Bloodline Champions

[Acid_Snake]

Linux has to be compatible with Windows

I hate that too

is not making that OS compatible with closed source sw

I think you misinterpreted what I meant, I wasn't talking about Linux-Windows compatibility, what I meant was that if you're a software company and you are to develop a software for Linux it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be OSS, that's just a choice.
I for example use gnome-baker or Nero Linux depending on what I need.
I hate discussions so lets get back on topic.

Shader Model 3

how can I check for this? I haven't use Windows in a while and cant remember if dxdiag did the trick, also isn't this hardware related?

Advertising

[m0skit0]

what I meant was that if you're a software company and you are to develop a software for Linux it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be OSS, that's just a choice.

Of course! But most ol' Linux users like me, will always look for a free software (not to be confused with open-source ) alternative. So maybe this is why CSS doesn't like to invest in Linux, besides its more reduced market than Windows (I'm talking about end-user here). I'm always looking for a free software alternative

how can I check for this? I haven't use Windows in a while and cant remember if dxdiag did the trick, also isn't this hardware related?

dxdiag should tell you this, and yes, this is hardware-related. Means your video-card's GPU supports Shader 3.0 by hardware.

Advertising

[Acid_Snake]

free software (not to be confused with open-source )

This is why I prefer the Spanish terms "Software Libre" and "Software Gratis"

its more reduced market than Windows

because while they have 1000 devs working on 1000 programs that do the same thing, we have 1000 devs working on the same program, ultimately increasing quality.

[m0skit0]

"Free" is not free as "no money", but "free" as in "freedom". Free software doesn't mean you don't pay for it. It's not "software gratis", it's "software libre". On the other hand, open-source software is another concept: it's simply software that you can access its source code (software de código abierto). This doesn't mean that you can redistribute your modifications. This depends on which OOS license is applied.

[Acid_Snake]

Free software doesn't mean you don't pay for it

I'm a noob but not that much
I believe I don't have shader model at all, my graphics card is a generic intel integrated card. That's why I prefer consoles for gaming (you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility and a new one doesn't come every year)

[m0skit0]

I believe I don't have shader model at all, my graphics card is a generic intel integrated card

Integrated doesn't tell you anything about shaders (check this).

That's why I prefer consoles for gaming (you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility and a new one doesn't come every year)

Meh. This is how personal computers were before IBM PC came into play. Consoles are anachronic for 21st century. And they suck:

• Closed hardware: no modification possible ever
• Closed software: no modification possible ever
• Closed development: you can't develop your own software for that machine without paying very high development fees
• One-use only: you can only use that hardware for what the vendor chooses. If you want to do anything outside this, you might get into legal action trouble
• Closed standards: even if software and hardware are closed, companies making consoles always use non-standard, exotic hardware architectures which documentation is non-existent publicly, which highly difficults any attempt to break this security systems
• Legal problems: you can get sued by a very big corporation and even go to jail if you attempt to circumvent anything of the previous
• Vendor lock-in: you only get the software/hardware the vendor chooses, and, the most important part: at the price he chooses. Being at the hands of a big corporation that doesn't give a **** about its customers -like Microsoft or Sony- is worst thing that can happen to you as a customer. This is know very well in business-to-business relationships.
• Limited life-span: once a console gets out of "fashion", no further software is developed for that platform, and since no hardware/software upgrades are possible, it becomes a static platform that has no further use
• Useless for development: you can't develop/create anything using only a console, even if it was not closed to development. They're a single-purpose devices (what a waste).
• Prevents games advance: since consoles are hardware-locked, the software developed will reach its peak at a given moment, and from there on, it will also limit other independent platforms by its technology. For example: PCs nowadays are way more powerful and can deliver much better graphics than latest console generation (PS3, XBoX 360) but the PC games do not take advantage of this because big game developers who can use this power usually prefer to make the game once for all three platforms. Thus you have to make the game compatible with the least powerful platform you want it to run into (probably XBoX 360 in the example). This limits the technology used and definitely makes poor use of the power of the more powerful platform (the PC in the example).
• No customization: in a PC, you can get exactly the hardware you want, with the pieces you want. Consoles are locked on build, and you can't customize a thing. It's like buying a car and being able to change the seat's tissue or change the CD player with a new one. Who the heck would buy such a car? No one. Who buys consoles? Not me (not anymore).
• Abusive licenses: end-user must accept abusive licenses which almost deny him any right over anything the vendor can do. For example, Sony's EULA indicates that the end-user cannot get Sony into legal action for anything. Is this EULA even legal? Who cares, it's there. The vendor can suddenly say that X feature which was available until now is no longer available on the new software update. Customers cannot do a thing about this (see how Sony went unharmed after removing several features on PS3's firmware)

And btw, this is what Apple offers: PCs without the advantages of a PC. But people buy them anyway. They must have very good marketers. Until people gets technologically aware (if ever).

[nisarg_kolhe]

Shader Version(Pixel,Vertex) depends on your graphic card's DirectX compatibility, example if it has DX 10 it has Shader version 4.0, and if it has DX 11 it has Shader version 5.0!

[Acid_Snake]

Shader Version(Pixel,Vertex) depends on your graphic card's DirectX compatibility, example if it has DX 10 it has Shader version 4.0, and if it has DX 11 it has Shader version 5.0!

yes but it's a hardware feature, I once downloaded a software that would emulate pixel shader but it would run slow

see how Sony went unharmed after removing several features on PS3's firmware

I miss otherOS it was the thing that got me into Linux for the first time.

[m0skit0]

Yes, it's a hardware feature. But Direct3D (not DirectX) uses such hardware features natively, and as such, they directly relate to D3D version. Microsoft *** to make you think Shader is something D3D has, while it's not.

[Acid_Snake]

And btw, this is what Apple offers: PCs without the advantages of a PC. But people buy them anyway. They must have very good marketers. Until people gets technologically aware (if ever).

because people buy macs just to see the apple logo on it (in other words, a fashion), people don't care about hardware or software (most people don't even know about that). I bought a second hand 3-year old HP compaq with 2.6Ghz CPU and 2GB of ram for 170€ while there was also a second hand Mac with 1.7Ghz and 1Gb ram for 400€

big corporation that doesn't give a **** about its customers

that seems to be another fashion amongst corporations