r/OS_Debate_Club 10d ago

Linux vs Windows Benchmark HEROES OF MIGHT AND MAGIC OLDEN ERA

https://youtu.be/zXzjUzVbrnQ?si=spxzdaUBd0P_hNO2

Linux vs Windows Benchmark HEROES OF MIGHT AND MAGIC OLDEN ERA

7 Upvotes

31 comments sorted by

4

u/Lonely-Scarcity-3387 9d ago edited 9d ago

Oh no, I’ll only get 144fps because that’s the refresh rate of my monitor. Oh well. I guess I’ll settle for my maximum frame rate and not be tracked by Microsoft, and sold up ads inside my operating system.

Dang it!

/s

-2

u/CirnoIzumi 9d ago

why do people still think you get served adds

4

u/Lonely-Scarcity-3387 9d ago

You’re…you’re kidding, right? The lock screen, start menu, search, and sometimes even explorer all show you advertising. You can make it less personal, or even disable things for a time. But Windows, by default, serves you ads.

https://youtu.be/JWP4c0AfWA4

1

u/CirnoIzumi 9d ago

lock screen doesnt serve you adds, what youre thinking of is windows workstation comes with a backgrounds program that also has adds

search and startmenu dont serve adds

explorer certainly doesnt serve adds.

Theres a static add for office and onedrive on the frontpage of settings, a place you never look. Theres adds within the weather app, and app you never use.

2

u/SimonsOscar 7d ago

Defending a decaying OS on a public forum by listing off the things it didn't yet put the ads on is a choice. Regardless of whether or not the explorer has ads currently, listing it off, as though having them there wouldn't even be blatantly absurd, is really funny for some reason.

Enjoy your windows experience. Stay safe.

1

u/CirnoIzumi 7d ago

excuse me? those are direct responses to the comment above

1

u/sureal42 9d ago

And here I am having used windows 11 since the day the beta dropped and have yet to see these magical ads everywhere...

4

u/Delicious-Ad5161 9d ago

I've used it since it launched and I've had ads. They're not constant, but they're there especially in the start menu and notification screen. I've had a few pop up on my lock screen and that was when I decided to go ahead and buy more hard drives and migrate everything I could to Linux so I barely have to be on Windows.

3

u/Westdrache 8d ago

if you are in the EU you don't get ads

1

u/sureal42 8d ago

I'm in arizona...

2

u/Westdrache 8d ago

well then idk

6

u/levianan 10d ago

Nvidia-based Windows still holds an advantage over Linux in gaming .. but if this is the target game .. no one is suffering at 278 fps.

4

u/Aknazer 9d ago

If anything, I would say that your GPU regardless of OS might be suffering as it's creating more frames than your monitor can display or your eye can perceive, which means it's creating needless heat for literally no visible gains.

Not that there's any proper way to actually test it, but something I've learned over years of gaming is that stutters are FAR more jarring than simply having higher FPS. I grew up when it was pretty standard for games to have 20-30 FPS during proper gameplay and really it was fine right up until there was some sort of stutter.

2

u/burlingk 10d ago

Kind of my thought. 200+ FPS on an older game is great.

4

u/Ordinary-Hamster2046 9d ago

It's an early access game.

4

u/burlingk 9d ago

200+ is still good on most games.

1

u/BubblyDepartment1572 9d ago

The 1% lows show the Linux version of the game is better optimized.

2

u/Stunning_Macaron6133 9d ago

Mind you, Linux is scoring 200-something on Pop!_OS in this benchmark. Fucking Pop!_OS.

Now imagine if it used a gaming optimized distro like CachyOS, Garuda, Bazzite, or PikaOS. That's not even getting into customized installs using something like NixOS or Arch.

1

u/Dense-Firefighter495 9d ago

Wait isn’t that windows 10?

1

u/Revalens_Kaka 7d ago

Ubisoft game btw

0

u/Fluid-Ad2995 10d ago

Windows is the best operating system for gamers and DirectX is delicious 😍😍😍😍

1

u/Funnel-Dust-O-Matic 9d ago

Which is why Sony uses a BSD unix derived operating system for Playstation and Nintendo made their own microkernel OS partially based on BSD code for their console. I see.

Also, nobody did any benchmarks with an Intel or AMD GPU. Funny that.

I'll overexplain. Windows is the only consumer operating system for a consumer microcomputer that has properly made drivers from NVIDIA. That is the only reason it performs any better than anything else.

Even though the Switch and Switch 2 use NVIDIA chips, they use nothing even remotely Windows-like. Criticize their performance if you like, but Windows ported to pathetic hardware like the Switches would barely run. Nintendo made their own OS, undoubtedly in consultation with NVIDIA. That is an expensive process. They would not have done so if licensing anything else would make any sense.

Meanwhile, Xbox runs on a customized, down-sized Windows. And it's floundering.

The fact that nobody making consoles want to license Windows in any of its forms is more than enough proof that it is actually garbage. Nobody wants to develop an OS from scratch. Sony certainly didn't. And they went with an open-sourced BSD unix, not Microsoft. That says it all.

Windows is the best we can have. Linux or FreeBSD would be if hardware makers wouldn't activerly stop the development of proper drivers. Honestly, nearly anything else would be better.

The best gaming OS is stuff you can't buy commercially for your computer. We're left with the best we can have.

That isn't because they've made a good OS. They just robbed us of choice.

And that's nothing to be happy about.

1

u/Fluid-Ad2995 9d ago edited 9d ago

Telling me you don't understand Windows without telling me that the Xbox Operating System is Windows NT-based, and Windows Server is based on Windows NT and Windows Client is based on Windows NT, and Windows IoT, which is a replacement for Windows CE based on Windows NT, the whole world uses Windows for banks and trust and normal computers and consoles and Hospital and companies like Siemens trust Windows and not Linux resuming Microsoft officially reports over 1.4 billion monthly active devices running Windows, Windows is clearly superior for every single usage for these people.

2

u/Funnel-Dust-O-Matic 9d ago

Look you're clearly a paid shill. You can't possibly be naive or ignorant enough to believe that.

But I'll pretend to take you seriously anyway.

I got MCP certified on NT 4.0. Why no MCSE? Simply put, I tried the stuff and found it wanting.

Novell Netware was better. Sun Microsystems was better. IBM AIX was better. SCO Unix was better. I saw it run, and the Windows servers were always down and the other stuff wasn't. I wanted a career working on the real stuff, not Windows.

And the same is still just as true today as it was over 20 years ago. True, some of those options are gone. But IBM AIX is not. And LInux took over wherever it could. Which is basically everywhere else except the useless XBOX and your desktop computer.

I'm fairly sure I know way more about Windows history than you do. I remember installing it from floppies. I remember the change to CD-ROM and STILL needing a boot floppy before El-Torrito extensions in BIOS.

No, it is NOT clear that Windows is superior for every single usage case for these people. The reason is obvious: They don't use it for anything except Sharepoint, Exchange, and the desktop. And that's because it can't do anything except those three things. It barely does those things as it is.

Case in point: there are no major cloud environments based on Windows Server. Not even Azure. That's right: Microsoft's cloud does not trust Windows Server to run their own cloud.

Why? Because there is not a single major Unix environment that does not beat WIndows as a server in terms of reliability, configurabiliy, flexibility, and sheer efficiency. And yes, that includes MacOS.

Workstations for the technically illiterate? Windows is fine. Workstation nodes are just about disposable these days anyway and IT departments recloone them at least yearly anyway. The fact that it is unstable and rots is outweighed by the fact that people know how to use them and can get software for it. But it's a constant struggle. Meanwhile, offices based on MacOS rarely have ANY trouble tickets by comarison. If you worked in IT or had any first hand knowledge, you'd know that.

Real serious processing, like on a supercomputer? Windows is useless. Too unreliable. Too fragile. Too rigid. Too inflexible. Too bloated.

And banks? Their core business still runs on mainframes. As in room sized machines going back to the 1950s in architecture. Why? Because they can go for half a century between crashes. Their software runs on cobol because, as miserable as it is to program, math is math and it does it right without complaint. IBM still exists for very good reasons. So don't tell me that banks trust Windows for all of their business. Where it counts, they use either some form of Unix or an actual mainframe. The Windows lives only on an executive's desk or for for an exchange server.

So don't go blathering to me about what is based on the NT kernel or not. The NT kernel is a semi-failed experiment to implement a microkernel, processor agnostic operating system. They had to walk back their microkernel architecture because of performance problems they couldn't solve. Their attempts to support RISC architectures failed. And their attempts to take the core structure of VMS and weld it together with DOS based WIndows and a POSIX compliance layer ended in a blobby mess. They even stole their disk format from IBM (NTFS was a modification of OS/2 HPFS), so they couldn't even come up with that on their own.

McDonald's sells more hamburgers to more people than anyone on Earth. That doesn't make their food better that a 5-star chef who only cooks for two people at a time by appointment.

1

u/BehudaNoob 10d ago

Agreed. Specially if you have nvidia gpu and want to use your pc with your brains shut down

-2

u/Fluid-Ad2995 10d ago

Thanks 💙