Staredit Network

Linix by itself is not GUI driven.. a console window in itself scares away 90% of the world population. If anything goes wrong with your window environment .. linux expects you to fix and troubleshoot things via terminal.

Windows is idiot proof to some extent.. If you want to install a program hell you just gotta press next 2-3 times and your done. Where does your program end up?! C:\Program Files..

I have just started learning linux myself .. I still haven't figured out where 1/2 the programs end up when you install from a RPM. Also most programs don't even give you a RPM so you have to build it yourself.

So I got 100000 directories in linux .. all sorts of /bin /sbin's .... confusing as hell. I have given up trying to pick it up until I pickup a book.

Linux will never be mainstream as it's very nature is not to be geared towards lowest common demonator.. It's ment to be used by people who know what their computer does and how it does it.

I don't know Linux well enough myself to say whats bad about it.. besides what I have already said.. Also what I have said about it is NOT a bad thing. The very fact that it takes a while to understand it's workings... tells you there is alot to it.

Making windows software is not that simple. If you want speed, you have to use the Win32 API (yeah, a lot of developers keep using it, how are their days long gone?).

Give an example of when you would need to use the Win32 API. I'd love to hear it, becuse there is none.

It's widely used and accepted as a standard platform for most programs.

Using Win32 API is always faster. Also if you want to program with something like C or C++ and you don't want to increase the exe size with static libraries or link the program to dynamic libraries that you don't want to copy when installing you would have to use it too.
If you use a programming language like VB6 you'll notice that right now it is a bit limited, it doesn't have all the new windows NT and XP stuff. You would have to call the APIs too.

How do you know? I don't know enough about C++ to explain it, but I understand what Clokr_ is talking about and he is right.

Oh if only Heimdal were here to tell you everything that Clokr_ already has.

ADDITION:
My schools internet is to slow to find it, so i'll just go from memory.

From what I remember, someone said a GUI doesn't slow a computer down.

Now just think with some common sense. GUI = Graphical User Interface.

Any known human that has used the internet or a computer knows that Graphics slow down computers, yes? Now GUI's have to call a whole bunch of Libraries, links and all that fun stuff, while also outputing the GUI.

Sounds to me that is a lot of work for a processor to do (Not really but you get my jist. At least I hope you do)

So if you run in MS-DOS (Which is outdated... But who gives a blam, right?) or Linux (Without it's GUI) then you will be able to load up things in a snap. Seriously. One single little snap.

So please. Try to learn some about how computers and stuff work before you say things?

Oh. Let me use an example:

If I was to create a full fledged Text RPG in C++, and create an exact duplicate using graphics, Which would run faster?

The text. Because it wouldn't have to Buffer anything.

ADDITION:
And let me add this, too.

Isn't it true that Windows XP takes about 256MB to run smoothly? Or was it 510MB? Anyways. Why would it require so much memory if the GUI didn't take memory?

Those reasons don't make it better.

Explorer.exe is way more than the GUI.



To whoever said that you need to use the Win32 API instead of .NET.

Please, give me one example where this is true.

explorer.exe works over the GUI, but it is not the GUI. All that it does is paint over the window the desktop and the task bar. If you have windows XP you can go to the task manager and in the tab 'processes' close 'explorer.exe' to notice what happens. After you're done you can go to the tab 'applications' click on the button 'new' and write 'explorer.exe' to restart it.

And noone said that you need to use the Win32 API instead of .NET; I've just said that the Win32 API is faster.

It may be faster. Give one example where that extra speed is either noticed or needed. You'll never need it, and I'll say you never notice it.

Even for high-performance games -- and this isn't talking about the Win32 API anymore -- perfectly written managed C# code is only 2-4% slower than perfectly written unmanaged C++ (if you don't know what managed means... google it). It is much easier to write in good managed C# code because the Common Language Runtime does so many things that you have to do yourself in unmanaged code, and chances are you'll do it slower less robust than the guys at Microsoft can.

We are amature programmers. Microsoft is elite.

Why compare us to them?

Who cares about how well it is mannaged or not, it depends on speed.



Now. Get Doom 3. Put it on a Dell, and see how blamTY it runs.

Now. Put it on a custom built computer that has pretty much the best of anything, including 1-3 Gigabytes of RAM and see how flawlessly it works.

I'll "never" need it eh? Ever tried fighting Baron of Hell with a laggy comp?

Edit: Added in the ] to make the quote show up

What are you talking about? It's tons easier to write less buggy software when you have reflection, garbage collection, runtime typesafety, etc. The final product will a better product.

Now, with your Doom 3 comment you simply show your lack of understanding of Windows programming and software in general. First of all, a 2-4% hit in framerate won't really be noticed (97 fps compared to 100fps). Second, programs may actually be faster when written in managed C# because Microsoft is better at writing optimized garbage collection, true delegates, etc. than we can in C++. Lastly, you don't have to write the entire program in C#; you can write the Windows set-up code in C#, handle messages, etc., and then use C++ libraries for the actual game code.

I personally don't like how delegates work. They are very weird and I always get a bunch of errors whenever I try to make global stuff with them...

ADDITION:
Also the resulting code of using Windows Forms won't be compilable on any other compiler / OS.

What don't you like about them delegates? And why/how are you trying to make things global (global data is generally bad)?

Nearly everyone loves them for how versatile they are.

As for your second point: that's the same with using the form creator with unmanaged C++.

May I ask you why you persist to "know" what everyone knows and loves?

Before I answer, could you respond to this instead of pulling your usual move and ignoring it? The original post is above, and responds to one of your posts.

Superior and better are different.

And actually, more people using it IS better.

Argumentum Ad Populum

Are you saying that having a larger userbase and more software is not a good thing?

Strawman Fallacy

I love it.

Of course not! I said having more users does not mean it's a good thing! (It looks similar, but it's not. Try to understand, then post)

My statement was not a fallacy at all, and you and that other guy should stop trying to point them out.

You said the statement, "Windows having more users makes it better" was a fallacy because the majority is not always correct. Yes, the majority is not always correct, but that doesn't matter. When an OS has more users and more programs, it becomes much more convenient and easy to use. Here's an analogy:


Let's say there were two eBay-style websites: eBay and eAuction (I made this one up of course). Let's say that eAuction is similar to eBay, but it has a few features that eBay doesn't have. However, many, many more people use eBay.

Your friend asks you, "Which is the better auction site?". Despite the fact that eAuction as more features, the larger userbase of eBay is a feature in and of itself, making it the better site to use. The same thing applies to Windows (though Windows may be better regardless of the number of users).


It may sadden you that you can't wave around your fancy-sounding fallacies and look smart, but hey... life has its disappointments!

The problem with that analogy is that the effeciency is fueled by the number of users. OSes are not.

Linux is better than Windows. That is a fact. (Quick list of reasons: -Flexible, -Open Source, -Free, -Faster, -Simpler) The only reason most people use Windows is because they don't know Linux exist (nor any other alternatives). That is also a fact.

The truth is, once Linux spreads, Windows will have nothing left.

By the way, I point out the fallacies not to look smart but to show that you've made a mistake. A mistake can't go by unnoticed! Otherwise, I would have to concede so many arguements that you have.

Yes, I knew and realized that when I was posting it

Open source is not necessarily good, Linux is much less simple to use than Windows, and the speed difference doesn't matter because there aren't many games released for Linux. That being said, the number of users DOES matter. Why don't you use OpenBSD? Because no one else does! Windows has so many users and so many programs, which means, admit it or not, the experience is much easier/better when using the product.

edit: clarity

Windows Vista will blow everything out of the water though. It will be safer and easier to use than any Unix-based OS could ever be.

Oh yea, another awful thing about Linux is that everyone uses C. It's time to move on!