hello im a noob like OP ive never even seen this. ive heard about it for years tho.
whats it like for compatibly and drivers and playing game ect..
Will not listen to a guy who thinks London is in CanadaRef point 2 Helloindustries. Why are you so worried about how much ram an OS uses? Surely you will want to use as much of your ram as possible to make the OS run faster. Vista AND W7 cache ram memory very well, a bit like *NIX when you leave it on for a while.
6: I can do that on Windows too.![]()
![]()
Will not listen to a guy who thinks London is in Canada![]()
@JonRohan
Well, cached in Windows or not, apps loaded slowly. In Linux; They load at least no slower, and often a little faster.
I like having RAM free for other uses; Blender, for one.
On modern enthusiast machines (ie i7 with an ssd) windows 7 runs much much faster. This is from my experience, sorry if it offends anyone.
I don't see how anyone can say Linux has faster/better desktop rendering than Windows. Even OSX sucks compared to the hardware accelerated artifact and tearing free desktop compositor that Windows has.
I don't see how anyone can say Linux has faster/better desktop rendering than Windows. Even OSX sucks compared to the hardware accelerated artifact and tearing free desktop compositor that Windows has.
Get your Windows desktop to do this ....... then you'll impress me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxbQJqcBKrY
Get your Windows desktop to do this ....... then you'll impress me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxbQJqcBKrY
Not an equal comparison.
Production-grade software versus a couple pre-release/preview/beta OSS projects with limited support that were shoehorned to play together.
I'm sure Microsoft has some internal proof-of-concepts that do similar things too. There is certainly no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Windows desktop compositor is more than capable of doing those things. It is after all built upon DirectX and pixel shaders.
Yes but you wouldn't want to run them day-to-day. I doubt they're feature complete and they have a high probability of just crashing and taking your desktop session with it.Proof of concepts that the end user can actually try out? Besides, stuff like compiz, emerald, beryl etc. don't prove any concept. They just aim to improve the end users experience.
I don't think this is relevant. The two are pretty much identical. Yes it is often said DirectX has a slight on edge on OGL in terms of bleeding edge featureset. But who cares really? We are talking about desktop composition here. And I think we both know that that isn't really a demanding task for either of these 3D libraries.Oh, and could you point out the advantages that DirectX actually has over OpenGL? Because as far as i can tell it's only used in games because developers get subsidised to do so.
Me too, but we're talking about the technical aspects here really.That said, i'm not a huge fan of desktop effects myself, at least not with this computer, but i can see the appeal...