[P_RePTiLe]

...unless you're toting Linux or something then... what was the point of running a Core 2 Quad on a Linux system in the first place if you're not a scientist working on a missile trajectory calculating program?...

Up for the task of elaborating on that, without going wrong?

 

[P_RePTiLe]

Mind explaining why you need a Core 2 Quad in a Linux computer for casual usage? Has Linux got that bloated already?

Not _need_, and not quad-core specifically.

But The same reason for having a new and powerful rig in any os?
They way you went a little wrong was implying that you cannot do the same things in linux than you can i windows (like the old games-debate for instance).

It is actually even more interesting to have new hardware in linux since it is a more modern and much more updated os than windows for instance, especially when you use one of the more "bleeding edge" distributions.

I can even run DX10 games in my linux

But anyways, the way you phrased, limiting linux to some obscure science-prject-thing, is just far from the truth, that is all.

 

[P_RePTiLe]

You "can" run games in Linux, and even DX10 games, yeah. But what's keeping you from buying a Windows copy?

The weird thing is... you can spend thousands on your computer but not $100 on a new Windows license.

That's point one.

Point two: Linux can do lots of things. True. But when it comes to expensive components running Linux (like Xeon servers and stuffs), it's mostly for scientific and business stuffs... Unless you're totally broke after buying all of your other PC components and cannot afford a copy of Windows. This is just repeating point one from a different angle... but again... free softwares for the most powerful computer you can possibly afford just doesn't sound right. Unless you're putting it to entertainment purposes... then that's a different reason altogether, and please do mind that the majority of computers in the world (Mac and PC included along with other kinds) are for business and other purposes than entertainment... mainly.

Point three: does Linux run ALL DirectX 10 games PERFECTLY the way they should run on Windows? And I'm not going to mention DirectX 11. And games should be the least on my list though it's one of the reasons. The problem is that under Linux, no matter how good the distribution, it would be very troublesome if drivers don't keep up. You can modify the drivers yourself but that's getting a bit too advanced, beyond the "bleeding edge" and into the "pioneer" level. Same goes for softwares though again, you can add support for something yourself. Same thing holds for Windows but you do not have to worry about adding the support yourself. People do it for you. Linux softwares are more frequently updated, but the quality might not be able to keep up with some softwares on PCs which only have occasional large updates instead of small updates that may potentially break other stuffs. I don't wanna go in-depth about the new kernels of Ubuntu... :innocent: but trust me... they ain't been great.

Last point: how many "casual" users in the world do you think... is using a "bleeding edge" distribution of Linux? :innocent:

Ok, for starters, not all dx10 games runs out of the box, eventhough many can be made to run. that is true.

And your point about drivers and the likes is moot, linux supports a whole lot more than windows does in that department, even if it has a few holes due to manufacturers not interested in either sharing code or making their own propriety-drivers.
But for instance, my dual core system with an nvidia card is not at all behind windows in drivers in any way with linux,
the point is that all the new fancy stuff is very much interesting in following trough linux
(at least in more bleeding-edge dists who doesn't have a 6 month release schedule like for instance ubuntu.)
The newest Nvidia-beta-drivers comes up on AUR almost instantly - as do alot of new concepts and ideas, as they also do on linux in general.

And all the multi-threaded experiement builds and others, there is alot of interesting things going on right now, in everything from games to multimedia-apps, browsers and other common usage stuff. If you just look around, so new hardware, new ideas, a powerful machine with new parts is very much a go for linux in particular.

In fact, the largest reason for me in running my arch-linux-system is to tinker and try all the new stuff which comes out, so it is very much exactly the other way around, running new hardware on linux makes a lot of sense.
KDE 4.3+ is one example, it is much more "advanced" or "flashy" or "progressive" than windows 7, both visually and performance wise. And that says a bit since win 7 is not a bad OS at all, and has borrowed much of it's ideas both from linux-systems and mac os from what i can tell, since i use it all.

As for things breaking, they do in all os-versions, on all platforms from time to time, running xp or win7 is not problem free either, so that part of the debate is quite moot.
A big difference though is that any problem makes more sense to the end user in linux, as you can easily find out what made what break, and go about fixing it yourself when that happens. All you have to muster is reading, for instance the change/release-log of the new version of the kernel you use, if that was your point

Updates is always a choice for another point.

And for your last statement, i'd say not many.
But in truth that was not the comment you made for starters which is what i opposed, which was about linux being sort of pointless for other than scientific projects and the likes.

And that is the sole point i meant to explain wrong

Now, I'll drop this, since it is not polite to go os/dist/wars about something in a thread with another topic Less we go PM, Let's just shake hands on disagreeing and take joy in the fact that we all can have choices

 

[P_RePTiLe]

:lol: I'll give you a few months to "decode" that message that I wrote...

The rest of the stuffs, I won't elaborate as it seems like all you want is just something "flashier" than Windows 7. I also won't talk about why Windows 7 "seems slow" as... it's obvious enough that people can take their time to research. Or I'll give you a hint: Aero animations.

Edit: by the way, "trying out new things" is also classified as scientific research. But I won't go that far... since it's kind of ridiculously broad.

I have not said that win7 seems slow at all, it doesn't. (i.e which is why i haven't said so - to emphasize even more by repetition) this is where you also slack off in reading (or make a too quick interpretation of what you read, i can admit to that myself somewhat)

And no, i do not look for "something flashier", far from it, that was just a point attached to the argument i was making, not a preference of mine in itself.

The thing i have been commenting is that your sentence suggest that a (quad-core in this instance) is unnecessary in linux for other than your exaggerated example. And my counter-point is still that it is as useful as it would be in windows, since most of the same things can be run. and even more so since linux can utilize that hardware better in more cases.

Bummer, i promised myself to refrain from keeping this up, but yeah, either you stick to the point, i stick to the point - or we just leave this at an disagreement .
These are the last of my thoughts on the subject.