Other Games => ... and all the other things floating around out there => Topic started by: Kafein on June 27, 2013, 12:48:05 am
Title: AMD is not amused
Post by: Kafein on June 27, 2013, 12:48:05 am
Relax AMD.
Even if your products aren't always the best, at least you let me pay 200 bucks less for the same thing.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on June 27, 2013, 12:53:57 am
That one nerd in that video is totally doable.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 27, 2013, 01:27:51 am
:lol: this is why I´m an AMD fanboy.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: SeQuel on June 27, 2013, 03:34:23 am
After all the driver problems I've had with AMD in the past I'll always be buying nVidia cards.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Christo on June 27, 2013, 03:41:32 am
This type of "advertising" is just cheap and offensive. entertaining though, I must say :)
Not that I really care to defend multinational companies, they don't deserve that but still.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Thovex on June 27, 2013, 09:21:19 am
This is an advert not saying that their product is good, just that they think they are better than the competion, useless as fuck, 0/10 wouldn't convince me to switch to AMD.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: rufio on June 27, 2013, 10:38:25 am
allways had amd, nvidegay always overpriced as fuck.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Banok on June 27, 2013, 07:34:42 pm
there are times and tiers when nvidia is cheaper than ati
but the main reason why my ait was not worth the savings is ITS FUCKING WAY TOO LOUD!!
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Molly on June 27, 2013, 09:10:25 pm
I've been thinking about Nvdia for PhysX tbh but my HD6870 is still way too good to be replaced. Not to mention my cpu and hdd are the bottlenecks in my rig anyway.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Overdriven on June 27, 2013, 10:02:30 pm
Went with nvidia for years and always had issues. Switched to AMD and never looking back. Computer has never run so smoothly :)
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 27, 2013, 10:22:27 pm
AMD basically offers like 90-95% of the power of comparable Nvidia cards(More in some games)for a lot less money.Plus they always have a mid-tier card that´s very cheap(Around 100-150 euros)and very powerful for it´s price, which is the main reason I love their cards so much.I dont want to buy a card for 400 or 500 euros, I want to buy one for 150 and still be able to play modern games on high settings.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Leshma on June 27, 2013, 11:11:42 pm
Currently, only Radeon 7970 and 7950 are cheap compared to nVidia. Other cards offer similar performance for same amount of money.
I'm long time AMD/ATI Radeon user, and I'm planning to stop buying their products. Why? Because their drivers for everything that isn't DirectX related are pure crap and I have the need for certain OpenGL applications.
AMD hardware is great but software support is seriously lacking.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Kafein on June 27, 2013, 11:53:01 pm
AMD did eat a large chunk of the market with the dirty cheap 4800 series and their graphics-centric architecture some years ago (while Nvidia was busy making the best supercomputers). As modern games hardly require more than a good GC from that period to run, that generation is still quite relevant. More recently they sort of inverted the roles with Nvidia's Kepler architecture being much better for gaming.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Senni__Ti on June 28, 2013, 12:26:36 am
Had a 4890, really nice card (still working :)).
Never had any problems of any kind with it (afaik, nothing major / game breaking). It was just loud and hot.
Switched to Nvidia recently, physx was an incentive (although you can get limited physx with an AMD card). Mainly I was just looking to build an ultimate rig to tide me over for the next couple of years +. (Pretty much everything in the old rig was outdated, I would have Xfired if I could)
Nvidia got their next gen of cards out first *shrugs*.
Also I didn't fancy getting a couple of years in to find I couldn't have a decent dual gpu configuration. (Current AMD cards seem to have problem with microstuttering in Multi-GPU configs)
Though Nvidia's drivers suck atm. (Crashed 3 times personally within 10 hours of starting it up) Just google 320.18 WHQL and you'll see why. Hopefully they will be better in the long term.
Not sure which company is better / worse. With AMD backing the next gen of consoles + games, AMD wouldn't be a bad choice. I just couldn't (wouldn't ;) ) wait till ~November.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Leshma on June 28, 2013, 01:28:19 am
Software that matters to me and doesn't work well on AMD: Limit Theory, Outtera, SpaceEngine, Planet Explorers, Linux games, ... pretty much anything that either runs on a GPU or uses OpenGL as API.
Software that matters to me and will work better on nVidia: Star Citizen, Witcher 3, possibly M:BG.
Sofware that doesn't mean anything to me and will probably work better on AMD: most console ports (including most AAA games from big studios).
I was interested in new game from Avalanche Studios, expecting something truly epic sandbox like Just Cause 2 but it seems they are making Mad Max game. I hope it will be sandbox but you never know with games based on movies.
AMD can satify the need of an average gamer very well, but same goes for next gen consoles (many games will run in 1080p with 60 fps which is enough for almost everyone). But if you want to play something really innovative, something that will become mainstream in years from now you have to stick with nVidia.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Molly on June 28, 2013, 10:21:08 am
Software that matters to me and doesn't work well on AMD: Limit Theory, Outtera, SpaceEngine, Planet Explorers, Linux games, ... pretty much anything that either runs on a GPU or uses OpenGL as API.
Software that matters to me and will work better on nVidia: Star Citizen, Witcher 3, possibly M:BG.
Sofware that doesn't mean anything to me and will probably work better on AMD: most console ports (including most AAA games from big studios).
I was interested in new game from Avalanche Studios, expecting something truly epic sandbox like Just Cause 2 but it seems they are making Mad Max game. I hope it will be sandbox but you never know with games based on movies.
AMD can satify the need of an average gamer very well, but same goes for next gen consoles (many games will run in 1080p with 60 fps which is enough for almost everyone). But if you want to play something really innovative, something that will become mainstream in years from now you have to stick with nVidia.
Except for the "Software I need"... I'd call utter bullshit on this one Leshma but then again, I don't really care enough to elaborate :D
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Leshma on June 28, 2013, 03:33:42 pm
Yes, software I need. Should I care about sofware you need and use daily?
And no, I'm not alone in this world. Just because there aren't many people who have certain needs, doesn't make their choice wrong. Or choice of the majority, right.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Turboflex on June 28, 2013, 05:53:54 pm
After all the driver problems I've had with AMD in the past I'll always be buying nVidia cards.
Same for years I had ATI/AMD and constant driver problems always wrestling with them and having to try amateur 3rd party drivers. In my last computer I went with Nvidia and never had a problem, even though I barely update my drivers.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on June 28, 2013, 06:13:36 pm
Sure if you don't want to be able to use that new graphics card in 3 or 4 years. Got a new graphics card on my last generation PC (back around 2007), and built my bro a gaming PC at the same time. Our PCs were basically identical except he was running an Nvidia card, and I had an ATI (AMD) Radeon. My card was actually a little better performance-wise the whole time we had our PCs. Then in about 2010 they stopped supporting my graphics card with drivers, and all the older cards were put on a legacy driver. At that point I was unable to play any games that were coming out (most of the games would have massive black lines all over the screen), but my bro on his Nvidia could keep playing games (even though his card wasn't as good as mine) because Nvidia kept supporting it with drivers.
Vowed never to buy an AMD graphics card again (will still buy AMD processors). I'm not going to buy a product that physically works great, but is not supported after a few years, basically turning it into a paperweight. No thanks, I value my money a lot more than that.
What's the point of having great hardware if the drivers/software to support it aren't there? Why would I buy a product I know will still physically work in a few years, but will no longer be able to be useful because they stop supporting the drivers for it?
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 28, 2013, 07:58:59 pm
Sure if you don't want to be able to use that new graphics card in 3 or 4 years. [...]
After 3 or 4 years, I will most definately buy a new graphics card or even a whole new system because the technology will have advanced by a lot.
My 5770 is currently somewhere between 2 and 3 years old(Cant remember the exact date), and atm it´s still fine for playing most games on medium or high settings - my guess is I´ll buy or have to buy a new card once the new consoles come out, which take some more time.
You know, I´m a huge fan of buying middle class-graphics cards, because it enables me to only skip one or two generations before I buy a new one.I´ve bought the 5770, skipped the 6770 and will probably skip the 7770, too.if I bought a high-end card, which costs about double or triple the amount of a middle-class one, I´d need to skip more generations of cards missing out on possible new features.Also new=better because things run better when they are new.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on June 28, 2013, 08:37:03 pm
You're missing the point. New games were coming out, and my hardware was physically powerful enough to play the games, but since the drivers weren't kept up to date, I couldn't play them. I didn't need to update my graphics card, it was still physically just fine and dandy for the games coming out (although I upgraded my whole computer not long after due to this issue).
Money's not really a huge issue for me at this point my my life and career. I can afford to upgrade my graphics card every few years, but I'm not going to upgrade the damn thing, until I actually need to. If I can still run the games I play, and still play new games I want to play, then why upgrade? Oh right, because AMD wants more money from me...good point. I'll take my money to a company who values their products and shows it by supporting graphic card drivers on cards that are still perfectly fine for running games.
How old are you?
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Overdriven on June 28, 2013, 09:29:20 pm
Same for years I had ATI/AMD and constant driver problems always wrestling with them and having to try amateur 3rd party drivers. In my last computer I went with Nvidia and never had a problem, even though I barely update my drivers.
Odd how people have completely opposite problems :)
Sure if you don't want to be able to use that new graphics card in 3 or 4 years. Got a new graphics card on my last generation PC (back around 2007), and built my bro a gaming PC at the same time. Our PCs were basically identical except he was running an Nvidia card, and I had an ATI (AMD) Radeon. My card was actually a little better performance-wise the whole time we had our PCs. Then in about 2010 they stopped supporting my graphics card with drivers, and all the older cards were put on a legacy driver. At that point I was unable to play any games that were coming out (most of the games would have massive black lines all over the screen), but my bro on his Nvidia could keep playing games (even though his card wasn't as good as mine) because Nvidia kept supporting it with drivers.
What's the point of having great hardware if the drivers/software to support it aren't there? Why would I buy a product I know will still physically work in a few years, but will no longer be able to be useful because they stop supporting the drivers for it?
I've had my Radeon HD 5750 for almost 4 years now and still going strong and can run all games still on highest graphics near enough and they still support the drivers. Maybe in a year or so that'll change I'll have to see. I had far to many issues with nvidia to want to use them again. I think I had 3 cards in a row from them and always experienced issues.
It does depend a great deal from card to card between the two as well. Some cards are fantastic, some are average at best and that works both ways. So of course every one is going to have different experiences unless we've all bought the same series of cards from each manufacturer.
Next year I'll be restarting the computer upgrade cycle again though I think. This year I want to finish off the current build with an HD screen and surround sound speakers as both my screen and speakers are getting on a bit. Then the year after it'll be gpu, followed by cpu, then any random crap that needs upgrading around it (mobo, RAM, PSU, upgrade to blu-ray drive maybe).
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 29, 2013, 01:35:03 am
You're missing the point. New games were coming out, and my hardware was physically powerful enough to play the games, but since the drivers weren't kept up to date, I couldn't play them. I didn't need to update my graphics card, it was still physically just fine and dandy for the games coming out (although I upgraded my whole computer not long after due to this issue).
That´s another issue entirely, one you can avoid by not buying high-end cards in the first place like I mentioned.
I have also used ATI cards for 3+ years in the past and never encountered the problems you mentioned.
Quote
How old are you?
20
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Tibe on June 29, 2013, 02:38:37 pm
Does it really matter if high-end AMD or Nvidia card? They both basically go for the same thing anyway. And it doesnt really matter if one is 1% better than the other.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Leshma on June 29, 2013, 02:49:47 pm
Of course it doesn't matter. But what matters is when you're able to do something with one card while you can't do the same with the other. AMD/ATI makes great hardware but software support for their products is poor. I'm using their GPUs for 10 years.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 29, 2013, 04:28:59 pm
Matter of preference, really.I´ve never needed or wanted to use a software that wouldn´t run on my amd card, which is why I´ll continue to buy amd.If you had other experiences, fine, then buy nvidia.
This thread has already derailed too much :D
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Leshma on June 29, 2013, 04:45:15 pm
When I was your age, AMD GPU was more than enough. But with age preferences change :wink:
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 29, 2013, 06:34:34 pm
Ya, I dont think I´ll ever want to use
Quote
Limit Theory, Outtera, SpaceEngine, Planet Explorers, Linux games
Im only 20 and have plenty of time, but still not enough to play that much that I would care about those games - it´s not like my free time will increase over the next years, so yeah...also I hate linux.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Kafein on June 29, 2013, 06:42:53 pm
I like casual stuff like windows that I have used since I started using PC´s
Everything I have seen from Linux makes me believe it´s a cool OS for people that like to occupy themselves with something, but Iam not willing to do that plus windows is simply better in the main area I use my pc for: gaming.I dont want to install 3rd party programs to play games and the like.
Hate was really too strong.I just dont really like it and dont want to use it.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: zagibu on June 30, 2013, 02:26:44 am
What you wanted to say is: you don't know it. You can't like or dislike something that you don't know.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 30, 2013, 05:35:18 pm
What you wanted to say is: you don't know it. You can't like or dislike something that you don't know.
That´s bullshit.I can dislike h i t l e r without knowing him.I can dislike drugs without using them.
You can not dislike something without having information about it, that´s right, but I HAVE information about linux and I´ve seen it in action - which leads me to disliking it.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: djavo on June 30, 2013, 07:07:41 pm
S3_Graphics>amd>geforce
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: zagibu on June 30, 2013, 08:04:15 pm
That´s bullshit.I can dislike h i t l e r without knowing him.I can dislike drugs without using them.
You can not dislike something without having information about it, that´s right, but I HAVE information about linux and I´ve seen it in action - which leads me to disliking it.
Knowledge = Information. You just said what I said with different words. And no, you can't dislike Hitler, what you can dislike is what he has done, because this is known. Same thing for the drugs, you cannot dislike "drugs" without ever having tried them. What you can dislike is that some make you addicted and harm your body, because, once again, this is known.
Seeing Linux in action is quite difficult, btw., because it's an operating system. What you probably mean is you have seen one of the Desktop Environments that run on Linux, like KDE or Gnome.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: B3RS3RK on June 30, 2013, 08:16:40 pm
Knowledge = Information. You just said what I said with different words. And no, you can't dislike Hitler, what you can dislike is what he has done, because this is known. Same thing for the drugs, you cannot dislike "drugs" without ever having tried them. What you can dislike is that some make you addicted and harm your body, because, once again, this is known.
Well, it is also known that, to use windows applications and games on linux that have not made to fit with linux too need applications like wine etc. to function.3rd party programs to run my shit means inconvenience ->I dislike it
Quote
Seeing Linux in action is quite difficult, btw., because it's an operating system. What you probably mean is you have seen one of the Desktop Environments that run on Linux, like KDE or Gnome.
Whatever man.The basics of what Iam disliking remain the same.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Kafein on June 30, 2013, 08:26:03 pm
Knowledge = Information. You just said what I said with different words. And no, you can't dislike Hitler, what you can dislike is what he has done, because this is known. Same thing for the drugs, you cannot dislike "drugs" without ever having tried them. What you can dislike is that some make you addicted and harm your body, because, once again, this is known.
This is not how the human brain works. Also having to use emulators and poor graphics support really sucks for gaming.
Seeing Linux in action is quite difficult, btw., because it's an operating system. What you probably mean is you have seen one of the Desktop Environments that run on Linux, like KDE or Gnome.
Well tbh the desktop environment is a very important thing when you want to use a computer. Look at all the hate windows 8 is getting. I'm writing this from a new laptop running 8 and I personnally think it's not that bad if you take the time to learn the interface. That even though they have made some real improvements. Then again, Linux distros (especially the proprietary ones) have been on average leagues ahead of Microsoft in terms of performance and ease of use (especially advanced features and fixing it when it doesn't work) for the expert user.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: zagibu on June 30, 2013, 10:50:33 pm
Well, it is also known that, to use windows applications and games on linux that have not made to fit with linux too need applications like wine etc. to function.3rd party programs to run my shit means inconvenience ->I dislike it
Again, you don't dislike Linux, you dislike the fact that your software doesn't run on it. And I agree. For gaming, Windows is still required. And for a lot of special purpose software, too. Another problem is hardware, btw. A lot of hardware still doesn't run or runs only poorly under a Linux OS. Because hardware vendors generally don't care about Linux, and somebody else must then do their job and write drivers for their products. And they might not be interested in all of the features, so they only implement what they need.
Whatever man.The basics of what Iam disliking remain the same.
Not at all. Somebody that sits into a Porsche Cayenne with Diesel engine, then decides he dislikes Diesel engines because the steering wheel is not to his taste draws the same conclusions as you. Of course, you are not completely to blame, because the term Linux is commonly misused, and people coming from Windows have a strange opinion of what an operating system consists of, something they are not entirely to blame for, because Microsoft themselves seem to share it.
Well tbh the desktop environment is a very important thing when you want to use a computer. Look at all the hate windows 8 is getting. I'm writing this from a new laptop running 8 and I personnally think it's not that bad if you take the time to learn the interface. That even though they have made some real improvements. Then again, Linux distros (especially the proprietary ones) have been on average leagues ahead of Microsoft in terms of performance and ease of use (especially advanced features and fixing it when it doesn't work) for the expert user.
I agree. The desktop environment is important. The problem is that people dislike alternative environments not because they are inferior, but because they are unfamiliar. This is the second reason (hw and sw compatibility being the first one) why Linux isn't more popular, because the desktop environments and other key elements of interacting with the computer (filesystem tree, a.k.a. where is my C: drive? etc.) are different to what they are used to. It doesn't matter that they might even be better, as long as they are different from how Windows does things, they are "unusable".
I once had a client that asked me to "install Linux" on his computer. I installed one of the more popular distributions, but he immediately disliked it, and asked me to change things to make it "better". Fortunately, software contained in Linux distributions is often open source and even besides that usually allows you to customize it heavily. I implemented some of the changes he required, but was then forced to reinstall Windows, because he discovered that a .exe File he downloaded from somewhere "didn't work on Linux". Basically, he wanted a Windows that doesn't cost anything.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Kafein on June 30, 2013, 11:34:06 pm
I agree. The desktop environment is important. The problem is that people dislike alternative environments not because they are inferior, but because they are unfamiliar. This is the second reason (hw and sw compatibility being the first one) why Linux isn't more popular, because the desktop environments and other key elements of interacting with the computer (filesystem tree, a.k.a. where is my C: drive? etc.) are different to what they are used to. It doesn't matter that they might even be better, as long as they are different from how Windows does things, they are "unusable".
I once had a client that asked me to "install Linux" on his computer. I installed one of the more popular distributions, but he immediately disliked it, and asked me to change things to make it "better". Fortunately, software contained in Linux distributions is often open source and even besides that usually allows you to customize it heavily. I implemented some of the changes he required, but was then forced to reinstall Windows, because he discovered that a .exe File he downloaded from somewhere "didn't work on Linux". Basically, he wanted a Windows that doesn't cost anything.
Wait, people buy windows ?
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: zagibu on June 30, 2013, 11:49:41 pm
Uh, yeah, you know, they are kinda useful, to look through, and to let light in. What else do you use in their place? Doors?
To "like" isn't well-defined. We can say we like or dislike basically anything and it always makes sense.
If that were true, it would make sense to like and dislike something at the same time. Only because YOU don't know the definition of "like", doesn't mean nobody else does.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: cmp on June 30, 2013, 11:54:55 pm
I agree. The desktop environment is important. The problem is that people dislike alternative environments not because they are inferior, but because they are unfamiliar. This is the second reason (hw and sw compatibility being the first one) why Linux isn't more popular, because the desktop environments and other key elements of interacting with the computer (filesystem tree, a.k.a. where is my C: drive? etc.) are different to what they are used to. It doesn't matter that they might even be better, as long as they are different from how Windows does things, they are "unusable".
They might be unfamiliar, but unfortunately they are also inferior in terms of usability and features to their Windows/Mac counterparts.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: zagibu on July 01, 2013, 12:15:35 am
They might be unfamiliar, but unfortunately they are also inferior in terms of usability and features to their Windows/Mac counterparts.
A laughable statement. At least you don't bother adding "in my opinion", I always liked that about your comments.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: cmp on July 01, 2013, 01:34:36 am
Hey, it's a fact. They might come close or even better when heavily customized, but you can't expect the average user to do that (the talibans do, and that contributes to Linux' non-popularity).
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: zagibu on July 01, 2013, 02:41:10 am
Default KDE is miles ahead of anything Windows has to offer, and let's not talk about Mac, please. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, no matter if it's shiny or not.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: cmp on July 01, 2013, 03:31:54 am
KDE has more features than Win/Mac? Yes. KDE has better usability than Win/Mac? Hell no, it's even worse than most of its Linux counterparts (hint: putting useless options everywhere (https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/DbmEE8kXLDA) doesn't help). Had to use it for 4 years... can't say it was pleasant.
Oh, and the comment about Mac doesn't really help your credibility; in fact it makes me think that your judgement is quite biased and not objective at all. I don't like Macs myself for several reasons, but I have to give them credit for the work they did on usability.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Molly on July 01, 2013, 09:34:05 am
I personally prefer XFCE as environment because it's the most clean and best structured desktop environment ever (imho :P ).
Linux has an image and perception problem, that's all really. Most people don't even take the time to look at it once. They just grab on to the old stereotypes about it: only console wizards can use it, there is no support for anything, you have to be a geek to being able to properly use it and all those things. Guess that is what you get for being Open-Source and released as a "text-adventure" in the beginning days ;)
I consider myself lucky to know at least part of the truth and enjoy my dual boot at home and work very much. I play on windows, I work on Linux. :D
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: zagibu on July 01, 2013, 02:38:35 pm
KDE has more features than Win/Mac? Yes. KDE has better usability than Win/Mac? Hell no, it's even worse than most of its Linux counterparts (hint: putting useless options everywhere (https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/DbmEE8kXLDA) doesn't help). Had to use it for 4 years... can't say it was pleasant.
Oh, and the comment about Mac doesn't really help your credibility; in fact it makes me think that your judgement is quite biased and not objective at all. I don't like Macs myself for several reasons, but I have to give them credit for the work they did on usability.
Oh, right, because usability means taking away options and making everything shiny and snappy, right? No.
My judgment of course can't be objective, because I'm a subject. Same goes for you. And credibility? In what regard? Handling Desktop Environments? I would rather say YOUR credibility as a developer is at stake, if you consider Mac OS to be the pinnacle of usability. I really hope you won't apply this twisted understanding of the term "usability" during the development of M:BG.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: cmp on July 01, 2013, 06:58:49 pm
Try to talk with people who do that for work, I think you would be surprised. :wink:
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: EponiCo on July 02, 2013, 12:47:10 am
Try to talk with people who do that for work, I think you would be surprised. :wink:
What does usability mean in the context of "do that for work"? If you are administrating command line + sh >> shitty "usable" mouse pointer installer with no silent option unless you reverse engineer it and implement it yourself. Arguably that argument is flawed since those often aren't native Linux programs but whatever. For the average user, really, with modern Linux DE, what usability functions are those? Really curious. (Arguably it is a stepstone for the average user to find out that he has to use Cinnamon or LXDE or burn in hell *cough*)
I personally prefer XFCE as environment because it's the most clean and best structured desktop environment ever (imho :P ).
Linux has an image and perception problem, that's all really. Most people don't even take the time to look at it once. They just grab on to the old stereotypes about it: only console wizards can use it, there is no support for anything, you have to be a geek to being able to properly use it and all those things. Guess that is what you get for being Open-Source and released as a "text-adventure" in the beginning days ;)
I consider myself lucky to know at least part of the truth and enjoy my dual boot at home and work very much. I play on windows, I work on Linux. :D
Well, I partly agreee. But I've still noticed problems between Linux -> Windows Portation. If you are writing Office Docs, would you rather use MS Office, or "Linux" Office, when you are not sure the formation matches (maybe they fixed it by now or maybe I could fix it myself with enough knowlege ... but MS Office does that for free when you can write it off taxes)?
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Overdriven on July 02, 2013, 01:05:56 am
Oh, right, because usability means taking away options and making everything shiny and snappy, right? No.
'Usability is the ease of use and learnability of a human-made object.' So it just means if it's simple and intuitive to use. I hadn't used a mac until I used my girlfriends laptop and it was entirely self explanatory and needed minimal effort to understand. For the average user that's all they need.
I still think they are horrendously over priced but there's no denying that out of windows, linux and mac, the mac is probably the easiest and fastest to learn for your average user.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are the best for every task ect. But then that's not what usability means...
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Molly on July 02, 2013, 07:56:44 am
[...] Well, I partly agreee. But I've still noticed problems between Linux -> Windows Portation. If you are writing Office Docs, would you rather use MS Office, or "Linux" Office, when you are not sure the formation matches (maybe they fixed it by now or maybe I could fix it myself with enough knowlege ... but MS Office does that for free when you can write it off taxes)?
I am in the comfortable position where I don't need to work with MS Office except for being able to read it :) Then again, afaik, MS Office works perfectly fine under Wine by now. Personally, I write everything in Tex (used to be LaTex, now it's TexLive) and for the rudimentary usage of tabs, I use the OOversion of Excel. There used to be an issue where OOexcel couldn't calculate the standard variance of certain graphs (can't really remember the details about it tbh). That's something MS Excel is better at, granted. Doesn't outweigh the good feeling of OpenSource for me tho :D
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Casimir on July 03, 2013, 12:36:02 pm
So yeah graphics cards n stuff.
Title: Re: AMD is not amused
Post by: Tibe on July 04, 2013, 09:42:01 am