Linux vs. Win95

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Shawn Tacket » Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:00:00



Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

Here is what I have (compared with what most linux people use I guess.)

AMD486DX/4-100  AcerAcros -IBM clone
28 Meg RAM - EDO
2 Meg Video - Generic SVGA card.
33.6 Modem USR.
Acer/soundblaster clone 16/pro/2.0

All I need is games and a GOOD word PrOceSSeer.  Now you know why...

Everyone I know uses unix, of which I can't afford, and they ALL want me
to try it.  Why?

Shawn Tackett

Thanx.
--

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Stoney Edward » Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:00:00


: Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
: without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

: Everyone I know uses unix, of which I can't afford, and they ALL want me
: to try it.  Why?

Do what many others do in your situation... run both.  If you find you don't
like Linux, then remove it.  It's that simple.
--

<< UNIX >> Because everything else, is just a pathetic toy.
NOTE:  Please redirect all SPAM, TROLLS, and FLAMES to /dev/toilet1
PHlaxiOR iZ nAwt a HaCkER... hIZ tYpINg juSt ReELLee, ReELLee, SUx!

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Roy Stogne » Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:00:00


Quote:> S> Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
> S> without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

> You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find themselves
> dissatisfied with Linux.

Come again???  Sure, Linux is fun to use for programming, playing with
config files, and freeware, but every now and then you just want to
spend a day playing 4 hours of Quakeworld.
---
Roy Stogner
 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by bobf » Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:00:00



>> S> Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
>> S> without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

>> You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find themselves
>> dissatisfied with Linux.

>Come again???  Sure, Linux is fun to use for programming, playing with
>config files, and freeware, but every now and then you just want to
>spend a day playing 4 hours of Quakeworld.

I agree somewhat.  However, isn't quakeworld out for linux?  I've played
regular quake on linux...
 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Alan Shutk » Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:00:00


S> Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
S> without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find themselves
dissatisfied with Linux.

--

A centipede is an inchworm that has switched to the metric system.

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by David M. Co » Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:00:00



>I agree somewhat.  However, isn't quakeworld out for linux?  I've played
>regular quake on linux...

And GLquake is coming soon.

However, I agree with the person that said that Linux itself is what most
people find entertaining.  

Dave Cook

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Brian Kn » Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:00:00




>>I agree somewhat.  However, isn't quakeworld out for linux?  I've played
>>regular quake on linux...

>And GLquake is coming soon.

>However, I agree with the person that said that Linux itself is what most
>people find entertaining.  

Using Linux is infinitely more entertaining than playing games.  I *love*
messing around with .rc files. Yes, I'm serious. Yes, I'm very, very ill.
But I'm happy. :)
 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Roy Stogne » Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:00:00




> >> S> Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
> >> S> without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

> >> You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find themselves
> >> dissatisfied with Linux.

> >Come again???  Sure, Linux is fun to use for programming, playing with
> >config files, and freeware, but every now and then you just want to
> >spend a day playing 4 hours of Quakeworld.

> I agree somewhat.  However, isn't quakeworld out for linux?  I've played
> regular quake on linux...

Yes, both client and server have ELF versions.

My point exactly: I was making the assertion that people who care much
about games will not find themselves *totally* dissatisfied with Linux.
;)
---
Roy Stogner

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Alan Shutk » Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:00:00


S> Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
S> without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

Quote:>>  You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find
>> themselves dissatisfied with Linux.

R> Come again???  Sure, Linux is fun to use for programming, playing
R> with config files, and freeware, but every now and then you just
R> want to spend a day playing 4 hours of Quakeworld.

I'm serious.  If you like to play games, you probably like to play
some proportion of  the new games that come out, where said
proportion is larger than (quake/all games).

Most of my friends have absolutely no reason to run Linux, because
their computer is used for games and the occasional paper or letter.

--

Nothing cures insomnia like the realization that it's time to get up.

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Roy Stogne » Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:00:00




> S> Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
> S> without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.
> >>  You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find
> >> themselves dissatisfied with Linux.

> R> Come again???  Sure, Linux is fun to use for programming, playing
> R> with config files, and freeware, but every now and then you just
> R> want to spend a day playing 4 hours of Quakeworld.

> I'm serious.  If you like to play games, you probably like to play
> some proportion of  the new games that come out, where said
> proportion is larger than (quake/all games).

> Most of my friends have absolutely no reason to run Linux, because
> their computer is used for games and the occasional paper or letter.

I know, I know, you're right...  But have you (politely) mentioned to
them the fact that they've spent $2000-$3000 to do things that could be
better accomplished with a $200 word processor, $200 Nintendo 64, and
probably $200 WebTV?
---
Roy Stogner
 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Bloody Viki » Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:00:00


: You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find themselves
: dissatisfied with Linux.

Of course, for some people, Linux _is_ the game.

--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
                     "A man's car is his battleship"

320462 bytes of spam mail deleted.           http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Oleg Duli » Wed, 08 Oct 1997 04:00:00


Quote:> Everyone I know uses unix, of which I can't afford, and they ALL want me
> to try it.  Why?

If you use DOS games mostly you may want to try Linux. Linux has a nice
DOS emulator that supports DPMI, and as far as I know most DOS games run
under DOSEMU. Also, Linux has a port of Doom, Quake and a few others.

There are several word processors available for Linux, among which are
WordPerfect, ApplixWare, and StarOffice.

Provided that you are willing to spend time learning how to use Linux, I
would say go for it. It is THE alternative to Windows right now. And it is
cheap. For more information on software for Linux go to
http://www.linuxmall.com/, they sell all things linux.

Keep in mind that you'll have to RELEARN everything you know about
computers, because Linux is different than Windows/DOS/Mac/OS2. Also, keep
in mind that it is not harder to use, it is just DIFFERENT and requires
some patience to learn things.

Everyone I know who switched to Linux never felt tempted to go back to
Windows.

Quote:> Thanx.

Oh, please, don't destroy English :)

Oleg

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Joe Slo » Thu, 09 Oct 1997 04:00:00



: S> Some please convince/explain why should (I) the typical * user
: S> without a network or PPP internet go towards linux.

: You shouldn't.  People who care much about games will find themselves
: dissatisfied with Linux.

That depends on what games -

I really got into network linux doom back in 94-95, and right now,
Linux kicks some serious *as a Quake-CTF client or server.

Crack.com has just entered into a partnership with Red Hat
to distribute "Golgotha", their new 3-d game, for Linux.

Linux as a game platform rocks if you're into the doom/quake
genre of networked games.

jjs

 
 
 

Linux vs. Win95

Post by Alan Shutk » Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:00:00


J> Linux as a game platform rocks if you're into the doom/quake genre
J> of networked games.

No... if you're into Doom, Quake, and Golgotha.  Most of the "genre"
isn't on Linux.

I'm not trying to knock Linux games, but there's not a whole lot of
selection.  In all the responses to my article, basically the only
thing said was "Use Linux!  Play Quake!  Play Doom!"

Now, maybe they're atypical, but limiting my game-playing friends to
Doom and Quake would bore them quickly.  Ultima Online isn't on Linux,
whatever other big multiplayer online game isn't, etc.

Even if you love Quake and Doom, they're not reasons to switch to
Linux.  So, if all you care about is word processing and games, I
stand my ground: don't try Linux.

--

Avoid cliches like the plague.  They're a dime a dozen.