Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

Oh, look at that... *mod magic*

Lol thanks XD

Quote:1. Power and Speed: Linux > OS X > Windows
Linux has the best command line and speed. Period. OS X has an excellent command line as well, with plenty of the Unix goodness that Linux has. Windows is a complete mess IMO, so it has speed and feature issues.

Agreed.

Quote:2. Usability: OS X > Linux > Windows
OS X is very easy to use, and has the best app-switching available if you use a trackpad. Linux has so many different GUIs there is almost always one to suit your style, but if you don't really have a preference Xubuntu is excellent IMO. Windows GUI is fine, but the ridiculous issues it has sometimes really make the user angry. Plus Windows 8 ruins the traditional desktop, so it loses again.

What issues?

For me Windows = OSX in this department. I don't understand why so many people think that windows GUI is harder to use. As for linux it depends on the specific distro and the desktop environment/GUI.

Quote:3. Security: OS X = Linux > Windows
Must I even explain? Unix is more secure than Windows. Keep in mind, though, that this hardly matters for an intelligent user because they are unlikely to go somewhere where they would get a virus. The biggest security hole in the modern computer is the user, so this section is almost rendered moot.

Linux>OSX>Windows

Linux is a bit safer than OSX I shouldn't even need to bother explaining why (hint: there is more to an OS than just the kernel).

Quote:4. Developer Support: Windows > OS X > Linux
Windows has the support of all of the major developers pretty much, along with the support of a ton of minor developers who make freeware or open source software. OS X also has the support of almost all major developers, but not quite as much open source/freeware developers. Linux has very little major developer support, but a lot of open source/freeware support.

It depends on how you measure this. Windows is on the top no matter what. Linux probably has more apps than MACOSX but less commerical apps.

Quote:My Winner: OS X because it is faster than Windows and has more support than Linux. Otherwise, Linux would win hands down.

I'm working on making a poll, but in the meantime what do you guys think?

Depends what you want to do with the computer. Windows for a normal client system, Linux for everything else.

Quote:What issues?

Mostly the fact that a lot of the control panel and config options in Windows are really intimidating. In OS X, deleting an app is as simple as dragging it to the trash can, for example. In Windows, it is more complicated and the average user has issues with it. I have issues with it from time to time, mostly because of some program not having a good uninstall procedure.

Quote:Linux is a bit safer than OSX I shouldn't even need to bother explaining why (hint: there is more to an OS than just the kernel).

Both OS X and Linux are very safe from viruses compared to Windows, which is IMO the only thing the OS can do for security. Malware is mostly just the user's fault. Linux and OS X are basically equally secure, though Linux is a bit more secure I suppose.

daaceking Wrote:I have only ever used windows and my opinion is that Microsoft doesn't know how to make a decent operating system.

How do you know that if you haven't used anything else?

daaceking Wrote:Firstly there are issues with windows 7 such as something as basic a displaying icons in the clock area.

What issue? I haven't had problems with doing this.

daaceking Wrote:Even their browser has security threats according to Norton since version 6.

1. Who trusts norton in this day and age? The number of false positives that their antivirus software gives is ridiculous.
2. What does this have to do with windows?

daaceking Wrote:The opengl API has better speeds than DirectX, so why does DirectX even exist?

What? Prove it. That's a pretty broad statement to make about two completely different APIs with different versions and extensions.

1. OpenGL is comparable to d3d not directx.
2. They are different APIs better/worse at doing different things.
3. Most (not all) of the devs that I have talked to about this that have actually tried both have achieved better or the same performance with d3d code in their applications. While many sites point out that with properly optimized openGL code it COULD run better than d3d there are few examples of real world applications that do this. Regardless of whether openGL can run faster in a specific circumstance you're never going to be able to prove that it's always faster because that's just plain wrong.
4. OpenGL is still playing catch up to d3d in a number of features and is consistently behind d3d in features than game devs want.
5. Windows supports openGL and supports it better than MACOSX anyways so I don't even see why supporting d3d is an issue for windows, if anything it is an advantage. Even some linux drivers have shotty openGL support on par or worse than windows.
6. OpenGL is notorious for having more driver issues.
7. Like Neobrain said it can be a pain in the ass to use for some things.

daaceking Wrote:but why is it then that dolphin chooses opengl? I mean isn't it the most stable?

I think the word stable should be replaced with "accurate". And like Anti-Ultimate said dolphin didn't choose openGL, it supports openGL, d3d9, and d3d11 so I have no idea what you mean by that.

daaceking Wrote:the explanation i get under dolphin is that opengl is the most stable 9 is the fastest and 11 is in the middle. So what i mean is that haven't the majority of devs worked on gl? And if it is not a good api, then why?

Like neobrain said it was originally the only backend and it maps better to the GC/Wii GPU API. It was also chosen due to a combination of that fact that it is supported by all three major PC OS and the fact that the original devs were more familiar with it (familiarity is a major advantage in software development).

Shonumi Wrote:Eh, I don't think you can say something is objectively "the best" when it comes to something like OSes. For everyone personally, of course some are better than others. Coming up next month, I'll have primarily used Linux for 4 years. I switched mostly because there wasn't any way to massively change XP's look, feel, or workflow to suit my needs. Basically, I was a computer control freak (still am). Linux has been a good learning experience too. It feels like there's nothing I can't do or solve Tongue

Since OS are designed to fulfill a particular function I would argue that depending on what you're doing you can in fact state than an OS is objectively better at fulfilling that function than another OS available.

Quote:I don't mind the fact that there isn't a lot of major commercial game development on Linux (there are a lot of little companies releasing games here and there). I'm not much of a PC gamer anyway, and I use emulators a lot. But recently I've been enjoying the fruits of some very well made open-source games: Xonotic, NeverBall, and VDrift. I'm glad to see something impressive like them. It's like a treasure hunt when you find something worthwhile to play it. Hopefully Steam will bring some more game as well (and paid-for apps?)

I have tried to switch fully to linux but I just can't do it. There is just too much useful commercial software only available for windows. Even if I wasn't a gamer I wouldn't be able to use any microsoft programs like visual studios and that would hurt my productivity a lot.

Axxer Wrote:Linux and OS X are basically equally secure, though Linux is a bit more secure I suppose.

So they're equal.....but not equal.

Quote:So they're equal.....but not equal

I'm saying that they are so close it doesn't really matter. Windows really isn't that far behind them nowadays either (as long as you are careful, which is necessary for any OS).

---

Quote:Since OS are designed to fulfill a particular function I would argue that depending on what you're doing you can in fact state than an OS is objectively better at fulfilling that function than another OS available.

Yes, you can objectively say that an OS I better with respect to a certain function, but since the OS has many, many functions, how important certain functions are to an individual user plays a large part in which OS they like the best. So there is some level of subjectivity based on which features you want more than others.

(09-30-2012, 08:42 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I don't mind the fact that there isn't a lot of major commercial game development on Linux (there are a lot of little companies releasing games here and there). I'm not much of a PC gamer anyway, and I use emulators a lot. But recently I've been enjoying the fruits of some very well made open-source games: Xonotic, NeverBall, and VDrift. I'm glad to see something impressive like them. It's like a treasure hunt when you find something worthwhile to play it. Hopefully Steam will bring some more game as well (and paid-for apps?)

I have tried to switch fully to linux but I just can't do it. There is just too much useful commercial software only available for windows. Even if I wasn't a gamer I wouldn't be able to use any microsoft programs like visual studios and that would hurt my productivity a lot.

Dunno, I really do not miss any Windows-exclusive applications anymore. I found suitable replacements for everything. And with "replacement" I don't mean some crappy tool trading 50% of the functionality for something that barely runs at all on my OS, but something that enables me to get the same job done without hindering my workflow compared to the Windows-exclusive application.

Visual Studio <-> KDevelop: Yes, they are quite different beasts but KDevelop integrates well with about any developer tool available: Git, CMake, Qt documentation / man pages, gdb, etc. Actually, while I don't see any reason to miss Visual Studio on Linux, I do think it's a pity KDevelop doesn't run on Windows (not without a hazzle, anyway).

MS Office <-> LibreOffice: Yeah uh, nvm I just won't argue on this one. LibreOffice works well for really simple things, but admittedly it sucks in some places compared to MS Office. But then again, I'm creating most documents with LaTeX (via TexMaker) anyway because I like it better than both of the other programs. (btw, Calligra aka KOffice looks very promising, it's a pity they're lacking developer manpower)

<insert random media player which runs on Windows but not Linux>: Amarok owns them all. Although tbh, I really just want to have my media library stored and managed without a hazzle. The most fancy feature I need is a mp3 tag editor

On top of that, installing many FLOSS applications (even popular ones like gnuplot) is just a mess on Windows because sometimes developers only target unix. Sometimes people are kind enough to provide an installer, sometimes they aren't and you're screwed and need to compile it yourself or something (maybe even without VC project files, yay). With unix? Just fire up your package manager and be done. If there's no package available, manually compiling stuff is a *lot* easier in linux.

Going to school almost requires Microsoft Office nowadays. You can try to get by with iWork or Libreoffice, but they don't have all of the features that Office has. Most of the documents I have to make for school don't Ned anything more than double spacing and center alignment, but a lot of the documents I have to read require a lot of the math stuff that Office has built in. It's pretty stupid in this day and age now that PDFs are basically a standard (albeit a crappy one), but none of my teachers at least are "savvy" enough to export to PDF.

Quote:Since OS are designed to fulfill a particular function I would argue that depending on what you're doing you can in fact state than an OS is objectively better at fulfilling that function than another OS available.

Depends on what you're doing. If it's something like "hey let's make art, or music, or write a book", those things involve pixels, sound waves, and plain old text. The big three desktop OSes can all handle these "raw components", but it'll come down to how users feel about the available tools and work flow to determine which one is "best" for their needs. But yes, I agree it would be objective in many other areas, such as measuring performance in HPC environments, or just about anything with concrete reproducible results. My comment was aimed more at what the poll's title was ("which OS is best overall") before I changed it.

Quote:Amarok owns them all

Heresy! VLC is king.

Quote:Heresy! VLC is king.

All hail the king!