>>62
>>show me the better performance in the only metric that matters: frames per second.
That's not determined by the OS so much as the graphics card (you dense dolt).
>>63
>>I could bash some of the problems with linux, but I won't. Linux is not perfect, it's very far from it, and if you're truly a fan of it you only do it disservice by ignoring it's flaws.
I don't recall claiming it to be perfect. I claimed it performs better. And it does.
>>Further, Windows XP is just as good as linux.
I loled!
>>Linux zealots bash windows for having a massive user base and being the most targeted OS. If Linux had 90% of the market, it'd have just as many virii and malware.
The classic "popularity = vulnerability" argument. You ignore the fact that open sauce results in massively parallel bugfixing. You ignore the example of Apache. It has a 66% market share of the web.
>>And yet when people can't even get their new graphics card to work...
On my system I type "emerge nvidia". That's tons easier than having to trawl websites for updates like I used to do on Windows.
>>or they have to go through all the work of compiling software...
It's hardly work and it's hardly mandatory. I choose to have my system compile everything for me for the added performance. If I didn't want to bother I could easily get the binaries. Choice is a beautiful thing.
>>or they complain about not being able to use massive amounts of software...
Well I don't know what your definition of "massive" is.