The "better" comes down to actual 3rd party support, i.e. whether hardware vendors choose to support one platform over another. Linux is making a [very] large push but Windows will be ahead in vendor support for quite some time.
Given that the only games I play are generally available on Linux or through WINE, I'm okay with Linux.
There are also many games that are unplayable on OS x, if you're into the big EA shooters or something.
I run a Windows desktop for that reason. Pretty much use my MacBook for any other type of work that requires productivity because I prefer OS x for doing work.
Windows for Games, as DirectX is widespread.
Ubuntu for Work, as it's free and by default has multiple workspaces which makes it REEEEALLLY easy to work with.
By far the most non-windows feature I use.
Can't tell for OSX, never tried, didn't even mind anyways, Me and Apple always had some no-no thing.
You're not wrong, computerquip, but Windows is still run on many more computers than OS X or Linux (though the gap is closing) and many game engines are written using DirectX rendering APIs rather than OpenGL.
I thought Linux could run on any hardware that Windows could run on? My laptop and desktop were both Windows Vista computers and while my laptop is Linux only now, my desktop runs Vista and Linux. Never used a Mac because I can't afford it, cheaper to pay $600 to get PCs or Laptops than thousands for a Mac.
I think she meant actual, physical computers rather than different varieties. Linux is available for more architectures than Windows, but there are many more Windows installations than Linux ones (at least for desktop). That being said, I'm not sure whether Linux is actually more portable (rather than more ported) than Windows -- NT is designed with portability in mind. Microsoft just don't take advantage of it, although Windows did used to be available for ARM and I think it still is available for Itanium.
But only works with NVidia Graphics, and will wipe your entire Hard Drives and all the partitions you had will be gone.
This will probably not happen in the end phase, just remember it's a beta.
Perhaps it works on VMWare.
I've got it installed EssGeEich. I realize it's beta, hence I pointed out the year :P Give it time.
You can get away with a decent i5. i7 would be great but possibly overkill. As for AMD, I a bit out of date with them. But for building a computer to game on, there is a rule. Either go AMD cpu/gpu or intel nVidia cpu/gpu. AMD ones are designed to work together these days. Personally I prefer intel and nvidia. But I miss 3 way multi monitor on one card. Can't do that with my nvidia card.
? I'm pretty sure that CPU and GPU functionality is abstracted behind the motherboard. To take special advantage of either would have to be done in software from the application side. There's no reason to do so otherwise as it wouldn't bring benefit like you think it would.
Either go AMD cpu/gpu or intel nVidia cpu/gpu. AMD ones are designed to work together these days.
What's the logic behind this? Does the hardware play better when its paired up like that?
Only reason I ask is because for a short while Apple machines were built with Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs. My iMac has an i5 and a Radeon 6970M. I've Bootcamp'd Windows onto it, which is what I use as a go-to for gaming (not often, to be honest). I've never had any issues in three years of usage (running games at a reasonable spec).