Heh, there is a native linux version of Doom 3 as well as a few "name brand" shooters. Don't let people tell you linux is no good for gaming cause that ones not true these days either

I think windows is a good os until you are starting to have higher demands on you os. I like to be able to customize without installing tons of add-on application. To be able to custom tailor my desktop to fit me, and my work.

Unreal Tournament 2004 I know for a fact is Linux compatable by nature, so you don't need an emulator for it. For other games though Wine and Cedega have solved these problems until companies start recognizing Linux as a valid OS and making their games Linux compatable.

You make it sound as if every game work in cedega.
I totaly understand why game developers don't make games for linux, until about 2 years ago there where almost just programmers using linux. And still most gamers aren't interested in computers on a level that they deside that they won't to use linux. And even if linux got a bigger share of the market today than 8 years ago it is still to small market to spend money on. I would rather spend money on macintosh users if I where a companie.
I think there are more linux users that dual-boot to play games than there are those who skippes a game if it is a game they really wan't.

Banished to General, with the rest of this troll happy drivel.

A fair few games do work okay in Cedega. If more game developers used OpenGL rather than DirectX then writing linux ports would be easy, that's where the big difference is.

You can say that again!
BTW is there any benefit to DX rather than using OGL?
They are both layers that reside between the graphical adapter and the application.
In DX's case I see it that the layers would be APP<->DX<->Driver<->Card.
And in OGL, since OGL is hardware instructions(right?) : APP<->Driver<->Card.
Now who's better?
Any fancy new texture rendering stuff new in DX and not found in GLX?
I don't think so.

Well heres the detailed differences,

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/art...rticle1775.asp

Very boring actually unless you're a game programmer or. 3d graphics designer, but basically the gist is, directx appears to finally be catching up with opengl and for programmers it can offer quick and dirty solutions for their problems. Opengl seems to be slower on windows by default.(probably not by accident) Chances are you'll only notice this if you play a game that has both directx and opengl implementation(such as quake2) with show fps on.

It seems that Windows vista going to be shipped with a crippled version opengl. So I guess the solution is to never use windows default drivers.Which every gamer probably knows anyway.

On what planet do you live then?
First of all Windows is already the leading desktop OS and doesn't do to bad in the server world as well. Believe me, I don't like the fact, but you just have to face reality.
Second, opening the windows base code wouldn't make windows any better. You have to keep in mind that the windows platform keeps it's backward compatibility wich implies support for win16 and very old DOS code. This is a very complex thing and I sincerily doubt if open-sourcing the system would make anyone willing to improve that pile of shit, because that is one of the things that create the code complexity that has leaded to the buggyness of the system.

So please if you don't have a clue on this subject, don't give us all this crap. FUD about linux is bad for the community, but FUD about windows is even worse! If you like linux, act as an adult.

Did you actually read that article or are you just bashing without reading like most people will probably do?

The 512mb requirement is born of the Windows Vista Ready (You know like the laptops that come with the sticker that says "Designed for Windows XP" its the same exact thing) Besdes 512mb of ram is pretty much becoming the norm today. Its pretty cheap at that too.

I'm not bashing Windows no, I use Windows XP on my laptop and happen to like it quite a bit, I've never had a problem with stability or viruses or anything, but the recommended amount of RAM for XP is 128, minimum 64, and making the jump to 512 seems like a big one and seems like computers are going to be pushed harder just to run the operating system, not to mention anything else.

yeah the "Recommended" for Windows XP is 128 but even that is not enough. At the very least I never recommend less then 256 for XP. 512mb is not a big jump though. remember when Windows XP came out 512mb of ram was like $100 or more. Now 512mb of ram is like $40 bucks a lot more affordable. There are a lot of factors when MS determines the Windows Ready specs.. Cost is a lot of it.

In responce to DOOM 3 being on Linux.

Did anyone else noticed it cost $80? Until the price of games goes down on games made for Linux i'll stick to my windows box for that.

C'mon, we lost track of the original topic yonks ago! Keep up

So buy the windows version, then download the native executable.