# Is Direct X a SCAM??



## pc_fanatic (Nov 10, 2012)

I'm starting to think Microsoft's proprietary API is nothing short of a shamboozle! In a nut shell by restricting the latest versions of the API to their newest OSes they force users to upgrade to get the latest compatibility, especially true with gaming. Nvidia and AMD do it too by only programming the new drivers for their latest hardware to utilize the latest Direct X versions. I don't see any technical reasons why the older tech cannot use the current versions of Direct X. I also believe that the difference between older versions like Direct X9 and Direct X11 have been largely exaggerated. Why is that the supposed enhancements only show up in corporate ads? Look at all the YouTube videos of real users running comparisons, the videos/photos are interchangeable with no real visible differences. And whats with the tessellation crap that magically transforms flat objects into 3D? They always show Direct X9/10 with flat roads and walls in video games then Direct X11 with 3D ones. I'm simply not convinced an API has the power to make such a difference. I think it is more likely the video game companies make a better version of the same game to be compatible only with the newest Direct X. I think they could've pulled it off with the older versions but the gaming giants mentioned above influence them not too. If a house or a building in Direct X 9 can be 3D why can't a road or a wall? It doesn't make any sense at all. They've been caught with BS photos that the edit via lighting, coloring, and angling to purposefully make the Direct X 9 or older versions look like dog shit. Its often very obvious. I remember in one game the DX9 version was so dark it looked unplayable, what a flippin' fraud! Does anyone with a decent amount of technical knowledge about APIs have any input on this? Thank you.


----------



## Cromewell (Nov 10, 2012)

You have trouble believing that a new API can provide new features? It sucks that you can`t get the newest APIs on old versions of Windows but that`s life. Every company does it, it's not trivial to maintain code for every branch of Windows you want something to run on, and with newer versions sometimes you can make assumptions that make your job easier.

I've found most games cater to the lowest API (aka DX9) and when they do add a DX10/11 mode it just adds minor things like more flying debris. Which is why often the benefits never really show up. As a developer trying to sell something to as many people as possible you don't want to put a product to market that only 50% of machines support.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 10, 2012)

Cromewell said:


> You have trouble believing that a new API can provide new features? It sucks that you can`t get the newest APIs on old versions of Windows but that`s life. Every company does it, it's not trivial to maintain code for every branch of Windows you want something to run on, and with newer versions sometimes you can make assumptions that make your job easier.
> 
> I've found most games cater to the lowest API (aka DX9) and when they do add a DX10/11 mode it just adds minor things like more flying debris. Which is why often the benefits never really show up. As a developer trying to sell something to as many people as possible you don't want to put a product to market that only 50% of machines support.



Not exactly I just think the features are vastly over exaggerated and many DX10 and up games could've actually utilized DX9. If its not trivial then how did they pull off providing DX11 to both windows 7 AND vista? They wanted to kill off Windows XP. Many modern games like BF3 don't run on anything older than DX10. An now DX11.1 being only Windows 8 compatible is BS. If Vista could use DX11 why can't 7 use a slightly revised version? Windows 8 doesn't even provide any real enhancements for desktop users, just tablet and mobile touch screen users. With Windows 7 already being cut off from DX11 improvements what hope is there for DX12 on it? The whole thing reeks of corporate greed.


----------



## Okedokey (Nov 10, 2012)

Sorry I don't agree.  Look at the difference in effects between call of duty 2 (direct X 9c) and BF3 (Dx 11).  The lighting and smoke effects alone cannot compete on direct x 9.

Seconldy the API accounts for a massive array of harware unlike the direct to metal abilities of consoles etc.  The compatiability issue has always been there, Im confused as to why you're confused.


----------



## StrangleHold (Nov 11, 2012)

There is more of a difference then your willing to admit. But I do agree, there is no reason DX11.1 cant run on Vista/7 if it can run on 8. The only reason I can see is if Microshaft purposefully put the extra effort in, so it cant. Which in itself is a sham.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 11, 2012)

bigfellla said:


> Sorry I don't agree.  Look at the difference in effects between call of duty 2 (direct X 9c) and BF3 (Dx 11).  The lighting and smoke effects alone cannot compete on direct x 9.
> 
> Seconldy the API accounts for a massive array of harware unlike the direct to metal abilities of consoles etc.  The compatiability issue has always been there, Im confused as to why you're confused.



But that does not prove beyond doubt that DX11 is better. Its possible that DX9 could have pulled it off but they made the game DX10 and up and purpose to make sure all gamers get onboard with the newer OSes and hardware. Again if buildings and models in DX9 can be 3D there is no logical reason the roads and walls among other textures cannot be.



StrangleHold said:


> There is more of a difference then your willing to admit. But I do agree, there is no reason DX11.1 cant run on Vista/7 if it can run on 8. The only reason I can see is if Microshaft purposefully but the extra effort in, so it cant. Which in itself is a sham.



For the games that run DX11 and are backwards compatible to DX9 like Crysis, you can there really is no discernible between the two modes. Just look it up on YouTube to see what I mean. I'm glade you at least see that making 11.1 Windows 8 exclusive is straight BS, damn Microsham.


----------



## Okedokey (Nov 11, 2012)

How does dx9 handle unified architecture then?  It cannot.


----------



## Cromewell (Nov 11, 2012)

11.1 is one thing, 9 vs 10 is another. And I already talked about games which implement both APIs. There's a reason there's not much difference.


----------



## Okedokey (Nov 11, 2012)

An API follows hardware, not the other way around.  No point having dx 11.1 with hardware that doesnt' support it.  Pretty basic really.  MS are ensuring a high compatiability, and are not going to re-engineer an OS to do so.  Good business sense, get over it.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 11, 2012)

bigfellla said:


> An API follows hardware, not the other way around.  No point having dx 11.1 with hardware that doesnt' support it.  Pretty basic really.  MS are ensuring a high compatiability, and are not going to re-engineer an OS to do so.  Good business sense, get over it.



Lol APIs don't follow hardware that makes zero sense. Microsham makes the API first then video game companies code their games to use it. This entices AMD and Nvidia to put the latest Direct X into their drivers. You really don't have a clue what you are going on about do you?


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 11, 2012)

Cromewell said:


> 11.1 is one thing, 9 vs 10 is another. And I already talked about games which implement both APIs. There's a reason there's not much difference.



But plenty of games aren't backwards compatible with older Direct X versions. I think Microstink wants game devs to do that on purpose so they can sell their newest OSes. If the difference is negligible like you say, then why isn't there more support for the older versions?


----------



## S.T.A.R.S. (Nov 11, 2012)

If DirectX 11.1 can't run on Windows 7 then that just sucks lol!
Why on Earth would Microsoft do that?!
Maybe because they want to sell their newest operating system(s) and earn more money...nothing else really comes to my mind since there is absolutely no reason why Windows Vista and especially Windows 7 would not be able to handle DirectX 11.1.

LoL one more reason for me not to use Windows 7 and especially Windows 8.
Besides there are TONS of great games I can play on XP using DirectX 9.0 C.

I don't know if you people noticed,but to me it seems that Microsoft is taking away our PC control more and more with newer Windows editions.
Plus DRM (digital rights management) at the deepest levels of Windows 7 is a key reason not to buy it.At least to me.
God knows what they will put in Windows 8.If I remember correctly johnb35 made a post that Windows 8 will have and use the ability to check what applications you have installed and then report it to Microsoft and prevent you from using them if they are not original.So I will say the same sentence which johnb35 said:

"Who wants Windows 8 now?Not me..."

I honestly have a feeling like we are being controlled and spyed by Microsoft lol

But really...DX 11.1 not able to work on Windows 7...OMG.
That clearly proves my theory lol.

I am staying on XP for the next God knows how many years 




Cheers everyone!


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 11, 2012)

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> If DirectX 11.1 can't run on Windows 7 then that just sucks lol!
> Why on Earth would Microsoft do that?!
> Maybe because they want to sell their newest operating system(s) and earn more money...nothing else really comes to my mind since there is absolutely no reason why Windows Vista and especially Windows 7 would not be able to handle DirectX 11.1.
> 
> ...



Yup this is what happens when a corporation gets big and powerful. I'd love to be able to just rock windows 7 forever but eventually new games that require a DX version higher than 11 will come out, that's my only problem. 

BTW please partake in the poll, I appreciate it.


----------



## Cromewell (Nov 11, 2012)

pc_fanatic said:


> Lol APIs don't follow hardware that makes zero sense. Microsham makes the API first then video game companies code their games to use it. This entices AMD and Nvidia to put the latest Direct X into their drivers. You really don't have a clue what you are going on about do you?



They don't? The whole point of DirectX is to abstract out the hardware level to a generic interface you can program for. And yes, you can support DirectX features at the driver level but they also build hardware that can do it. Supporting most of the features in software is a lot slower.

No one is stopping video game companies from using OpenGL yet most choose DirectX.

DirectX 10 and 11 are Vista+ only because they rely on the new windows display driver model. I don't know why 11.1 is 8 only, it could simply be it's designed to take advantage of the new tablety interface.


----------



## StrangleHold (Nov 12, 2012)

pc_fanatic said:


> For the games that run DX11 and are backwards compatible to DX9 like Crysis, you can there really is no discernible between the two modes. I'm glade you at least see that making 11.1 Windows 8 exclusive is straight BS, damn Microsham.


 
I guess there is alot of perspective about it. I give 11 alittle more credit.

If they dont release a Vista/7 in a few months. I do kinda agree thats its mostly a forced upgrade option. Not a compatibility issue. 



Cromewell said:


> The whole point of DirectX is to abstract out the hardware level to a generic interface you can program for.


 
Thats worded really well.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S. (Nov 12, 2012)

pc_fanatic said:


> ...eventually new games that require a DX version higher than 11 will come out, that's my only problem...



Thank God I spend more time in programming in my data center than I do in games so DirectX 9.0 C in XP will serve me great for the next many years. 

Anyway pc_fanatic...maybe it will not be so horrible after all.I mean the game developers DO REALIZE that if they make their games to work on Windows 8 ONLY won't be selling so good at all and they will not make a lot of money (what is the point after all ) so I am pretty sure they will make 99% of the games to be able to work on DirectX 11 AND DirectX 11.1 and maybe even on DirectX 10 and DirectX 10.1.
Take Resident Evil 5 as an example.It can run on DirectX 9 and it can also run on DirectX 10.

So if you ask me it is going to pass a VEEEEERY LOOOOOONG time until games would not be able to run on Windows 7 under DirectX 11.0 AT ALL. 

And when that eventually does happen (but not yet for a very very very long time) then I am pretty sure many other programmers will find a way to make DirectX 11.1 to execute under Windows 7 OS.They did make DirectX 10 to run on XP...
Maybe not so perfect as it does under Windows 7,but hell I tryed some DirectX 10 games on my new strong computer under XP using that modified DirectX 10 for XP and they work.

If I were you,I would not be worrying about this lol.Trust me


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 12, 2012)

Cromewell said:


> They don't? The whole point of DirectX is to abstract out the hardware level to a generic interface you can program for. And yes, you can support DirectX features at the driver level but they also build hardware that can do it. Supporting most of the features in software is a lot slower.
> 
> No one is stopping video game companies from using OpenGL yet most choose DirectX.
> 
> DirectX 10 and 11 are Vista+ only because they rely on the new windows display driver model. I don't know why 11.1 is 8 only, it could simply be it's designed to take advantage of the new tablet interface.



So you think that AMD & NVIDIA code their drivers for an API that doesn't yet exist and then Microsoft makes it? I'm sorry but that's just not the way it works, its impossible to go backwards like that. The video game industry and hardware manufactures follow Microsoft's API layout. They can't code for something that has yet to be developed. The GPU makers benefit greatly from this whole DirectX shenanigans. They cut out support for the latest versions of the API and their older hardware to force upgrades not unlike Microsham and their OSes. It makes more sense for the game devs to use Direct Since it supports PC gaming and Direct-X Box (XBOX). Without it all the have left is PlayStation (whose own API is better than OpenGL) and the abomination that is Nintendo Wii.


----------



## wolfeking (Nov 12, 2012)

PC, did you intentionally create this thread to argue every point? Or did you hope to let others express what is going on? 

1. Newer OSes support all older versions of DX and new versions too. If you need DX11, then use windows Vista, 7 or 8.  If you need 9 then you can use any NT based OS. 
2. The driver will not make up for it if the hardware can not support it. New hardware can run older DX versions, but without the proper chips, it will not be able to run newer DX versions properly.   For example, no matter how you try, you will never get a GTX295 to run heavy tessellation. Go to a 5470 and you will be able to run it. 
3. If you do not like how m$ is running the show, get a linux distro, and a PS3 and shut up. You will never get anything accomplished with a bunch of unfounded, underinformed conspiracy theories. 
4. 11.1 does little that is necessary. It is no better than 10.1. Worrying about it being released on 7 makes no sense. It is like worrying that you don't get a platform update on XP that windows Vista got.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 12, 2012)

wolfeking said:


> PC, did you intentionally create this thread to argue every point? Or did you hope to let others express what is going on?
> 
> 1. Newer OSes support all older versions of DX and new versions too. If you need DX11, then use windows Vista, 7 or 8.  If you need 9 then you can use any NT based OS.
> 2. The driver will not make up for it if the hardware can not support it. New hardware can run older DX versions, but without the proper chips, it will not be able to run newer DX versions properly.   For example, no matter how you try, you will never get a GTX295 to run heavy tessellation. Go to a 5470 and you will be able to run it.
> ...



I already know that they support the old versions but the old OSes don't support the new ones, also new games require higher versions, so that is a completely irrelevant point. Its a legitimate question and concern, just calling it a conspiracy and dismissing it doesn't cut it. I'm letting others express themselves moron that's why I made this thread. I know 11.1 isn't a big deal over 11 but in the past incremental changes have always been available for the OS that had the original version. If  you don't like this thread and debate then please, GTFO.


----------



## wolfeking (Nov 12, 2012)

pc_fanatic said:


> I already know that they support the old versions but new games require you upgrade. Its a legitimate question and concern, just calling it a conspiracy and dismissing it doesn't cut it. I'm letting others express themselves moron that's why I made this thread. I know 11.1 isn't a big deal over 11 but in the past incremental changes have always been available for the OS that had the original version. If  you don't like this thread and debate then please, GTFO.


Seen below word for word. You let others speak, and then you throw ideaologies at their statements that are not true.  

And frankly, Microsoft can do whatever the hell they want to. If you don't like it, then don't buy windows. After all, it is 20 years past its sell by date. Gamers are the only ones with a legitimate reason to use windows, and even then, you are throwing the money at them no matter what, so you support by default their changes. 




pc_fanatic said:


> So you think that AMD & NVIDIA code their drivers for an API that doesn't yet exist and then Microsoft makes it? I'm sorry but that's just not the way it works, its impossible to go backwards like that.





pc_fanatic said:


> Yup this is what happens when a corporation gets big and powerful.





pc_fanatic said:


> I think Microstink wants game devs to do that on purpose so they can sell their newest OSes. If the difference is negligible like you say, then why isn't there more support for the older versions?


And right here there was a good question. The support for older versions are there sometimes. However game companies only support what they wish, and the game engine they choose to use does a lot for that support. For instance, the Frostbite 2 engine does not support DX9 and it does not support below the 8800 series GPU (HD3000 I think too), meaning BF3, MOHWF and any other game built on it will not be able to use DX9 or below.    Source engine however is still viable and can make DX9 graphics very nicely. the entire MW series is built on it and countless others. A Geforce go 7900m GTX will still max them at 1080p resolution.    

In the end, it is more of the legos you use to put your game together than M$ that makes older DX versions hard to support.  




pc_fanatic said:


> Lol APIs don't follow hardware that makes zero sense. Microsham makes the API first then video game companies code their games to use it. This entices AMD and Nvidia to put the latest Direct X into their drivers. You really don't have a clue what you are going on about do you?




But seriously, no matter what, if you don't like what the company is doing, don't support the company.  There are boundless other choices to use your computer, and at least one of them supports some gaming (OSX). Linux has steam support right now (closed beta), and several games will be ported at launch (not sure how far away that is, but less than a year for sure).  Support them if you don't like M$. And M$ in my opinion has be an arse of a company since XP launched. 2K was the last good one in my eyes.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 12, 2012)

If my "ideologies" (lol) aren't true, then disprove them. You are being a hypocrite by just saying "you're wrong". Don't support Microsoft is your solution? Do you live under a rock? Its the best OS for gaming hands down that Linux crap can't measure up. You get SOME games with UNIX distros but not all. Even then you get them much later when they get ported over.


----------



## wolfeking (Nov 12, 2012)

Do you not understand how economics works? If you don't like what they do, don't support them. Bitching about it on the net will net exactly 0 besides making an ass of yourself. 

And no, I don't live under a rock. I live in Stokes County, NC, USA. If you have a problem with it, too bad. 

Linux is far superior to windows. So if you don't agree, then I have nothing more to say to your inferior ideologies.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 12, 2012)

wolfeking said:


> Do you not understand how economics works? If you don't like what they do, don't support them. Bitching about it on the net will net exactly 0 besides making an ass of yourself.
> 
> And no, I don't live under a rock. I live in Stokes County, NC, USA. If you have a problem with it, too bad.
> 
> Linux is far superior to windows. So if you don't agree, then I have nothing more to say to your inferior ideologies.



Yes I understand economics dip shit. Do you understand what a monopoly is kid? There are no alternatives that offer all the same features. Going UNIX cuts you off on so many things I couldn't begin to list them. Are you that thick in the head, its not better than Windows. They have their pros and cons neither is above the other. You are a condescending punk teenager with nothing but rampant stupidity to add to this thread, be gone.


----------



## wolfeking (Nov 12, 2012)

1. As long as Apple, Unix, and Linux are available m$ is not a monopoly. 
2. In that case, that you think neither is above the other, I will be happy in Linux far after windows has bit the dust as it should have in the early 80s. 
3. Stupidity, that is what you have been spreading a long time. Harken back to your responces in 2011 of "intel is always better". 


pc_fanatic said:


> Intel however, always delivers gaming performance. .


 just in case you don't remember.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 12, 2012)

wolfeking said:


> 1. As long as Apple, Unix, and Linux are available m$ is not a monopoly.
> 2. In that case, that you think neither is above the other, I will be happy in Linux far after windows has bit the dust as it should have in the early 80s.
> 3. Stupidity, that is what you have been spreading a long time. Harken back to your responces in 2011 of "intel is always better".
> just in case you don't remember.



Dumbass I know its extremely hard for you to get it but atleast try. Microsham isn't a full monopoly they are a "soft"" monopoly. Apple provides computers with relatively limited functionality at an outrageous price. While free distros are also limited adn lack many features of Windows. For many computing needs and vast compatibility there is no alternative to Windows. If Linux, being free, could do everything that Windows can it would've already taken over. But it can't so it hasn't, a simple concept that seems to be way over your head.

I never said "intel is always better" nut case. "Benchmarks prove that i3-2100 destroys quad phenoms in terms of gaming but it worse for video editing and stuff" Now there is a real quote and I was right, the cheaper dual core can easily match more expensive quad phenoms. 

"Consider this an i5-2300 and a phenom ii x4 975 cost the same (around 180) but the i5 wins in terms of performance. This is based on REAL benches not synthetic. Intel vs AMD tests that are done measuring FPS in real world games prove that the amd's got smoked at the SAME price point." There's another quote and going to Anandtech will verify my claim. 

You are the one that can't remember.

Arrogance and retardation by themselves are annoying, in your case the combination is extremely irritating. Please leave this thread you naive kid.


----------



## wolfeking (Nov 12, 2012)

I am going to bet very soundly one one of two things. Either you have never used linux, or you have only tried it back in the early 2000s when it was still a baby.  Linux is strait off easier to use, more compatible, less costly (not buying the OS cost, the cost to keep it running. So cost of antivirus, tech support cost, not to mention the cost of all the apps you use, like Office and the like), and easier to use. 
99% of people read comments like yours, saying that linux can not do what windows can do, which is false, and that it is not as easily compatible (also false), and that it is difficult to use, and they don't try it.  If people had a brain and were not sheep being herded by Bill gates and his unpaid goons, then linux would be much bigger than it is. 
And back to the DX issue, why were you saying its a scam? You pay for the use of the OS. That means they can hand it to you any way they want to. If you don't like it, then they do not have to change it.  If you ran a open source system (linux and Unix), then if you did not like it, you could fix it yourself, or hire a programmer to fix it for you. No need to wait on windows to get off their arse and do something useful (which is generally a 2+ year wait).


----------



## S.T.A.R.S. (Nov 12, 2012)

Unix,Linux and Windows are all good if you ask me.
And it's up to a individual to choose his/her/their favorite operating system and use it.

Honestly I spend more time in making software with which I earn a lot of  money rather than complaining that this or that or that is a scam lol.
Because there is nothing you can do about it.But what you can do is to  rather spend time in let's say learning programming and then one day  make a great software and sell it MANY times and earn a lot of money on  it from which you can then have a great life without even having a job  and listening to your stupid bos(es). 

It's funny though...many people complain that Windows sucks,but then  again they use Windows to write that here on this forum and other places  lol.
Same goes for Linux.




wolfeking said:


> ...and M$ in my opinion has be an arse of a company since XP launched. 2K was the last good one in my eyes.



I kinda agree with you lol.
And when I think a little bit more,I have a feeling like Microsoft has started taking control of our computers with new operating systems starting from Vista and especially 7.Just take DRM as an example lol.
So yes in my opinion XP was that last great OS they made.
I wish they make one like that again with the support of new let's say...DirectX versions.

But then again to me all Windows operating systems are good.All of them have their advantages and disadvantages.
Nothing is perfect.


----------



## Cromewell (Nov 12, 2012)

pc_fanatic said:


> So you think that AMD & NVIDIA code their drivers for an API that doesn't yet exist and then Microsoft makes it? I'm sorry but that's just not the way it works, its impossible to go backwards like that. The video game industry and hardware manufactures follow Microsoft's API layout. They can't code for something that has yet to be developed. The GPU makers benefit greatly from this whole DirectX shenanigans. They cut out support for the latest versions of the API and their older hardware to force upgrades not unlike Microsham and their OSes. It makes more sense for the game devs to use Direct Since it supports PC gaming and Direct-X Box (XBOX). Without it all the have left is PlayStation (whose own API is better than OpenGL) and the abomination that is Nintendo Wii.


No, I think AMD/ATI and nVidia code their drivers to the API spec, but do you think that Microsoft goes into a room and decides what to build into DirectX all on their own? Take tessellation for example, nVidia has a big write up about it and how great it is http://www.nvidia.ca/object/tessellation.html.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 12, 2012)

wolfeking said:


> I am going to bet very soundly one one of two things. Either you have never used linux, or you have only tried it back in the early 2000s when it was still a baby.  Linux is strait off easier to use, more compatible, less costly (not buying the OS cost, the cost to keep it running. So cost of antivirus, tech support cost, not to mention the cost of all the apps you use, like Office and the like), and easier to use.
> 99% of people read comments like yours, saying that linux can not do what windows can do, which is false, and that it is not as easily compatible (also false), and that it is difficult to use, and they don't try it.  If people had a brain and were not sheep being herded by Bill gates and his unpaid goons, then linux would be much bigger than it is.
> And back to the DX issue, why were you saying its a scam? You pay for the use of the OS. That means they can hand it to you any way they want to. If you don't like it, then they do not have to change it.  If you ran a open source system (linux and Unix), then if you did not like it, you could fix it yourself, or hire a programmer to fix it for you. No need to wait on windows to get off their arse and do something useful (which is generally a 2+ year wait).



Lol. Linux has grew in compatibility over the years? Shocking! You still just don't get it. Microsoft is still far more compatible. Linux is catching up to older games but not the newest ones. And sure eventually it will get those too but then even newer ones will come out. Point is Linux is always gonna lag behind Windows as long as it is has a smaller user base. You Linux zealots can't tell the difference between an improving OS and a complete one. Its just as compatible as Windows currently is? Lol, thanks for the laughs. I guess I'll play one of my favorite games BF3 on linux then, on wait its not compatible DOH! A don't get me started with that WINE software which makes your games lag like theres no tomorrow unless you have a stupidly fast computer. 

You really think I'd be on Windows if all the nonsense you are touting was actually true? Both OSes have their pros and cons. Most Linux users I know at least admit that UNIX distros have many setbacks and aren't in denial such as yourself.


----------



## wolfeking (Nov 12, 2012)

pc_fanatic said:


> Lol. Linux has grew in compatibility over the years? Shocking! You still just don't get it. Microsoft is still far more compatible. Linux is catching up to older games but not the newest ones. And sure eventually it will get those too but then even newer ones will come out. Point is Linux is always gonna lag behind Windows as long as it is has a smaller user base. You Linux zealots can't tell the difference between an improving OS and a complete one. Its just as compatible as Windows currently is? Lol, thanks for the laughs. I guess I'll play one of my favorite games BF3 on linux then, on wait its not compatible DOH! A don't get me started with that WINE software which makes your games lag like theres no tomorrow unless you have a stupidly fast computer.
> 
> You really think I'd be on Windows if all the nonsense you are touting was actually true? Both OSes have their pros and cons. Most Linux users I know at least admit that UNIX distros have many setbacks and aren't in denial such as yourself.


1. I run BF3 using WINE emulator in Linux. Your argument there is invalid. 

2. Linux is far more compatible. Hell, show me a single windows OS in the last 10 years (not windows 8, it just got around), that can use the same exact OS on everything from an ARM based phone, to an Xbox, to a core i7 desktop, and run flawlessly on all of them. You will never find a one. There are dozens of distros that have been doing just this for years. 

3. Wine does not lag once properly set up. And that is running it on a Core 2 Duo T7700 and a Nvidia NVS135m, far from the fastest, even in its hayday. 

4. Linux and Unix are not the same thing. Your stupid for even saying that. You can not be in denial for using a competitors OS.  Unix was around first and was a inspiration of linux.  If to you that makes linux a Unix, then hell all Chevys are FORDs by the same argument.


----------



## pc_fanatic (Nov 12, 2012)

wolfeking said:


> 1. I run BF3 using WINE emulator in Linux. Your argument there is invalid.
> 
> 2. Linux is far more compatible. Hell, show me a single windows OS in the last 10 years (not windows 8, it just got around), that can use the same exact OS on everything from an ARM based phone, to an Xbox, to a core i7 desktop, and run flawlessly on all of them. You will never find a one. There are dozens of distros that have been doing just this for years.
> 
> ...



Its not invalid WINE is software emulation which dramatically reduces performance. That's not the same as running it natively. Emulators will always lag behind the real thing.

     WINE sucks : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9VSZRg2RHE

I know its not the same thing I never said it was, you are an idiot for saying that. They are extremely similar and share many of the same set backs. 

Again its not compatible with a vast array of Windows only software, you are simply too thick to accept this. I'm not talking about other platform and architecture compatibility, I don't care about that as I only use an Intel desktop. Really how dumb are you to think you aren't giving up anything by switching to Linux? Its a well known fact that Linux is really lacking driver support and also doesn't have the same hardware compatibility as Windows.


----------

