would you drop windows if Linux had full game support?

[jaggysnake57]

Ok let me get this out of the way......KEEP IT MATURE AND LET THIS DESCEND INTO A PISSING CONTEST!

 

the question is simple, if linux had support of ALL pc games on all clients, so ubi( :angry: ) origins and steam, BUT everything else remained the same would you ditch windows and run lLinux exclusivly.  To clarify any other issues that may exist have not been changed only game support everything else is exactly the way it is right now.

 

sound off and give reasons too and remember keep it civil

[jurian123]

I have something against linux and dont actually know why. But i hate it. I have linux running in a virtual machine.

[Tagiau]

If linux had game support and adobe creative cloud, it would become my daily driver. But the adobe part is bullshit because more people use linux than chromeos and chrome os is getting support. 

[H4X3R]

Used it, prefer windows. 

[Agent181]

If it had more than game and program support then hell yea.

[elecxonica]

If it had game AND creative cloud support, probably.

[sou100mit]

Just love linux...windows is there only for games for me.

[Sauron]

I'd switch instantly. Gmes are literally the only realon I still use windows.

[DanTheMuffinMan]

I've used several flavors of Linux (Ubuntu, CentOS, Mint) and sure, there are some nice features, but from my experience none of them are worth losing Windows for. I have a little experience with OSX as well, and would take Linux over that, but Windows would still remain my main OS even if Linux could support every game and program Windows does.

 

From my time with Linux, modern Windows just has way better compatibility and almost never crashes. Maybe I'm doing Linux wrong but it seems every time I try to do anything, something freezes, or crashes, or isn't the exact right version to run on my exact distro, etc etc. So for me Windows 7/8 > Linux > Windows Vista/XP > OSX

Although thank god for Linux, computer technology wouldn't have come this far nearly as fast without it, praise Linus Torvalds!

[ShadowCaptain]

Maybe because its free etc

 

though I am honestly not a massive fan of Linux either, I think I would have to learn an awful lot

 

Also it might not support all of my other software and peripherals so not JUST game support would be required 

[UnknownEngineer]

I think I would stick to windows, personally I think the UI is easier to use. I just feel as if I can achieve more with windows, although I know that I can do things with Linux that are unimaginable for windows ATM.

I just don't like typing commands over pressing buttons...

[Geekazoid]

Used it, prefer windows.

Same.

[SMR]

At home i would change to Linux if my games and my editing softwares would work. At job I have a windows laptop and a Linus VM. I'm a developer.

[theodoro]

Used linux for an old computer and i like it. However windows is the best OS  for me   because it's MUCH better for multy-monitor setup (again, for me) and i find windows easier to use. 
With that said, i have to say that i am getting windows for free, because i am a student, but in case i had to pay for windows, i would really consider using linux. 

[Markmjb]

I'm @ my first year of an IT study,so there would also be problems like not being able to run visual studio, which at this point in my study, is still required.

Also a windows license is actually free because of Microsoft approach of "let's give everything free to students, so they get used to it and wanna use it the rest of their lives"

I would love an computer that has the compatibility for software like windows, the compatibility for hardware like linux and the ease of use of a mac.

Because of the small user-base it has compared to windows, and the kinda steep learning curve for the average user to be using Linux, it will probably only be used by people who are really into IT.

But to answer your question: Yes, it's on my IT-things-to-do-list to improve my Linux-knowledge (only used it once when I had some old hardware I wanted to use) but that List is getting way too long atm <_<

 

 

[unijab]

I am at about 60% Linux now, and it's gonna be increasing soon.

I have 6 machines running Windows right now. (only 3 are physical, others are virtual)

[StareX]

Ok let me get this out of the way......KEEP IT MATURE AND LET THIS DESCEND INTO A PISSING CONTEST!

 

the question is simple, if linux had support of ALL pc games on all clients, so ubi( :angry: ) origins and steam, BUT everything else remained the same would you ditch windows and run lLinux exclusivly.  To clarify any other issues that may exist have not been changed only game support everything else is exactly the way it is right now.

 

sound off and give reasons too and remember keep it civil

 

 

If  SteamOS supported Origin, ALL STEAM GAMES, ALL UBISOFT GAMES and ALL ORIGIN games and ALL OUTSIDE WORLD Games, then this would've been my primary OS.

[flibberdipper]

Windows can suck a dick. If OS X were to be made available to all PCs, even without full game support, I would kick Windows to the curb and take OS X under my wing. But I would (sadly) keep Windows for all of my games.

[Speedbird]

Yes, of course I would. Linux is superior to Windows in every single way.

[-TesseracT-]

If all games ever that has been released was supported, if you would have support for many programs, and if it would be relatively easy to use and navigate, yes.

[Diederik_Gr]

Tough one, but i probably would. Linux requires somebody that knows how the software works, and offers a great amount of freedom in return. Windows had always been a lot more simple.

[jaggysnake57]

personally no i wouldnt change .....i want an os that just works and linux is a long way off from that

[Humbug]

I would like to but gaming is just one concern. Things like installing new programs and changing drivers are easier and less tedious on windows. I would like to switch but I still haven't seen anything I can definitely say is better than windows. On the gaming front it seems clear that the situation is improving very fast thanks to Valve.

 

 

If  SteamOS supported Origin, ALL STEAM GAMES, ALL UBISOFT GAMES and ALL ORIGIN games and ALL OUTSIDE WORLD Games, then this would've been my primary OS.

steamos is not meant for desktop PCs, it's main purpose is to be bundled with steam machines to give a pseudo-console experience. It's not meant to compete with Windows. That's the job of Ubuntu, Mint etc... And all the steamos games also run on these distros.

[deathjester]

Well a few things here. The better question is if the game industry adopted OpenGL would we switch. If they adopted OpenGL then you could run that on Windows 7 (just like Mantle runs on Win 7), 8 or whatever and not have to pay the continual MS tax for games for minor improvements and first party software that sucks and we don't use anyways. If MS wanted us to adopt a new OS? They would have to actually make improvements we want, or make first party software worth a damn or really improve the kernel where it saw huge gains gaming. Seeing they want more bloat and more cloud integration crap? I don't see performance going up much past 8.1 in 10 on kernel.

 

If Steam OS has better game performance than Win 7 (which it most likely would since it would have no bloat and be like a damn Archlinux install) I would partition my HD and multiboot if a game needed the performance.

 

Also the question is kind of off because if you are using a tablet or a Chromebook, android phone and not a MS tablet etc? You are already using a customized linux, so damn near everyone already interacts with Linux on a daily basis.

 

The ONLY thing that makes Windows relevant is third party software. Those third parties could go to linux. If people switched to linux they would. If MS continues with their BS and wants to make Windows 10 a subscription fee and or keeps withholding API and continues to put out shorter releases and charge us more? That just might happen. There is no way in hell I am paying a subscription fee for an OS that doesn't make one decent first party program and lets Steam do all the work as far as improving gaming with things like Big Picture mode and in house streaming, and also screws me out of multiplat titles by paying devs to keep or delay a game off PC like Tomb Raider.

 

MS refused to allow even the Xbox controller to work in Metro on a PC which is downright pathetic. They gave us a retarded UI that could have been useful for ONE THING outside a touchscreen and then denied their users that.

 

I had to use this to get it to work for a family member. Once again THIRD PARTY doing things for MS like Classic Shell. Third party can do that on another OS. 

 

http://xbstart.info/download.htm

 

Also? If I did not PC Game? I would already be Linux/Hackintosh only. Gaming is literally the only reason I continue to buy these mediocre OS's from MS, and I will only purchase another OS from MS if I am absolutely forced to with a gun to my head to PC Game. If that happens? Nvidia can kiss my ass for not taking Mantle and they probably also would refuse to work on a new OpenGL if that would happen, so Nvidia would literally never get my money again.

 

Halo 5 is not going to make me buy Windows 10. Neither will the most likely inevitable Tomb Raider as a Windows 10 exclusive now that MS is publishing it. MS couldn't throw in ANY game to make me pay a sub fee. The entire game industry would have to ignore OpenGL for me to pay a sub fee on Windows 10 and all adopt DX 12.

[razor767]

If it also supports all my peripherals and maybe some other software (or have good alternatives) then probably.