Buying a computer. Wich OS?
Community Forums/General Help/Buying a computer. Wich OS?
| ||
| I've been away from the computer seen for awhile. Feel free to recomend an OS and a computer model-system. Thanks. |
| ||
| Depends what you want to do. Do you want to develop cross-platform? I use an iMac which are very nice machines and great for Blitz development... and have it triple-booting with Windows Vista and Kubuntu Linux. I also run Parallels Desktop to use Vista and Mac side by side. If I were buying a new computer I'd get an iMac, maybe the 27 or whatever inch size the big one is - 2560xsomething resolution. |
| ||
| Windows. |
| ||
| ImaginaryHuman, sounds like what I need. |
| ||
| BTW: using a cell with no keyboard. so bear with me. |
| ||
| I'd probably get a PC with win7 and hackintosh it, since thats pretty easy to do these days. That way you get a decent PC and mac that faster then most macs out there at a fraction of the price. It really depends on your budget and what you use your computer for though. Just getting a mac isn't a bad idea either, just a decent spec one with good GPU tends to be too expensive. |
| ||
| Personally, I'm enjoying Windows 7 a lot. As far as hardware goes (all prices this point forward are in canadian currency), I would go for the Intel LGA1366 platform. The ASUS P6X58D is one mean motherboard right now, but can be a bit pricey. It's main advantages are the 3 PCI-e x16 ports, USB 3.0 onboard support, SATA 6Gb/s and DDR3. (around 275$) As far as the CPU goes, you can get the Intel Core i7 930 Quad Core at a reasonable price. (around 300$) For RAM, any triple 2GB of relatively good quality could fit the bill (Corsair XMS3 for example). (around 190$) Graphics card, I always been a nVidia fan, but lately the 5870 is getting a lot of attention and great benchmarks, as well as less noisy and less heat and less power hungry. (around 440$) For drives, if you have extra cash, now would be a great time to go SSD for your OS and commonly use programs/games. The Intel X25-M 80GB is a good buy. (around 240$) Afterward, for data storage, a single WD 1TB drive should suffice. (around 100$) This would make a really powerful rig for ~1550$ (OS, case and accessories excluded). Off-topic: I think your sig is a bit on the long side :/ |
| ||
| I got a Mac Mini last time, switching from XP. I'm very pleased with it. |
| ||
| One OS is not enough, since no single OS can do all you need as a game developer. I would install Windows XP 32-bit, Debian, Windows 7 64-bit. You'll need 1 partition for each OS (make sure you make extended partitions, since you can have only 4 primary partitons), 1 swap partition for Debian (size: same as your RAM), and 1-2 data partitions (if you want one data partition as ext4 and one as NTFS). |
| ||
| Of course you should choose a free software OS. A GNU/Linux is good, and I think Ubuntu is probably the easiest. Windows is for noobs and/or slaves. My sister bought a Windows 7 mini-laptop. What a horrible user experience. Everything is so fu**ing slow. |
| ||
| Adriant, Hackintosh? |
| ||
| I think Ubuntu is probably the easiest Ubuntu is the hardest Linux of all, since you need to install many drivers manually and using hacks (like Envy for nvidia drivers), and it also gets messed up with raid partitions (had to use opensuse on my server because ubuntu could not get the drive ID's in right order).Debian installs without any efforts and runs also Windows programs via WINE the best, plus it supports the most hardware of all Linux versions. |
| ||
| Gosse Great Stuff! Sig from Beta testing days. Look me up in Bmax credits. |
| ||
| Ubuntu is the hardest Linux of all, since you need to install many drivers manually and using hacks (like Envy for nvidia drivers) No, you don't have to use hacks like Envy. But yeah, Debian is good too, it's just that I've never used it. |
| ||
| If you're going to develop using Blitz, I would recommend you a windows machine. If you've been outside the computer sciencies for a while now, I would recommend not to get any linux distro. Also, Mac are great computers but a bit too closed in some areas. After the latest Apple move on iPhone development, I feel Apple are even worse than Windows regarding monopolitic tactics. Said that, Windows 7 is a very good OS, very responsve, easy to install and run and it gives you access to the wider range of compilers, languges and dev tools. |
| ||
| If you've been outside the computer sciencies for a while now, I would recommend not to get any linux distro. That's false. GNU/Linux is easier to use than Windows c***. You don't have to worry about virus scanners, firewalls, "adware removals", or updating any program separately. |
| ||
| GNU/Linux is easier to use than Windows c***. I can't believe that with a straight face you're recommending Linux to somebody who has been 'out of the loop' for years. You don't have to worry about virus scanners, firewalls, "adware removals", or updating any program separately. What you DO have to worry about, is having to jump through flaming hoops, whilst juggling chainsaws, to get anything to work right.Get Windows 7. Ignore Captain Freedom, above. |
| ||
| GO GFK! What do you think about 4 years now? |
| ||
| I almost went back to the PC world and wanted to purchase a fanless machine from SilentMaxx. But then, in the last moment, I reconsidered and bought a 27" Quad Core iMac last week. I prefer beautiful hardware over cheap or ugly looking PC boxes - and except for a few unique, hand crafted PCs out there, Apple is the only company that sells nice designs and machines that even -feel- nice when you touch them. "Das Auge ißt mit", as the German saying goes. Also, purely from a bang-per-buck perspective, the 27" Quad Core iMac currently is unbeatable. The power of a Mac Pro squeezed into a thin 27" display (and a very good one, by the way). What else do you want? And you don't have to run Mac OS X on it. 64-Bit Windows and 64-Bit Linux run awesome on Macs. Talking about the OS: If you do not have any specific software needs, go with an Open Source platform and do invest into proprietary software. Ubuntu Linux has come a long way and has become a great operating system, both on the server and the desktop. It's almost as user friendly as Mac OS X and more versatile (because of its open nature) than Windows. So, a 27" iMac with 64-Bit Ubuntu 10.04 on it should give you the best of all worlds. :) |
| ||
| I can't believe that with a straight face you're recommending Linux to somebody who has been 'out of the loop' for years. People who have been out of the loop for years are the PERFECT target audience for a platform like Ubuntu 9.10/10.04. They have no financial investments in the proprietary world. The start from scratch and are open to anything new. Have you even looked at Ubuntu in the last years? Preferably on completely compatible hardware, like, let's say, ANY Macintosh computer built in the last four years? Ubuntu runs as well on a Mac as Mac OS X itself does. There are no drivers that you need to install manually. The OS "just works". If you follow the simple rule to purchase only hardware that is compatible with Linux, you will nowadays have an easy life on that platform. And you will save a LOT of money. So, yes, especially for those people without legacy software and hardware, Linux is the perfect choice. |
| ||
| Ubuntu is the hardest Linux of all How on earth did you figure that!? I guess you have never used fedora, suse or gentoo :D.I reccommend a dual boot of windows and a 'friendly' linux (like ubuntu or debian). Although if you have no dependency on windows (eg a program you HAVE to use) then i would just go with the Linux (as the wine layer can run a lot (but by no means all) of windows stuff anyway) |
| ||
| It would be easier to make recommendations if we knew your budget and all intended uses for the computer. If price is not an issue, 27 inch iMac + Windows 7 + Linux (e.g. Ubuntu or Debian) is a very good option for many uses. OTOH, a custom PC (with Ati graphics for 3x Eyefinity goodness!) is a fine option that can be had for less money. Are you even looking for a desktop computer or would a laptop match your needs better? If you follow the simple rule to purchase only hardware that is compatible with Linux, you will nowadays have an easy life on that platform. And you will save a LOT of money. The GPU is about the only piece of normal hardware that may in some cases not work automatically on most modern Linux distros. More exotic hardware, like graphics tablets, may need pre-planning. Ubuntu is the hardest Linux of all Ubuntu is hard (by Linux standards) for control freaks who need to customize everything. For them something like Debian is the way to go or perhaps Gentoo. |
| ||
| How on earth did you figure that!? I guess you have never used fedora, suse or gentoo :D. I have used unix, sinix, minix, aix, knoppix, slackware, redhat, fedora, opensuse, ubuntu, mint, debian, pclinuxos, freebsd, dos, win3, win95, xp, vista, win7, vms, bs2000, os/2, os/400, osx, amigaos, vic20, c64, and many more. Ubuntu is hard (by Linux standards) for control freaks who need to customize everything. That may be true, but also normal users who just want something to work (like video drivers), find Debian easier. In that sense Ubuntu vs Debian is like Win7 vs XP. XP just does what you want and how you want, while Win7 tells you how you should work and even then doesn't give you all things you need (like missing info from explorer: attributes, file size, or something (forgot which)). |
| ||
| That may be true, but also normal users who just want something to work (like video drivers), find Debian easier. If you need a custom version of free drivers, I agree, but Ubuntu usually works better out of the box. Proprietary video drivers can also be very easily installed. The problem with Debian is that it takes ages to make it look and work anywhere as good as Ubuntu. |
| ||
| I have tried most of those too, and the only ones that work for out of the box the way I want with no problems on all my machines are Debian and Ubuntu. But thats the good thing about linux, they are different enough to suit everyone. Multiple platforms under one (largely) compatible and open umbrella. Ubuntu is hard (by Linux standards) for control freaks who need to customize everything. I would agree with that, but "easy" to me means someone who neither wants or knows how to configure anything, they just want to load it up and go.Still without decending into wrangling over "my os is better than your os!" I reccomend he still try all the latest main ones, including Windows (if possible without having to pay, ie on a friends machine) and see what is most suitable. |
| ||
| Still without decending into wrangling over "my os is better than your os!" I reccomend he try all the latest main ones, including Windows (if possible without having to pay, ie on a friends machine) and see what is most suitable. +1 LiveCDs are a great way to test drive OSes. There's supposed to be those for Windows and OS X, too, but I haven't tried any. |
| ||
| The problem with Debian is that it takes ages to make it look and work anywhere as good as Ubuntu. That's also something which is comparable to XP vs Win7. In XP, I don't want any fancy UI, but I just want the fastest and lowest resource eating UI, so I use Windows 2000 theme.I see absolutely no benefit to have OpenGL run 20% slower when using Aero theme, besides I think it looks ugly since I like plain colors and straight corners (like AmigaOS 3). |
| ||
| Wow, digesting. Price? About $1200-1500 if possible. |
| ||
| People who have been out of the loop for years are the PERFECT target audience for a platform like Ubuntu 9.10/10.04. Because such people will have forgotten how good Windows is and that'll help Linux look better than it actually is? Have you even looked at Ubuntu in the last years? Yes, about six weeks ago and its still as crap as ever. Preferably on completely compatible hardware, like, let's say, ANY Macintosh computer built in the last four years? If I had a Mac I'd use MacOS. What you are suggesting is tantamount to leaving the Ferrari in the garage and going to work on a unicycle. If you follow the simple rule to purchase only hardware that is compatible with Linux, you will nowadays have an easy life on that platform. And you will save a LOT of money. ...alternatively I can just use Windows and *everything* works without having to guess at what will work and what won't? So, yes, especially for those people without legacy software and hardware, Linux is the perfect choice. So in order to "save a LOT of money", I have to pay for an entirely new PC that Linux is going to actually have a cat in hell's chance of working properly on? Righto. |
| ||
| Yes, about six weeks ago and its still as crap as ever. Out of curiosity, which version of Ubuntu and on what kind of hardware? Edit: Or do you mean that it worked without bugs, but was just overall crap? In that case, I'd really appreciate it if you elaborated. |
| ||
| I don't think GfK would ever install it; no, he just complains without actually trying. |
| ||
| I don't think GfK would ever install it; no, he just complains without actually trying. I still have Ubuntu 9.10 installed. Bloody know-all. Want a picture? |
| ||
| I still have Ubuntu 9.10 installed. Bloody know-all. Want a picture? Quite satisfied without one. |
| ||
| I've used Linux in the last years for many projects. 5 years ago I was using RedHat linux 8, then Fedora, then Debian and latest one Ubuntu. they're very good OS (My favourite is Kubuntu) Said that. If you don't want to invest time in a terminal window just to make things work Linux is still not what you're looking for. If you want a nice computer, ym personal advice, get a Vaio with Windows 7. Linux is great, but it has a long path to walk still IMHO to be a solid desktop OS. EDIT: and I still use Kubuntu in my old laptop. |
| ||
| You don't have to worry about virus scanners, firewalls, "adware removals", or updating any program separately. I don't worry about those things anyway. |
| ||
| Adriant, Hackintosh? Keep in mind a hackintosh is very hardware specific. A hackintosh is a normal PC that has a hacked version of OSX running on it. Unfortunately, it is very picky about the hardware it can be run on. But yeah, Debian is good too, it's just that I've never used it. So Debian is good although you admit you have never used it? I am glad to see you finally being honest and admitting that you have no idea or experience with what you are talking about. |
| ||
| The macbooks are pretty nice machines and you can install win 7 very easily through boot camp (and it's a proper install not a virtual machine) and also linux. If you know someone that works for apple, even a friend of a friend they can get you a 15% discount. |
| ||
| Get a macbook white 2 gig model, its really superb and you can hook it up to another monitor so you got dual-screen development right there... quite superb. |
| ||
| You don't have to worry about virus scanners, firewalls, "adware removals", or updating any program separately. That's ridiculous. |
| ||
| That's ridiculous. No, it's a fact. So Debian is good although you admit you have never used it? I am glad to see you finally being honest and admitting that you have no idea or experience with what you are talking about. I know Ferrari is good, even though I've never driven one. Ubuntu is based on Debian, but Debian is even more stable, and I know people who've recommended it. |
| ||
| No, it's a fact. Well, techinically, yes of course you're right that nobody ever (even with Windows etc.) NEEDS to WORRY about any of the things you've mentioned, it's like saying one needn't worry about plane crashes or cancer. However, to drop the pedantry, since such comments do not do much to help anyone (especially the OP), let's just consider that, unless you are runnning an OS that is not connected to any external data source, then firewalls, anti-malware precautions and upgrading of 3rd paryty software is every bit as important, since otherwise there are risks of infection/malware, and the point regarding 3rd party software upgrades is obvious, it is adviseable to keep software up to date, generally speaking, so why imply that it needn't (or that it somehow, magically upgrades itself (without network access, since there's no need for firewalls?)? To be of more help in these treads, you should, instead of just saying "Oh Debian doesn' make you a slave like microsoft does", try actually giving some information that will be valuable and useful |
| ||
| I've used Windows 98, 2000, EP, Vista, Windows 7; Ubuntu 7.??, 8.40, 9.04, 9.10 and a Mac. Ubuntu is the best way to go if you ask me. It is really stable and fast. Windows wouldn't be bad in dual boot either. I would recomend staying away from Macs. They are not only more costly (you can get a computer that is just as good for half the price), they ave less free software. (Not to mention a few viruses too. Even more are coming out every day). |
| ||
| However, to drop the pedantry, since such comments do not do much to help anyone (especially the OP), let's just consider that, unless you are runnning an OS that is not connected to any external data source, then firewalls, anti-malware precautions and upgrading of 3rd paryty software is every bit as important, since otherwise there are risks of infection/malware, and the point regarding 3rd party software upgrades is obvious, it is adviseable to keep software up to date, generally speaking, so why imply that it needn't (or that it somehow, magically upgrades itself (without network access, since there's no need for firewalls?)? You should write "a bit" shorter sentences. Anyway, I didn't suggest not to update, I said that you don't need to update *every single application* separately in Debian. You can update them all with a single click or automatically etc. |
| ||
| I'm finding all of this very usefull. Thanks. |
   |