averaging 40's to 50's
with slowdowns to the upper 20's to 30's in really fierce action, but
I've got a few graphical settings turned off/down and with my system
specs I feel like that shouldn't be necessary. Not that I'm cutting
edge or anything, but I'm far beyond recommended system specs.

P4 2.53
GF4 Ti4400
512 Memory

I get excellent results with most standard benchmarks and because my
system is well tuned, I get results that are usually slightly higher
than similarly configured systems.

DM performance is not a problem... it's the new game modes with large
maps and vehicles that are a problem. Hell, I can't break 80 FPS on
any Onslaught map if I'm just staring at a blank wall.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 12:06:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:19:43 -0500, "Randy" <randy1640@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"Seth Brundle" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:40853bab$0$65126$45beb828@newscene.com...
>> I have two systems:
>>
>> Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
>> Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>>
>> The home computer is OK, but...
>>
>> The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low
>I
>> set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When
>I
>> alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>>
>> Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
>> controlled by the card is useless.
>>
>> I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
>> times but not FPS.
>>
>> Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
>> totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon
>card
>> in the work machine to play games.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Don't feel bad. I have an Athlon XP at 1.6 gig. 512 DDR. A nvidia 5200 fx
>ultra with 128mg ddr on it
>I'm running XP.
>
>Last night I was playing a guy with 3 times my lag. I had 38 and he had
>over 200. He was totally kicking my ass. I was getting packet loss up the
>ass.
>When I play bots, my game is very jerky and at times I can be in another
>room with the screen and actions of me still from the room I just left.
>Then it all catches up with me.
>When I'm online, I can be walking under a platform and the next thing I know
>I've fallen off the edge of something because of at least a 5 sec delay. I
>have to stop the game, then start it back up to play again.
>
>I even have 2 80 gig drives running in a RAID config.
>
>I have totally taken the game off because it is unplayable on my system. I
>refuse at this point to build another system just to play a game. Tonight,
>the game goes to work with me and I will give it to whom ever wants it.
>
>I've waited since UT to buy the latest Unreal because of performance issues
>with the game. There are still things they haven't figured out yet.
>
>I'm not looking for flames here, I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It's a
>beautiful game and I hope that they get their communications issues ironed
>out.
>Until then, I'll wait until late this year when I build my next system or
>when the game sells for 10 dollars in the bargain bin. Which is what
>happened to 2003.
>
>That's why I didn't buy it. I figured there were problems with it...so I
>waited for 2004. Go figure.
>
>Good luck to all with the online gaming.

Ah, you ought to at least wait and see if the first patch gives us
some performance relief.

I'll tell you though, you've got to expect some jumping around with
only 128 MB of memory. It's all the disk swapping that's causing the
game to freeze like that.
April 21, 2004 2:40:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Athlon XP2000+
512 M DDR Ram
Nvidia GeForce 4 440 mmx 64M DDR
Windows xp pro and Linux Fedora core 1 (Dual Boot)

I have the same problem, I have tried everything in both windows and
Linux and get about the same performance from both, about 18 - 22 FPS
in Onslaught. I expected to get better than that. I too have set
everything as low as it will go but with very little gain in
performance. I'm thinking of trying a new graphics card in the hope of
some improvement but don't want to go spending a fortune if it won't
run much faster. I would really appreciate any help or tips that work

Welshman
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:09:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:40:48 +0100, Jon <nospam@here.com> wrote:

>Athlon XP2000+
>512 M DDR Ram
>Nvidia GeForce 4 440 mmx 64M DDR
>Windows xp pro and Linux Fedora core 1 (Dual Boot)
>
>I have the same problem, I have tried everything in both windows and
>Linux and get about the same performance from both, about 18 - 22 FPS
>in Onslaught. I expected to get better than that. I too have set
>everything as low as it will go but with very little gain in
>performance. I'm thinking of trying a new graphics card in the hope of
>some improvement but don't want to go spending a fortune if it won't
>run much faster. I would really appreciate any help or tips that work

In Onslaught, I used stat fps and got 30-40 fps with everything maxed
up to the full including an anisotropy level of 4.
--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

XP Home
L7S7A2 motherboard
Powercolor 9800 SE 8 pipelines with Omega drivers
1 GB RAM
10 GB + 80 GB HDs
CD+DVD/CDRW drives
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:00:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

> >> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
> >> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
> >> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
> >> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
> >> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
> >> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
> >> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.
> >
> >24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768, everything maxed out and
> >only a GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.
>
> I wish I could say the same. I'm currently averaging 40's to 50's
> with slowdowns to the upper 20's to 30's in really fierce action, but
> I've got a few graphical settings turned off/down and with my system
> specs I feel like that shouldn't be necessary. Not that I'm cutting
> edge or anything, but I'm far beyond recommended system specs.
>
> P4 2.53
> GF4 Ti4400
> 512 Memory
>
> I get excellent results with most standard benchmarks and because my
> system is well tuned, I get results that are usually slightly higher
> than similarly configured systems.
>
> DM performance is not a problem... it's the new game modes with large
> maps and vehicles that are a problem. Hell, I can't break 80 FPS on
> any Onslaught map if I'm just staring at a blank wall.

Sounds like our systems are pretty similar then. I'm running a 2500
Athlon XP (barton core), not overclocked. 1 Gb of PC3000 DDR.
Slackware Linux 9.0. "Blank wall" I get 120-200 FPS.

I just had a go at putting everything on "normal" instead of "highest"
and I only got about 5fps increase. The thing is though, even at an
average of 24fps it is smooth and responsive. Mind you, I was running
a GeForce3 ti200 to start with, and had "jerkyness" (especially on the
arctic ONS). As I recall I did "stat fps" then and got *the same
results* (about 20fps average). Thats why I got the 128Mb FX 5600.
(Yeah, I know, I *love* Unreal!). Oh.. the other change was I went
from AGP 4x to 8x with my new card.
April 21, 2004 10:40:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:51:18 -0500, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:

>I agree, it should be running better than that on that hardware. Here's
>what I recommend: Dump Windows and the Radeon. Use Linux and an Nvidia.

Moron.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
April 21, 2004 12:06:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Andrew enlightened us with:
> Moron.

Why is that? The advise *will* get you a better performance. It might
not be your advice of choise, but it *will* work.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
April 21, 2004 12:39:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:D jeb80dv8r1qe86l97jt8q704pel12vlpc@4ax.com...
> >>
> >Don't feel bad. I have an Athlon XP at 1.6 gig. 512 DDR. A nvidia 5200
fx
> >ultra with 128mg ddr on it
> >I'm running XP.
> I'll tell you though, you've got to expect some jumping around with
> only 128 MB of memory. It's all the disk swapping that's causing the
> game to freeze like that.
>


My mistake. I have 768 meg DDR on the mother board. 128mg DDR on the
VIDEO CARD.

I also have 2048 min and 4096 max disk swapping set aside for windows.

I have 2 - 80 gig 7200 rpm disks in a raid config as hard drives.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 1:16:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:40:32 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:51:18 -0500, Dan C
><youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>I agree, it should be running better than that on that hardware. Here's
>>what I recommend: Dump Windows and the Radeon. Use Linux and an Nvidia.
>h
>Moron.

It may be a motherboard issue. I know mine has a memory bottleneck.
There is a fix available to me but I'm just too lazy to sort it out.

--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

XP Home
L7S7A2 motherboard
Powercolor 9800 SE 8 pipelines with Omega drivers
1 GB RAM
10 GB + 80 GB HDs
CD+DVD/CDRW drives
April 21, 2004 1:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2004 08:06:11 GMT, MeltDown
<meltdownUSE@YOURunrealtower.imagination.org> wrote:

>Why is that? The advise *will* get you a better performance. It might
>not be your advice of choise, but it *will* work.

In my experience, Linux gaming is on par with the speed of Windows
gaming, and may be fine if all you want to play is the handful of
available Linux games, but it is stupid to say installing Linux will
miraculously speed up a machine.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
April 21, 2004 1:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Andrew enlightened us with:
> In my experience, Linux gaming is on par with the speed of Windows
> gaming

In my experience, UT (the original) went up 20 FPS when I switched to
Linux. :) 

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 1:34:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

# MeltDown

> Andrew enlightened us with:
>> In my experience, Linux gaming is on par with the speed of Windows
>> gaming
>
> In my experience, UT (the original) went up 20 FPS when I switched to
> Linux. :) 
>
> MeltDown

I've heard the speed improves yet further if you compile the o/s yourself
from kernel upwards.

--
Toby
asktoby.com
BSOD VST & ME
April 21, 2004 1:56:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2004 08:46:44 GMT, MeltDown
<meltdownUSE@YOURunrealtower.imagination.org> wrote:

>In my experience, UT (the original) went up 20 FPS when I switched to
>Linux. :) 

This isn't a thread about UT.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:50:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:14:48 -0700, Mattias Honrendgard wrote:

>
> 24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768,
>everything maxed out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and only a

> GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.

You've got to be kidding..

--



Bora Ugurlu



mailto:boraugurlu@yahoo.de
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:50:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Bora Ugurlu <boraugurlu@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.21.09.50.58.328000@yahoo.de>...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:14:48 -0700, Mattias Honrendgard wrote:
>
> >
> > 24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768,
> >everything maxed out
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > and only a
>
> > GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.
>
> You've got to be kidding..

You mean I should go to 1600x1200? I need to switch "world detail" to
"normal" then though to get the same responsiveness :( 
April 21, 2004 4:57:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Toby Newman enlightened us with:
> I've heard the speed improves yet further if you compile the o/s
> yourself from kernel upwards.

Which is exactly what I do. Well, I compiled the kernel almost last
when I installed, but that's not the point ;-)

I'm using Gentoo with all software compiled heavily optimized for my
CPU.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
April 21, 2004 4:59:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Andrew enlightened us with:
> This isn't a thread about UT.

I know we were talking about ut2004. You were talking about Linux vs.
Windows gaming in general, or at least you gave me that idea, so I
replied with the only real comparison I have done between the to OSses.
I can't compare now, since I don't use windows any more.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 11:14:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:34:48 +0100, Andrew wrote:

> In my experience, Linux gaming is on par with the speed of Windows
> gaming, and may be fine if all you want to play is the handful of
> available Linux games,

Oh, you have some experience with Linux, do you? What games have you
played in Linux?

> but it is stupid to say installing Linux will miraculously speed up a machine.

Who said it would? What I said earlier was that UT2004 would play better
with the advice I gave. That's true, and that's all I said. Don't be a
punk.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 7:26:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

MeltDown left a note on my windscreen which said:

> I know we were talking about ut2004. You were talking about Linux vs.
> Windows gaming in general, or at least you gave me that idea, so I
> replied with the only real comparison I have done between the to OSses.
> I can't compare now, since I don't use windows any more.

Regarding Windows vs Linux gaming in general it is far better to stick
with Windows. Performance improvements, if any, are easily outweighed
by the relatively few games which are released on the Linux platform.

If the OP said that this machine is 'to play games' advising him to
change his OS to Linux would be very counter productive.
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]
April 22, 2004 7:26:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Stoneskin enlightened us with:
> Regarding Windows vs Linux gaming in general it is far better to stick
> with Windows. Performance improvements, if any, are easily outweighed
> by the relatively few games which are released on the Linux platform.

True - I don't play windowze games, hence I play few games.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 8:57:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

MeltDown <meltdownUSE@YOURunrealtower.imagination.org> wrote in message news:<slrnc8fo43.jta.meltdownUSE@sybren.thirdtower.com>...
> Stoneskin enlightened us with:
> > Regarding Windows vs Linux gaming in general it is far better to stick
> > with Windows. Performance improvements, if any, are easily outweighed
> > by the relatively few games which are released on the Linux platform.
>
> True - I don't play windowze games, hence I play few games.
>
> MeltDown

People still use Windows? lol
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 1:06:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:10:56 +0000, MeltDown wrote:

> True - I don't play windowze games, hence I play few games.

I'm on windows, cause the computer at home has to run MS Office.
And I don't have a spare hard disk to install Linux (I wouldn't even think
twice if I had one). But I'm luckily investing on flexible games: The only
ones I play are UT, UT2k4 and Army Ops: Special Forces. All of them also
run on Linux..


>
> MeltDown
--



Bora Ugurlu



mailto:boraugurlu@yahoo.de
April 23, 2004 2:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Bora Ugurlu enlightened us with:
> I'm on windows, cause the computer at home has to run MS Office.

That's no reason. You can either use OpenOffice.org, which is compatible
with MS Office, or run MS Office using the Crossover plugin.

> And I don't have a spare hard disk to install Linux

You don't need a spare harddisk. You can install Linux on the same
harddisk another OS is on.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 3:36:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Bora Ugurlu left a note on my windscreen which said:

> > True - I don't play windowze games, hence I play few games.
>
> I'm on windows, cause the computer at home has to run MS Office.
> And I don't have a spare hard disk to install Linux (I wouldn't even think
> twice if I had one). But I'm luckily investing on flexible games: The only
> ones I play are UT, UT2k4 and Army Ops: Special Forces. All of them also
> run on Linux..

YMMV. I play a very wide selection of games; BF1942, BF:Vietnam, Quake
series, Unreal series, Max Payne, Painkiller, Warcraft 3, Morrowind,
Thief 1/2, Sim City 4 - the list goes on and on.

Using Linux instead of Windows, for me, wouldn't be a good move. When
it comes to generalising the best OS for gaming purposes - Windows is by
far the best choice.
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 3:36:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:36:19 +0100, Stoneskin <no@thanks.com> wrote:

>Bora Ugurlu left a note on my windscreen which said:
>
>> > True - I don't play windowze games, hence I play few games.
>>
>> I'm on windows, cause the computer at home has to run MS Office.
>> And I don't have a spare hard disk to install Linux (I wouldn't even think
>> twice if I had one). But I'm luckily investing on flexible games: The only
>> ones I play are UT, UT2k4 and Army Ops: Special Forces. All of them also
>> run on Linux..
>
>YMMV. I play a very wide selection of games; BF1942, BF:Vietnam, Quake
>series, Unreal series, Max Payne, Painkiller, Warcraft 3, Morrowind,
>Thief 1/2, Sim City 4 - the list goes on and on.
>
>Using Linux instead of Windows, for me, wouldn't be a good move. When
>it comes to generalising the best OS for gaming purposes - Windows is by
>far the best choice.

Oops. You're using logic, Stoneskin and the Linux zealots will have
none of that.

My grandmother could install Windows. I can't install Linux without
pouring over a bunch of deep-geek commands to do something as simple
as setting my refresh rate. I can waltz into Best Buy and feel
confident that any hardware purchase will actually work on my OS.

Linux certainly has it's strong points, but the folks who are
advocating that it's a piece of cake to switch to Linux on the desktop
are simply wrong. At this stage of the game, you give up too much in
terms of application and hardware compatibility. I expect that to
change over the next several years but we're certainly not there now.

And telling me I can run my games under a Windows emulator won't win
you any points. Only a true Linux zealot would fail to find the irony
in that suggestion.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 3:37:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Mattias Honrendgard left a note on my windscreen which said:

> > > Regarding Windows vs Linux gaming in general it is far better to stick
> > > with Windows. Performance improvements, if any, are easily outweighed
> > > by the relatively few games which are released on the Linux platform.
> >
> > True - I don't play windowze games, hence I play few games.

> People still use Windows? lol

Eh? I don't get what's funny about that.
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 6:16:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:10:01 -0400, Folk wrote:

> My grandmother could install Windows.

Is that just a "cliche", or do you really mean that? Could she also
install all the required drivers and applications?

> I can't install Linux without pouring over a bunch of deep-geek commands
> to do something as simple as setting my refresh rate.

Really? When was the last time you tried? What distro? It can't have
been something like a recent Mandrake release, because that is easier than
installing any version of Windows.

> Linux certainly has it's strong points, but the folks who are advocating
> that it's a piece of cake to switch to Linux on the desktop are simply
> wrong.

Can't speak for everyone (as you apparently can), but it WAS a piece of
cake for me. Am I wrong? Am I lying? No.

> At this stage of the game, you give up too much in terms of application
> and hardware compatibility.

I gave up nothing. Not sure what you even mean by this.

> And telling me I can run my games under a Windows emulator won't win you
> any points. Only a true Linux zealot would fail to find the irony in
> that suggestion.

Here I would agree with you. All the games I play in Linux are native
versions, and I also can't see the point of running a Windows emulator.
Thankfully, I don't need to.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
April 23, 2004 6:29:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

My system is an XP2400, 512mb PC133 and GF4ti 4200
and at 800x600 normal settings I get constant HDD access
during levels which causes stuttering and makes it unplayable at times.
The recommended specs are 256mb memory and that makes Epicgames and co a
bunch of lying ass dogs IMHO.
OS is W2Kpro and I run it lean - absolutely nothing in system tray.
If I CAD during a game memory usage is around 350mb against the 88mb when my
PC is idle so UT2004 is using more than 256 but even with a surplus theres
HDD access. Far Cry was more memory hungry but ran better than this.

"Seth Brundle" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40853bab$0$65126$45beb828@newscene.com...
> I have two systems:
>
> Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
> Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>
> The home computer is OK, but...
>
> The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low
I
> set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When
I
> alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>
> Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
> controlled by the card is useless.
>
> I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
> times but not FPS.
>
> Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon
card
> in the work machine to play games.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 7:38:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:10:01 -0400, Folk wrote:

> Oops. You're using logic, Stoneskin and the Linux zealots will have
> none of that.

Hmm.

> My grandmother could install Windows. I can't install Linux without
> pouring over a bunch of deep-geek commands to do something as simple
> as setting my refresh rate.

Monitor refresh rate? Easy. All I did was copy a single line from:
http://xtiming.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/xtiming.pl
.... and paste it into the relevant file.
Now I have the single line, I'll not require any further attention from
that site for the lifespan of this monitor.

What are monitor drivers? Reboot?? :) 

> I can waltz into Best Buy and feel confident that any hardware purchase
> will actually work on my OS.

Some of us like to know what we're buying. ;) 

> Linux certainly has it's strong points, but the folks who are
> advocating that it's a piece of cake to switch to Linux on the desktop
> are simply wrong.

Linux isn't for everybody, just like Windows isn't for everybody.

> At this stage of the game, you give up too much in terms of application
> and hardware compatibility.

Hardware compatability? A little indepth knowledge about hardware is bad?
Application compatability to what? Windows 'standards'?

> I expect that to change over the next several years but we're certainly
> not there now.

Maybe, but it's going that way.

> And telling me I can run my games under a Windows emulator won't win
> you any points. Only a true Linux zealot would fail to find the irony
> in that suggestion.

Ugh. Frigging Transgaming deserve to be castrated for what they're doing
to the chances of Linux gaming. Read:
http://timedoctor.org/boycott_winex.php

--
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1
April 23, 2004 8:11:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:10:01 -0400, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

>My grandmother could install Windows. I can't install Linux without
>pouring over a bunch of deep-geek commands to do something as simple
>as setting my refresh rate. I can waltz into Best Buy and feel
>confident that any hardware purchase will actually work on my OS.

You haven't tried Linux for a long time have you. Installing something
like Mandrake is easier for a novice than Windows as Mandrake has most
of the required device drivers built in not to mention most of the
common productivity software.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
April 23, 2004 11:06:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Folk wrote:
>
> Oops. You're using logic, Stoneskin and the Linux zealots will have
> none of that.

Just to add another linux zealots POV
>
> My grandmother could install Windows.

My 14 year old daughter installed her own Mandrake 9.2
Her Grandmother has a hard job sending email without constant help.

> I can't install Linux without
> pouring over a bunch of deep-geek commands to do something as simple
> as setting my refresh rate.

What *are* you talking about?

> I can waltz into Best Buy and feel
> confident that any hardware purchase will actually work on my OS.

Yeah well thats like saying why wont MAC hardware work with windows. Some
hardware only has drivers written by the manufacture for windows. Good
hardware company's such as Nvidia, epson, HP have good support for Linux.

>
> Linux certainly has it's strong points, but the folks who are
> advocating that it's a piece of cake to switch to Linux on the desktop
> are simply wrong.

As someone already said, you havn't tried recently have you?. Go download
Mandrake 9.2.1 or Mandrake 10 (in a week or two) and see how easy it really
is. Go on I dare you. :) 

> At this stage of the game, you give up too much in
> terms of application and hardware compatibility. I expect that to
> change over the next several years but we're certainly not there now.

For me personally, nothing in terms of applications or hardware
compatibility have been given up. YMMV. But judging from what you have
stated about your hardware in the past you wouldn't either.

> And telling me I can run my games under a Windows emulator won't win
> you any points. Only a true Linux zealot would fail to find the irony
> in that suggestion.

Agreed.

--
sid
RLU 300284 Mdk 10 2.6.3-8
My barber's getting very hard of hearing,
I asked him to make me look like a *count*.....
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 12:21:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:16:24 -0500, Dan C wrote:

[Snip]

> I gave up nothing. Not sure what you even mean by this.

I'd love to say I gave BSOD's up, but I haven't.

.... it's just a great screensaver, isn't it? :) 

--
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 3:23:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:16:24 -0500, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:

>Can't speak for everyone (as you apparently can)

Please indicate what portion of my post could be construed as anything
but personal opinion. I made no personal remarks in that post and
expected none in return, but then this *is* Usenet....
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 3:23:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:23:48 -0400, Folk wrote:

>>Can't speak for everyone (as you apparently can)

> Please indicate what portion of my post could be construed as anything
> but personal opinion. I made no personal remarks in that post and
> expected none in return, but then this *is* Usenet....

This portion:
> Linux certainly has it's strong points, but the folks who are advocating
> that it's a piece of cake to switch to Linux on the desktop are simply
> wrong.

You are speaking for the people who claim it's easy to switch to Linux.
In effect, you're calling them liars.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
April 24, 2004 10:34:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:44:55 -0400, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

>I want ALL my USB devices... routers, hard
>drives, pens.... what have you, to simply start working the moment I
>plug them in

Well good luck finding an OS that will do that, a modern Linux distro
like Mandrake is just as likely to support those devices OOTB as
Windows.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
April 24, 2004 12:41:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

For your education dannyc
Being wrong is formulating an opinion, thought or decision based on what one
thinks it is true/right tough it might not be.
To lie is formulate such knowing in advance they are false and trying to
make others believe it is true.
YOU called yourself a liar, he did, obviously to everyone who was able to
read it, just voiced his opinion and called no one a liar.

HellSpawn

--
Top posting, it's my right and I am keeping it.
Make me smile and tell me you hate that!
************************************************
For a real official UT2k3 FAQ visit:
http://www.atarisupport.com/newfaq/unrealtournament2003...
and :
http://tinyurl.com/q6c8 (email support here)
UT2k3 keybinder...keybinding made easy!
http://www.utbinder.tk/
UT2k3 Cache Manager:
http://www.utcache.com


"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.04.24.03.49.06.768499@invalid.org...

> This portion:
> > Linux certainly has it's strong points, but the folks who are advocating
> > that it's a piece of cake to switch to Linux on the desktop are simply
> > wrong.
>
> You are speaking for the people who claim it's easy to switch to Linux.
> In effect, you're calling them liars.
>
> --
> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
> Linux Registered User #327951
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 4:26:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:49:06 -0500, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:23:48 -0400, Folk wrote:
>
>>>Can't speak for everyone (as you apparently can)
>
>> Please indicate what portion of my post could be construed as anything
>> but personal opinion. I made no personal remarks in that post and
>> expected none in return, but then this *is* Usenet....
>
>This portion:
>> Linux certainly has it's strong points, but the folks who are advocating
>> that it's a piece of cake to switch to Linux on the desktop are simply
>> wrong.
>
>You are speaking for the people who claim it's easy to switch to Linux.
>In effect, you're calling them liars.

That is such a stretch that it hardly deserves a response. To say
someone is wrong is not to speak for them. Please take a course in
reading comprehension.
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 9:48:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:37:47 -0400, Folk wrote:

> All of your comments here are level-headed and proper, Meltdown. I
> don't have issue with any of them. What I *do* have issue with is
> when a poster is having a problem with UT and your *fix* is to
> recommend they switch to Linux. That's a bit like recommending
> amputation for a splinter.

I'm going to agree with you on this one... and I'll leave it at that.

--
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1
April 24, 2004 9:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Folk wrote:

>
> My experience with the onboard sound on an Intel motherboard was a
> month ago.
>

What chipset do you have and which distro was that if you dont mind my
asking?

>>> And why do Linux users have to get so damn defense when you say
>>> ANYTHING negative about their OS of choice.
>>
>>Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle :) 
>
> Windows bashing occurs in this group on a weekly basis A Google
> search will show that this is the first time I've dipped my toe into
> this particular fray. Not much of a kettle if you ask me.
>

Are you not damn defending your os here? Thats all I meant :) 

>>
>>Not quite. Adaware, spybot zonealarm or AV software anyone?
>
> If you are insinuating that Linux is free from viruses or other type
> attacks.... well, surely you're not, right?

There are no linux viruses in the wild. There is no spyware. Of course
trojans by defenition can be run on any os, you have got to get someone to
run it one way or another but they will not spread all on their own with
Linux. No additional software has to be installed to completely protect
your box from exterrnal attack, its in the kernel. Any way with linux you
can make sure there is nothing running that that can be connected to, so
you can quite happily run with no firewalling at all. You wouldn't run
windows without a firewall would you?

>
> Any properly set up OS is easy to use. It's the "setting up" part
> that I'm going on about. And please don't try to tell me again that
> Linux is easier or just as easy to set up as Windoze. I know it's
> not, you know it's not, and the rest of the damned would knows that
> it's not. I can show you a recent quote from Torvold himself that
> will tell you *exactly* the same thing... would *that* convince you?
> Sigh.... probably not.

Sigh all you like, but installing a current easy to use linux system on
compatable hardware takes considerably less time than an equivelant windows
xp pro install, is no more difficult and gives you all the applications you
need.

>
> And there you have it. If you are willing to settle for a subset of
> the games out there, then fine. My initial post was to say that Linux
> is not the best choice for a gaming OS. Your last statement
> begrudgingly admits as much. That's all I was after.

If you read my very first reply to you in this thread then you'll see that
I've done that all along. And I didn't begrudge you anything.

--
sid
RLU 300284 Mdk 10 2.6.3-8
My barber's getting very hard of hearing,
I asked him to make me look like a *count*.....
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 12:54:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:49:05 GMT, sid
<sidshouse@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


>What chipset do you have and which distro was that if you dont mind my
>asking?

http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/lc/

I tried both Xandros and Slackware. I even gave Knoppix a shot, since
it was easy to try.

But please don't bother trying to find how to enable the onboard sound
on that board. It's a non-issue at this point and I would just as
soon move on.

>> Windows bashing occurs in this group on a weekly basis A Google
>> search will show that this is the first time I've dipped my toe into
>> this particular fray. Not much of a kettle if you ask me.
>>
>
>Are you not damn defending your os here? Thats all I meant :) 

Uh... no. I'm not defending an OS at all. I'm pointing out that
Linux is not the ideal gaming platform.

>> If you are insinuating that Linux is free from viruses or other type
>> attacks.... well, surely you're not, right?
>
>There are no linux viruses in the wild. There is no spyware. Of course
>trojans by defenition can be run on any os, you have got to get someone to
>run it one way or another but they will not spread all on their own with
>Linux. No additional software has to be installed to completely protect
>your box from exterrnal attack, its in the kernel. Any way with linux you
>can make sure there is nothing running that that can be connected to, so
>you can quite happily run with no firewalling at all. You wouldn't run
>windows without a firewall would you?

http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/27428/27428....

And count the security flaws here:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh8-errata.html

And we all know that if the roles were reversed and Linux had 94% of
the desktop market, then the world would be full of Linux viruses and
Linux spyware. It's simply the nature of the beast.

>>
>> Any properly set up OS is easy to use. It's the "setting up" part
>> that I'm going on about. And please don't try to tell me again that
>> Linux is easier or just as easy to set up as Windoze. I know it's
>> not, you know it's not, and the rest of the damned would knows that
>> it's not. I can show you a recent quote from Torvold himself that
>> will tell you *exactly* the same thing... would *that* convince you?
>> Sigh.... probably not.
>
>Sigh all you like, but installing a current easy to use linux system on
>compatable hardware takes considerably less time than an equivelant windows
>xp pro install, is no more difficult and gives you all the applications you
>need.

The "on compatible hardware" bit is the clincher here. I've a better
idea. Let's go to a charity bazaar where locals bring in their old
pc's to donate to charity. It's a mix of Packard Bell's, Compaqs,
HP's, Gateways and Mom and Pop specials. You take your distro of
choice and I'll take Windows 98 SE. We have no internet access, just
the built-in support for hardware provided by the OS. I guarantee you
that at the end of the day I would have more fully functional systems
than you would, and we're talking about an OS that goes back over five
years.
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 2:57:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:54:03 -0400, Folk wrote:

> The "on compatible hardware" bit is the clincher here. I've a better
> idea. Let's go to a charity bazaar where locals bring in their old
> pc's to donate to charity. It's a mix of Packard Bell's, Compaqs,
> HP's, Gateways and Mom and Pop specials. You take your distro of
> choice and I'll take Windows 98 SE. We have no internet access, just
> the built-in support for hardware provided by the OS. I guarantee you
> that at the end of the day I would have more fully functional systems
> than you would, and we're talking about an OS that goes back over five
> years.

I'd take that bet. A question for you: what do you mean by "fully
functional systems"...? What do you plan to use for an office suite on
that Win98 system? How about an IM or IRC client? A newsreader? What
are you going to use? That's right, you're not, because those don't come
with Win98. Not to mention the drivers you'd need, for sound, video, NIC,
etc...

Apparently you have a different definition of "fully functional" than most
of us.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
!