Windows 10 and mustachians

[Just Joe]

The one downside I've found with Linux is that the GPU support isn't there.  Makes for poor video performance and bad battery life.

Nvidia and AMD have proprietary Linux drivers available to install.

I've had issues with AMD on Linux, and my new machine uses an Intel GPU which was also not supported (or i didn't dig deep enough).

I've not had major Intel video problems in Linux. There are Intel video drivers available in Linux Mint.

As a cheap upgrade I always throw a $50+ Nvidia GPU into a desktop. Thing do get snappier.

[RWD]

The one downside I've found with Linux is that the GPU support isn't there.  Makes for poor video performance and bad battery life.

Nvidia and AMD have proprietary Linux drivers available to install.

I've had issues with AMD on Linux, and my new machine uses an Intel GPU which was also not supported (or i didn't dig deep enough).

The AMD open source drivers are supposedly pretty good.

Your new Intel GPU should absolutely be supported. Intel has offered their GPU drivers as open source. So there is no choosing between proprietary or open source, open source is the official method. We have a couple Linux computers running modern Intel graphics and they have worked great.

[Wrenchturner]

The one downside I've found with Linux is that the GPU support isn't there.  Makes for poor video performance and bad battery life.

Nvidia and AMD have proprietary Linux drivers available to install.

I've had issues with AMD on Linux, and my new machine uses an Intel GPU which was also not supported (or i didn't dig deep enough).

The AMD open source drivers are supposedly pretty good.

Your new Intel GPU should absolutely be supported. Intel has offered their GPU drivers as open source. So there is no choosing between proprietary or open source, open source is the official method. We have a couple Linux computers running modern Intel graphics and they have worked great.

Well I was having issues about a year ago with my Intel based laptop with Xubuntu.  Glad to see the situation's improving.  My "new" laptop might be three years old in tech though, it was $400.

[RWD]

The one downside I've found with Linux is that the GPU support isn't there.  Makes for poor video performance and bad battery life.

Nvidia and AMD have proprietary Linux drivers available to install.

I've had issues with AMD on Linux, and my new machine uses an Intel GPU which was also not supported (or i didn't dig deep enough).

The AMD open source drivers are supposedly pretty good.

Your new Intel GPU should absolutely be supported. Intel has offered their GPU drivers as open source. So there is no choosing between proprietary or open source, open source is the official method. We have a couple Linux computers running modern Intel graphics and they have worked great.

Well I was having issues about a year ago with my Intel based laptop with Xubuntu.  Glad to see the situation's improving.  My "new" laptop might be three years old in tech though, it was $400.

The older of my two Linux computers with Intel graphics is running an i7-4770S which is 6 years old now. You definitely shouldn't be having any issues with 3 year old Intel chips.

[PDXTabs]

My Intel video support has been rock solid on Linux for the last 10 years and recently the open source AMD drivers have also been great (at least for my RX-470).

[BDWW]

The one downside I've found with Linux is that the GPU support isn't there.  Makes for poor video performance and bad battery life.

Nvidia and AMD have proprietary Linux drivers available to install.

I've had issues with AMD on Linux, and my new machine uses an Intel GPU which was also not supported (or i didn't dig deep enough).

Huh? Intel drivers are generally included in the kernel.

[Wrenchturner]

The one downside I've found with Linux is that the GPU support isn't there.  Makes for poor video performance and bad battery life.

Nvidia and AMD have proprietary Linux drivers available to install.

I've had issues with AMD on Linux, and my new machine uses an Intel GPU which was also not supported (or i didn't dig deep enough).

Huh? Intel drivers are generally included in the kernel.

It'll run but it couldn't play 720p without buffering, and the battery life was being eaten badly. 

[PDXTabs]

It'll run but it couldn't play 720p without buffering, and the battery life was being eaten badly.

Was this over WiFi? A lot of Linux WiFi drivers are actually bad, but again, not the Intel ones.

I'm not sure what to say about the battery life. My Dell XPS 13 running Ubuntu 18.04 gets better battery life than my MacBook Pro.

EDITed to add - when I have trouble with WiFi on a laptop I just swap out the card for a well supported card (lately Intel).

[BDWW]

Well since we're going down this derail, I'd venture he's using a non-mainstream distro like Arch,Manjaro or Gentoo. And his X-session is not actually accelerated. Not likely a driver issue, more likely a configuration issue. Same result, but it's why I only ever recommend Mint or Ubuntu to new users.

[Wrenchturner]

It'll run but it couldn't play 720p without buffering, and the battery life was being eaten badly.

Was this over WiFi? A lot of Linux WiFi drivers are actually bad, but again, not the Intel ones.

I'm not sure what to say about the battery life. My Dell XPS 13 running Ubuntu 18.04 gets better battery life than my MacBook Pro.

EDITed to add - when I have trouble with WiFi on a laptop I just swap out the card for a well supported card (lately Intel).

No it was a downloaded mp4. 

[EricEng]

The one downside I've found with Linux is that the GPU support isn't there.  Makes for poor video performance and bad battery life.

Nvidia and AMD have proprietary Linux drivers available to install.

I've had issues with AMD on Linux, and my new machine uses an Intel GPU which was also not supported (or i didn't dig deep enough).

Same here.  We use Fedora and RHEL and have all kinds of video driver issues.  We have all but given up getting 4k monitors to work that had no issue when the systems ran Win7 and Win10.  We have wasted so much time chasing down driver issues trying to find a fix, but nothing is consistent or works across all the dozens of monitors we use and variety of video cards.

[PDXTabs]

Same here.  We use Fedora and RHEL and have all kinds of video driver issues.  We have all but given up getting 4k monitors to work that had no issue when the systems ran Win7 and Win10.  We have wasted so much time chasing down driver issues trying to find a fix, but nothing is consistent or works across all the dozens of monitors we use and variety of video cards.

I have had no trouble with 4K with both Intel and open source AMD drivers on Ubuntu 18.04. I have however had trouble with RHEL being way behind mainline (that is, packages that are way too old), no Fedora experience to report.

[Syonyk]

That's certainly a long winded way of saying that 'Apple just works' is not correct.

Given that the entirety of the section you responded to was talking about issues I've had with other platforms I don't have with Apple hardware, m'kay...?

EDITed to add - when I have trouble with WiFi on a laptop I just swap out the card for a well supported card (lately Intel).

That's a pretty far jump from "Install Linux and it just works."

Graphics drivers are pretty good for desktop GPUs, iffy on many laptop GPUs, and God help you if you've got something complex like Optimus or something.  There are plenty of solutions that work until the kernel changes...

[PDXTabs]

EDITed to add - when I have trouble with WiFi on a laptop I just swap out the card for a well supported card (lately Intel).

That's a pretty far jump from "Install Linux and it just works."

That's fair, but WiFi still works better on my Linux laptops than my Macmini6,1 where at some point in some OS upgrade Apple introduced a bug that I can't fix or get any help on because it is closed source and they don't sell them anymore so they don't care. It takes 10 minutes to swap the card and you can buy them on Amazon.

Graphics drivers are pretty good for desktop GPUs, iffy on many laptop GPUs, and God help you if you've got something complex like Optimus or something.

That's also fair, but when I go to buy a computer I pick something that I know will be supported. I've been using integrated Intel graphics since the first generation core i3 and I have been nothing but happy.

EDITed to add - but older hardware (like the OP's) tends to be better supported on Linux because there has just been more time to add support. Where as the original manufacturer has had more time to lose interest.

[Just Joe]

I run Mint Linux (KDE) on Samsung, Lenovo and Dell with nary a hitch with either the GPU or wifi. Not saying that there are situations where it won't work well though.

[jim555]

The only distro I would not recommend to newbies is Arch Linux.  It is very manual and if you aren't experienced with Linux can be frustrating.  I use Manjaro, which is a Arch offshoot, but they have done a great job with making an Arch like distro without the hassles of Arch.

[Wrenchturner]

I've been impressed at how much more user friendly Linux distros can be now.  Easy install, lots of native support, no need for antivirus (?).  Even the troubleshooting hasn't been too bad.  I think it will get even more popular if Microsoft doesn't get their shit together. 

Windows has gone too far down the pretty fisher-price road, making everything annoying and toddler-styled.  Not to mention it holds your computer hostage for hours during updating.

I miss Windows 2000...

[RWD]

The only distro I would not recommend to newbies is Arch Linux.  It is very manual and if you aren't experienced with Linux can be frustrating.  I use Manjaro, which is a Arch offshoot, but they have done a great job with making an Arch like distro without the hassles of Arch.

Heh, Arch Linux is the distro I use. I agree that newcomers shouldn't start there. I have also used Slackware and Gentoo which are also both not very newbie friendly. My wife has been really happy with Fedora.

[Syonyk]

...and Gentoo which are also both not very newbie friendly.

That's an understatement.

Most people, myself (now) included, want to use a computer for something beyond building the framework one can use to then build the framework one can use to them build the rest of the framework needed to use a computer - at least until the next emerge update world breaks the world and leaves you back with the stage 1 tarball.

Ubuntu is fine, the various Redhats are fine, but... in this thread?  Arch?  Not a useful recommendation.

[RWD]

Ubuntu is fine, the various Redhats are fine, but... in this thread?  Arch?  Not a useful recommendation.

No one has recommended Arch in this thread.

[GuitarStv]

I'm a fan of Kali linux.  Mostly because every time I boot it up at work I feel like I'm going to hack the planet.

[ketchup]

I'm a fan of Kali linux.  Mostly because every time I boot it up at work I feel like I'm going to hack the planet.

Kali was useful (along with a bigass wifi antenna) a few houses ago to find which of the 63 networks in-range were WEP encrypted before the cable company could hook up our service...

[MoneyGoatee]

If I needed a server PC or if I had any kind of "server environment" then I would definitely consider Linux.  For general use, it's just not practical since there are still a lot of programs not made for it, and software companies generally don't support it by default, and if they do, the level of support is iffy. 

Btw, I just built myself a new Windows 10 PC that can play games with 4K HDR graphics, play Ultra HD Blu-rays, and run Windows-only apps such as Microsoft Access.  None of these things can be done on Linux and probably will never be. 

I wasn't mustachian enough apparently, since I bought all the parts at near retail prices, total about $2000.  But that's including the $450 monitor (4K HDR).  The video card is Nvidia GTX 2060 Super that was released just a few days before I started the build.  This build was long overdue, since it enabled me to use USB 3 and SATA III for the first time!  My previous PC lasted 10 years, and it's still running.

Ultra HD Blu-rays are a real pain to be played on a PC since the level of DRM required for it is just unprecedented.  I did it because the alternative would be much more costly: 60-inch-plus 4K HDR TV set, next-gen audio receiver, standalone UHD BD player.

[Syonyk]

So you spent a shitton of money so you can play in (or view) someone else's worlds with more pixels?  Yay?  Not my thing, for sure.

[MoneyGoatee]

So you spent a shitton of money so you can play in (or view) someone else's worlds with more pixels?  Yay?  Not my thing, for sure.

It's not just the pixels.  HDR adds a whole new level of graphical realism to colors, lightness, darkness, practically everything you see.  Ray-tracing, a way to create more realistic light reflection that is currently only supported by RTX cards, which I have, also adds another level of realism.  In a few years, everyone will be looking at graphics like this.  The $1500 tower I paid for is actually not that expensive for a high-end system.  Many hardcore PC gamers spend a whole lot more.

[Syonyk]

It's not just the pixels.  HDR adds a whole new level of graphical realism to colors, lightness, darkness, practically everything you see.  Ray-tracing, a way to create more realistic light reflection that is currently only supported by RTX cards, which I have, also adds another level of realism.  In a few years, everyone will be looking at graphics like this.  The $1500 tower I paid for is actually not that expensive for a high-end system.  Many hardcore PC gamers spend a whole lot more.

Sorry, more pixels, with more bits per pixel for more contrast.  Still doesn't change my argument in the slightest.  You're spending a lot of money to play in someone else's synthetic worlds, or watch "more realistic video" of someone else's worlds.

Also, most gamers don't spend more.  Most gamers spend enough time gaming that they don't have the money for anything exotic, and most people who do buy the insane top of the line quad SLI systems are either not using them for gaming (think compute/render boxes), or don't game much on them, because they've developed skills that are in demand enough they can buy that sort of stuff.

A "high end gaming system" of any sort is, IMO, a way to spend a lot of money to enable you to spend yet more money playing in someone else's worlds, instead of creating your own things and learning new skills.  I mean, I game a bit, but Kerbal Space Program doesn't exactly benefit from 4k, and that's a "Well, it's a dark, wet winter week..." sort of thing.

[YK-Phil]

I switched to Ubuntu eons ago and just installed the latest version on a work laptop that had Windows 10 and was testing my patience or lack thereof. I find Ubuntu, Mint, or most other versions of Linux much better than Windows for most applications. I still have to figure out how to install OneDrive and Google Drive on Ubuntu OS, that should be feasible but I have not really spent much time to see how it is done.

[ketchup]

If I needed a server PC or if I had any kind of "server environment" then I would definitely consider Linux.  For general use, it's just not practical since there are still a lot of programs not made for it, and software companies generally don't support it by default, and if they do, the level of support is iffy. 

Btw, I just built myself a new Windows 10 PC that can play games with 4K HDR graphics, play Ultra HD Blu-rays, and run Windows-only apps such as Microsoft Access.  None of these things can be done on Linux and probably will never be. 

I wasn't mustachian enough apparently, since I bought all the parts at near retail prices, total about $2000.  But that's including the $450 monitor (4K HDR).  The video card is Nvidia GTX 2060 Super that was released just a few days before I started the build.  This build was long overdue, since it enabled me to use USB 3 and SATA III for the first time!  My previous PC lasted 10 years, and it's still running.

Ultra HD Blu-rays are a real pain to be played on a PC since the level of DRM required for it is just unprecedented.  I did it because the alternative would be much more costly: 60-inch-plus 4K HDR TV set, next-gen audio receiver, standalone UHD BD player.

Yeesh, I spent around that much (a little more, actually) about two and a half years ago putting together my GF's Photoshop workstation but she uses it every day for work stuff.  I couldn't imagine spending that much on a gaming PC just for the sake of it.  You don't need to spend that much money for a PC to be useful for ten years.

Specs for the gearheads:
nCase M1
mini ITX ASROCK Z270 mobo
i7 7700K
32GB DDR4
512GB Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD
Micron 1TB SATA SSD (later replaced with a 2TB when the 1TB crapped out)
Toshiba 5TB spinning rust
Nvidia GTX 1070
Dell 4K display
Win10 Pro

It's literally the fastest Photoshop PC for any amount of money circa early 2017.  That's since been surpassed, but its current bottlenecks probably won't make it worth upgrading for another couple years.

[MoneyGoatee]

It's not just the pixels.  HDR adds a whole new level of graphical realism to colors, lightness, darkness, practically everything you see.  Ray-tracing, a way to create more realistic light reflection that is currently only supported by RTX cards, which I have, also adds another level of realism.  In a few years, everyone will be looking at graphics like this.  The $1500 tower I paid for is actually not that expensive for a high-end system.  Many hardcore PC gamers spend a whole lot more.

Sorry, more pixels, with more bits per pixel for more contrast.  Still doesn't change my argument in the slightest.  You're spending a lot of money to play in someone else's synthetic worlds, or watch "more realistic video" of someone else's worlds.

Also, most gamers don't spend more.  Most gamers spend enough time gaming that they don't have the money for anything exotic, and most people who do buy the insane top of the line quad SLI systems are either not using them for gaming (think compute/render boxes), or don't game much on them, because they've developed skills that are in demand enough they can buy that sort of stuff.

A "high end gaming system" of any sort is, IMO, a way to spend a lot of money to enable you to spend yet more money playing in someone else's worlds, instead of creating your own things and learning new skills.  I mean, I game a bit, but Kerbal Space Program doesn't exactly benefit from 4k, and that's a "Well, it's a dark, wet winter week..." sort of thing.

You need to realize having better graphics is a means.  The end purpose is to improve the effectiveness of the application that uses such graphical abilities.  Your prejudicial disapproval of an application does not and will not change the fact that in visual media, which depend largely on visuals and graphics, improvement in graphical fidelity will only improve the application.  In games and movies, better picture quality enables better depiction of locations, better artistic usages of colors, more stylistic presentation, and in turn, better storytelling, and a more profound experience for the viewer or player.

And I don't use my PC just for games, of course.  There is a lot of productivity software I use on the PC too.  But gaming and movie-watching are very worthwhile endeavors to me, and I'm willing to spend extra money for that.  Many people spend a whole more on home theaters, btw.

It only costs a ton of money because the tech is new.  To measure the truth worth, you need to look at how much you like the application that tech is made for, of course.

[Syonyk]

Yeesh, I spent around that much (a little more, actually) about two and a half years ago putting together my GF's Photoshop workstation but she uses it every day for work stuff.  I couldn't imagine spending that much on a gaming PC just for the sake of it.  You don't need to spend that much money for a PC to be useful for ten years.

That seems like a wonderfully solid workstation build - and I'm all for spending the money on parts where it matters if you're earning money with it.

But gaming... eh.  I mean, my house PC has some halfway decent guts (guy owed me money and didn't have any, so he sent me some parts I made use of), but even though I made the dumb decision to buy a 4k monitor (I don't know why I keep doing this, 1440p is all I really want and I'll just scale anyway), any sort of game I play is almost always running at 1080p.  I game with a couple friends at a LAN party once or twice a year, and we just play older games.  UT2004 is still hysterically fun in a group setting ("Facing Worlds" is still an utterly epic CTF map).  It doesn't need high resolution, and I'd rather have FPS anyway than 4k HDR.

Then again, I've played through Doom and Tie Fighter (the 90s games) in the last decade.  There's a common thing in those: If you're standing around complaining about the graphics being a bit dated, you're almost certainly missing something vitally important that's behind you and ready to shoot.

[Syonyk]

You need to realize having better graphics is a means.  The end purpose is to improve the effectiveness of the application that uses such graphical abilities.  Your prejudicial disapproval of an application does not and will not change the fact that in visual media, which depend largely on visuals and graphics, improvement in graphical fidelity will only improve the application.  In games and movies, better picture quality enables better depiction of locations, better artistic usages of colors, more stylistic presentation, and in turn, better storytelling, and a more profound experience for the viewer or player.

And I don't use my PC just for games, of course.  There is a lot of productivity software I use on the PC too.  But gaming and movie-watching are very worthwhile endeavors to me, and I'm willing to spend extra money for that.  Many people spend a whole more on home theaters, btw.

It only costs a ton of money because the tech is new.  To measure the truth worth, you need to look at how much you like the application that tech is made for, of course.

Justify the bleeding edge of tech however you want.  I don't care.

This just isn't the forum to seek approval for being an early adopter of computing/home theater technology.  If you blew $50k on a theater room, I'd have the same opinion.  It's not a particularly efficient use of money to achieve entertainment.

I have plenty of less-than-wonderfully-efficient activities I spend time and money on, but I don't brag about them on this forum seeking approval.  Though if you're carrying 4 people a couple hundred miles, a 182 is comparable in time and money to flying commercial.  And a lot more enjoyable. ;)

[MoneyGoatee]

If I needed a server PC or if I had any kind of "server environment" then I would definitely consider Linux.  For general use, it's just not practical since there are still a lot of programs not made for it, and software companies generally don't support it by default, and if they do, the level of support is iffy. 

Btw, I just built myself a new Windows 10 PC that can play games with 4K HDR graphics, play Ultra HD Blu-rays, and run Windows-only apps such as Microsoft Access.  None of these things can be done on Linux and probably will never be. 

I wasn't mustachian enough apparently, since I bought all the parts at near retail prices, total about $2000.  But that's including the $450 monitor (4K HDR).  The video card is Nvidia GTX 2060 Super that was released just a few days before I started the build.  This build was long overdue, since it enabled me to use USB 3 and SATA III for the first time!  My previous PC lasted 10 years, and it's still running.

Ultra HD Blu-rays are a real pain to be played on a PC since the level of DRM required for it is just unprecedented.  I did it because the alternative would be much more costly: 60-inch-plus 4K HDR TV set, next-gen audio receiver, standalone UHD BD player.

Yeesh, I spent around that much (a little more, actually) about two and a half years ago putting together my GF's Photoshop workstation but she uses it every day for work stuff.  I couldn't imagine spending that much on a gaming PC just for the sake of it.  You don't need to spend that much money for a PC to be useful for ten years.

Specs for the gearheads:
nCase M1
mini ITX ASROCK Z270 mobo
i7 7700K
32GB DDR4
512GB Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD
Micron 1TB SATA SSD (later replaced with a 2TB when the 1TB crapped out)
Toshiba 5TB spinning rust
Nvidia GTX 1070
Dell 4K display
Win10 Pro

It's literally the fastest Photoshop PC for any amount of money circa early 2017.  That's since been surpassed, but its current bottlenecks probably won't make it worth upgrading for another couple years.

I certainly didn't build my PC only for games.  PC is by definition an all-purpose machine after all.  I do practically everything that is doable on a PC.  But of course, gaming increases that cost of the PC, but mainly via the video card, because of all the advanced tech it uses.

But more to the point, you and the other guy's beef is on the WORTH of gaming in your minds.  You look at it as if it adds nothing to someone's life and a total waste.  That is outdated view, and you need look at the benefits as well.  If an experience is transcendent and epiphanic enough, then it is worth having and paying for.  Increasingly, games are a storytelling medium just like novels and movies.  If you value good stories told in books and good films, then you gotta do the same for games as well.

[MoneyGoatee]

You need to realize having better graphics is a means.  The end purpose is to improve the effectiveness of the application that uses such graphical abilities.  Your prejudicial disapproval of an application does not and will not change the fact that in visual media, which depend largely on visuals and graphics, improvement in graphical fidelity will only improve the application.  In games and movies, better picture quality enables better depiction of locations, better artistic usages of colors, more stylistic presentation, and in turn, better storytelling, and a more profound experience for the viewer or player.

And I don't use my PC just for games, of course.  There is a lot of productivity software I use on the PC too.  But gaming and movie-watching are very worthwhile endeavors to me, and I'm willing to spend extra money for that.  Many people spend a whole more on home theaters, btw.

It only costs a ton of money because the tech is new.  To measure the truth worth, you need to look at how much you like the application that tech is made for, of course.

Justify the bleeding edge of tech however you want.  I don't care.

This just isn't the forum to seek approval for being an early adopter of computing/home theater technology.  If you blew $50k on a theater room, I'd have the same opinion.  It's not a particularly efficient use of money to achieve entertainment.

I have plenty of less-than-wonderfully-efficient activities I spend time and money on, but I don't brag about them on this forum seeking approval.  Though if you're carrying 4 people a couple hundred miles, a 182 is comparable in time and money to flying commercial.  And a lot more enjoyable. ;)

Don't hold the cost of an activity against it.  An expensive activity could have greater benefits than a less expensive one too, you know.  In fact, that is probably true in many cases.  And no one is "bragging" or "seeking approval," just having a discussion.

[ketchup]

I certainly didn't build my PC only for games.  PC is by definition an all-purpose machine after all.  I do practically everything that is doable on a PC.  But of course, gaming increases that cost of the PC, but mainly via the video card, because of all the advanced tech it uses.

But more to the point, you and the other guy's beef is on the WORTH of gaming in your minds.  You look at it as if it adds nothing to someone's life and a total waste.  That is outdated view, and you need look at the benefits as well.  If an experience is transcendent and epiphanic enough, then it is worth having and paying for.  Increasingly, games are a storytelling medium just like novels and movies.  If you value good stories told in books and good films, then you gotta do the same for games as well.

Gaming can be had with 80% of the bells and whistles for half of what you paid; I'm pretty sure that's the beef he and I have.  It wasn't all that long ago that you actually needed a $2k machine to play current games in a solid playable state.  That threshold has dropped dramatically over the years.  It just feels like inefficient spending.  Inefficient extra spending can be "worth it" if the potential upside is particularly beneficial to your bottom line (such as my GF's Photoshop work machine; I would not suggest some amateur photographer replicate it when they would get by just as well by them too spending half).

I don't have a bone to pick with PC gaming (maybe Syonyk does) in general.  The 1070 in GF's PC was not strictly necessary for her work stuff (a mid-tier Nvidia card would have probably done just as fine a job in Photoshop utility), but she likes to play games on there now and again too.  It's still used 95% for work.

[MoneyGoatee]

I certainly didn't build my PC only for games.  PC is by definition an all-purpose machine after all.  I do practically everything that is doable on a PC.  But of course, gaming increases that cost of the PC, but mainly via the video card, because of all the advanced tech it uses.

But more to the point, you and the other guy's beef is on the WORTH of gaming in your minds.  You look at it as if it adds nothing to someone's life and a total waste.  That is outdated view, and you need look at the benefits as well.  If an experience is transcendent and epiphanic enough, then it is worth having and paying for.  Increasingly, games are a storytelling medium just like novels and movies.  If you value good stories told in books and good films, then you gotta do the same for games as well.

Gaming can be had with 80% of the bells and whistles for half of what you paid; I'm pretty sure that's the beef he and I have.  It wasn't all that long ago that you actually needed a $2k machine to play current games in a solid playable state.  That threshold has dropped dramatically over the years.  It just feels like inefficient spending.  Inefficient extra spending can be "worth it" if the potential upside is particularly beneficial to your bottom line (such as my GF's Photoshop work machine; I would not suggest some amateur photographer replicate it when they would get by just as well by them too spending half).

I don't have a bone to pick with PC gaming (maybe Syonyk does) in general.  The 1070 in GF's PC was not strictly necessary for her work stuff (a mid-tier Nvidia card would have probably done just as fine a job in Photoshop utility), but she likes to play games on there now and again too.  It's still used 95% for work.

But that 20% of extra bells and whistles could potentially increase enjoyment 80% or more.  You gotta look at the impact those bells whistles offer in relation to their cost.  Maybe their impact DO match their cost, or maybe it exceeds their cost.  Maybe their impact is a game-changer, even.  VR and 3D don't offer much, in my mind.  But 4K and HDR do, and they are worth the 4K HDR monitor and video card I invested in.

[Syonyk]

Gaming can be had with 80% of the bells and whistles for half of what you paid; I'm pretty sure that's the beef he and I have.  It wasn't all that long ago that you actually needed a $2k machine to play current games in a solid playable state.  That threshold has dropped dramatically over the years.  It just feels like inefficient spending.

That's most of it.  I've played with the difference between 4k and 1080p gaming, and while I can tell the difference, I utterly don't notice while actually playing a game.  I'd rather have something set up as 1080p with all the bells and whistles turned on than either 4k and lower settings, or to have to pay for the hardware to run 4k with high settings.  That gets expensive in a hurry, and HDR + ray tracing... well, that's a significant difference in total cost.

I don't have a bone to pick with PC gaming (maybe Syonyk does) in general.

It's not just PC games.  They're the least-bad of some of the offenders.  But at this point, the "gaming industry" is filled with a bunch of toxic approaches to "engagement" that I think are very, very hostile.  In-game loot boxes are the worst of them - it's literally dopamine-hit-delivery devices, that we otherwise regulate the hell out of (see Vegas).  WoW isn't any better.

I generally try to avoid supporting that industry and do my best to convince other people not to as well.

[ender]

I just didn't activate my copy of Windows.

Shrug.

Sure, the "Please activate windows" watermark is annoying and I can't customize many things but... whatever.

[ketchup]

I don't have a bone to pick with PC gaming (maybe Syonyk does) in general.

It's not just PC games.  They're the least-bad of some of the offenders.  But at this point, the "gaming industry" is filled with a bunch of toxic approaches to "engagement" that I think are very, very hostile.  In-game loot boxes are the worst of them - it's literally dopamine-hit-delivery devices, that we otherwise regulate the hell out of (see Vegas).  WoW isn't any better.

I generally try to avoid supporting that industry and do my best to convince other people not to as well.

Yeah, I'm a fairly distant "gamer" these days (last game I personally bought was Skyrim in 2011), but lootbox style microtransactions, pay-to-win mobile games, and MMO games (which I've personally seen ruin a life) are not exactly a beaming tower of hope in this world.

[Syonyk]

Yeah, I'm a fairly distant "gamer" these days (last game I personally bought was Skyrim in 2011), but lootbox style microtransactions, pay-to-win mobile games, and MMO games (which I've personally seen ruin a life) are not exactly a beaming tower of hope in this world.

Exactly.  And some of that is separate from PC gaming, but PC games have learned from the mobile addiction engines how to "optimize revenue" at the expense of people who thought they bought a game, not a one armed bandit.  A friend of mine has recently gotten into WoW, and is ~unable to show up anywhere before about noon these days.

[ketchup]

Yeah, I'm a fairly distant "gamer" these days (last game I personally bought was Skyrim in 2011), but lootbox style microtransactions, pay-to-win mobile games, and MMO games (which I've personally seen ruin a life) are not exactly a beaming tower of hope in this world.

Exactly.  And some of that is separate from PC gaming, but PC games have learned from the mobile addiction engines how to "optimize revenue" at the expense of people who thought they bought a game, not a one armed bandit.  A friend of mine has recently gotten into WoW, and is ~unable to show up anywhere before about noon these days.

I wish they'd just raise the sticker price of the game and slash all that crap.  People would still buy them.  Anyone who would pay $60 for a brand new game would surely pay $70.  I personally would never pay for "microtransactions" by any name.  Maybe a legitimate expansion pack released a year later with a lot more actual content (I think Oblivion did that), but that's about it.

[MoneyGoatee]

Gaming can be had with 80% of the bells and whistles for half of what you paid; I'm pretty sure that's the beef he and I have.  It wasn't all that long ago that you actually needed a $2k machine to play current games in a solid playable state.  That threshold has dropped dramatically over the years.  It just feels like inefficient spending.

That's most of it.  I've played with the difference between 4k and 1080p gaming, and while I can tell the difference, I utterly don't notice while actually playing a game.  I'd rather have something set up as 1080p with all the bells and whistles turned on than either 4k and lower settings, or to have to pay for the hardware to run 4k with high settings.  That gets expensive in a hurry, and HDR + ray tracing... well, that's a significant difference in total cost.

Most games today are still designed to be played on 1080p or less.  You need to wait for the not too distant future when games are actually designed around 4K (in ways we haven't thought of yet).  Then you'll see its full glory.  But the main point is that you can't bet against something as fundamental and foundational in the PC world as graphical capabilities.  Advancement in this area will always win.  (VR doesn't win because it is actually a downgrade in graphical quality, in terms of resolution and everything.) 

I don't have a bone to pick with PC gaming (maybe Syonyk does) in general.

It's not just PC games.  They're the least-bad of some of the offenders.  But at this point, the "gaming industry" is filled with a bunch of toxic approaches to "engagement" that I think are very, very hostile.  In-game loot boxes are the worst of them - it's literally dopamine-hit-delivery devices, that we otherwise regulate the hell out of (see Vegas).  WoW isn't any better.

I generally try to avoid supporting that industry and do my best to convince other people not to as well.

There are a lot of indie games companies that don't do such things.  But they do make games for high-end PCs.  E.g. the indie game Hellsblade: Senua's Sacrifice looks stunning in 4K HDR.  It's like a totally different game compared to 1080p with no HDR.  Big and small game companies understand that advancements in graphics are  foundational in designing games big and small, the same way photography is to cinema.

[Syonyk]

Most games today are still designed to be played on 1080p or less.  You need to wait for the not too distant future when games are actually designed around 4K (in ways we haven't thought of yet).  Then you'll see its full glory.  But the main point is that you can't bet against something as fundamental and foundational in the PC world as graphical capabilities.  Advancement in this area will always win.  (VR doesn't win because it is actually a downgrade in graphical quality, in terms of resolution and everything.) 

So you're saying that nothing uses this tech very well yet, but one should definitely spend the money on it?

Just admit, "I spent a ton of money on a gaming computer so I can have eye candy."

[Daley]

Gaming can be had with 80% of the bells and whistles for half of what you paid; I'm pretty sure that's the beef he and I have.  It wasn't all that long ago that you actually needed a $2k machine to play current games in a solid playable state.  That threshold has dropped dramatically over the years.  It just feels like inefficient spending.  Inefficient extra spending can be "worth it" if the potential upside is particularly beneficial to your bottom line (such as my GF's Photoshop work machine; I would not suggest some amateur photographer replicate it when they would get by just as well by them too spending half).

I don't have a bone to pick with PC gaming (maybe Syonyk does) in general.  The 1070 in GF's PC was not strictly necessary for her work stuff (a mid-tier Nvidia card would have probably done just as fine a job in Photoshop utility), but she likes to play games on there now and again too.  It's still used 95% for work.

But that 20% of extra bells and whistles could potentially increase enjoyment 80% or more.  You gotta look at the impact those bells whistles offer in relation to their cost.  Maybe their impact DO match their cost, or maybe it exceeds their cost.  Maybe their impact is a game-changer, even.  VR and 3D don't offer much, in my mind.  But 4K and HDR do, and they are worth the 4K HDR monitor and video card I invested in.

I used to be known for a particular phrase in these here parts a few years back and elsewhere...

Seeing the hair grow out of Bob DeNiro's mole doesn't make Heat a better film.

Kid... you swung into these parts with a youthful chip on your shoulder, first spreading FUD that no sane and experienced tech would ever say about Windows and upgrading, and you got called out for it by wiser and far more experienced folk, arguing with them all the way down. Now you're once again letting the tail of the industry wag your puppy in the same thread defending a high-tech, stupid-expensive distraction machine, tooting the amazingness of hedonic adaptation, because of the "promise" of something. And that's exactly what it is, a distraction machine that rots both our short and long term memories, our critical thinking skills, and our imaginations; and all we have to trade in exchange for it's "usefulness" in our lives is it's control over everything, our time, our attention, our money, our values, our "trustworthiness" to others, and our futures...

Your response to this and the others shouldn't be, "How do I convince these people I'm right," but, "What do they know, that I don't, that causes them to say what they do?"

[BDWW]

Most games today are still designed to be played on 1080p or less.  You need to wait for the not too distant future when games are actually designed around 4K (in ways we haven't thought of yet).  Then you'll see its full glory.  But the main point is that you can't bet against something as fundamental and foundational in the PC world as graphical capabilities.  Advancement in this area will always win.  (VR doesn't win because it is actually a downgrade in graphical quality, in terms of resolution and everything.) 

So you're saying that nothing uses this tech very well yet, but one should definitely spend the money on it?

Just admit, "I spent a ton of money on a gaming computer so I can have eye candy." Ever so slightly less pixelation/aliasing (that's likely only noticeable on close inspection of a screenshot), and ever so slightly more vivid colors. Nothing that really enhances gaming.

[Just Joe]

I switched to Ubuntu eons ago and just installed the latest version on a work laptop that had Windows 10 and was testing my patience or lack thereof. I find Ubuntu, Mint, or most other versions of Linux much better than Windows for most applications. I still have to figure out how to install OneDrive and Google Drive on Ubuntu OS, that should be feasible but I have not really spent much time to see how it is done.

I can access OneDrive and Google Drive in Mint Linux via a web browser.

I see two app clients in Mint/Ubuntu for accessing Google Drive.

[MoneyGoatee]

Gaming can be had with 80% of the bells and whistles for half of what you paid; I'm pretty sure that's the beef he and I have.  It wasn't all that long ago that you actually needed a $2k machine to play current games in a solid playable state.  That threshold has dropped dramatically over the years.  It just feels like inefficient spending.  Inefficient extra spending can be "worth it" if the potential upside is particularly beneficial to your bottom line (such as my GF's Photoshop work machine; I would not suggest some amateur photographer replicate it when they would get by just as well by them too spending half).

I don't have a bone to pick with PC gaming (maybe Syonyk does) in general.  The 1070 in GF's PC was not strictly necessary for her work stuff (a mid-tier Nvidia card would have probably done just as fine a job in Photoshop utility), but she likes to play games on there now and again too.  It's still used 95% for work.

But that 20% of extra bells and whistles could potentially increase enjoyment 80% or more.  You gotta look at the impact those bells whistles offer in relation to their cost.  Maybe their impact DO match their cost, or maybe it exceeds their cost.  Maybe their impact is a game-changer, even.  VR and 3D don't offer much, in my mind.  But 4K and HDR do, and they are worth the 4K HDR monitor and video card I invested in.

I used to be known for a particular phrase in these here parts a few years back and elsewhere...

Seeing the hair grow out of Bob DeNiro's mole doesn't make Heat a better film.

Kid... you swung into these parts with a youthful chip on your shoulder, first spreading FUD that no sane and experienced tech would ever say about Windows and upgrading, and you got called out for it by wiser and far more experienced folk, arguing with them all the way down. Now you're once again letting the tail of the industry wag your puppy in the same thread defending a high-tech, stupid-expensive distraction machine, tooting the amazingness of hedonic adaptation, because of the "promise" of something. And that's exactly what it is, a distraction machine that rots both our short and long term memories, our critical thinking skills, and our imaginations; and all we have to trade in exchange for it's "usefulness" in our lives is it's control over everything, our time, our attention, our money, our values, our "trustworthiness" to others, and our futures...

Your response to this and the others shouldn't be, "How do I convince these people I'm right," but, "What do they know, that I don't, that causes them to say what they do?"

If anyone needs a high-end gaming PC to have some FUN like I do, LOL, it's YOU -- so that you will sound less miserable, defensive, and pissy.  *I* certainly have fun watching you absolutely fly off the handle like that.  Let me educate you on something else too, *kiddo*: if you want to convince people who disagree with you that you are right, TRY SOUNDING LIKE A NORMAL PERSON FIRST.  And if you are unable to do that, then the problem is not me spreading FUD, but you having PERSONAL ISSUES.  No one needs to put any more FUD into you because you are already pumped full of it by your OWN miserable nature.

[MoneyGoatee]

Most games today are still designed to be played on 1080p or less.  You need to wait for the not too distant future when games are actually designed around 4K (in ways we haven't thought of yet).  Then you'll see its full glory.  But the main point is that you can't bet against something as fundamental and foundational in the PC world as graphical capabilities.  Advancement in this area will always win.  (VR doesn't win because it is actually a downgrade in graphical quality, in terms of resolution and everything.) 

So you're saying that nothing uses this tech very well yet, but one should definitely spend the money on it?

Just admit, "I spent a ton of money on a gaming computer so I can have eye candy."

That's the kind of thing said by people who never upgrade because "the tech will always get better..."  3-years later: "The tech will always get better."  N years later: The tech will always get better."  It's not that the tech right now isn't good.  It can still be better still, in ways we can't yet imagine.  Remember games from a few years ago and you thought looked amazing in 1080p.  Do they look amazing now next to *today's* 1080p games?  EXACTLY.  You have that same mindset right now.  You look at 4K games made today and think that is the extent of the tech's ability. 

[MoneyGoatee]

Most games today are still designed to be played on 1080p or less.  You need to wait for the not too distant future when games are actually designed around 4K (in ways we haven't thought of yet).  Then you'll see its full glory.  But the main point is that you can't bet against something as fundamental and foundational in the PC world as graphical capabilities.  Advancement in this area will always win.  (VR doesn't win because it is actually a downgrade in graphical quality, in terms of resolution and everything.) 

So you're saying that nothing uses this tech very well yet, but one should definitely spend the money on it?

Just admit, "I spent a ton of money on a gaming computer so I can have eye candy." Ever so slightly less pixelation/aliasing (that's likely only noticeable on close inspection of a screenshot), and ever so slightly more vivid colors. Nothing that really enhances gaming.

Anything that can affect the WHOLE screen is NOT slight.  For instance, HDR enhances the use of light and color, and guess how much percentage of the screen that affects?  Pretty close to 100%, wouldn't you say.  Every graphical tech that has come out was always met with the initial skepticism that is displayed here, and yet we always ended up using them all!  As I mentioned already, graphical advancement is so PIVOTAL and FOUNDATIONAL to PC tech that you just CAN'T discount it.  If Nvidia suddenly announced that it would put a PINK ELEPHANT on all the graphic displays in all its products, we shouldn't discount it either!  THAT'S how much we need to bet on it.  I'm being facetious, of course, but you get my meaning.  Don't bet against the graphics!

[JLee]

Dude you're on the wrong forum.

[MoneyGoatee]

Dude you're on the wrong forum.

This is a thread I started, and if this is a sub-topic you people are unwilling to discuss, maybe you are in the wrong thread instead.  And some of the sub-topics I raised are hardly anti-mustachian, such as the nature of PC graphical advancements.  Being mustachians doesn't mean you have to ignore important issues and make yourself believe things that aren't so, such as: Mustachian --> save money --> spend money, bad --> graphics, expensive --> therefore, graphics, bad.