The Solutor wrote on Today, 10:31:

Linux at the time didn't have any 3D stack at all, even if you had proper drivers installed, wasn't like you started to play 3d […]
Show full quote

Trashbytes wrote on Today, 10:12:

97/98 was Voodoo 1 and 2 Era along with TnT2 in 99, ATI was slow to get there and didn't have serious competition to nVidia till 2001 with the Radeon 7500, Rage 128 was pathetic but it was 99 .. so your memory may be a little off with your dates. Unreal was 98, Quake was 96 for DOS with GL Quake in Jan 97, Quake 2 was late 97.

So yeah Linux not having drivers during that time was a problem and your oversimplification is rather disingenuous of the scene during that time.

Linux at the time didn't have any 3D stack at all, even if you had proper drivers installed, wasn't like you started to play 3d games like you did in the same days in windows (which still was plagued by competing 3d implementations, early immature D3D and alike).

Things started to change in the early 2000s, the DRI was somewhat working and 3D enable drivers started to be common, by 2006 or so even Compiz and Beryl were a thing.

At the time everything evolved fast, and mixing what happened in 98 with the situation of 2003, helps just to make the discussion confused.

Forget D3D its OpenGL that's important and Linux has supported that since 95 - 98 because of Mesa, the 3DFX Voodoo 1 and 2 were the main forms of support in Mesa in the early days but as said above lack of native ATI/nVidia Linux drivers certainly hampered things. I cant remember if 3DFX ever had native Linux drivers for the V1 and V2 and well Google is as useless as it can be because it keeps feeding me AI drivel. (Seems like there were drivers as the Voodoo 5 had Linux drivers available)

The Solutor wrote on Today, 10:31:

Linux at the time didn't have any 3D stack at all, even if you had proper drivers installed, wasn't like you started to play 3d games like you did in the same days in windows (which still was plagued by competing 3d implementations, early immature D3D and alike).

Things started to change in the early 2000s, the DRI was somewhat working and 3D enable drivers started to be common, by 2006 or so even Compiz and Beryl were a thing.

At the time everything evolved fast, and mixing what happened in 98 with the situation of 2003, helps just to make the discussion confused.

A while ago you said that you just needed to install some ATi and Nvidia drivers, and it was smoothe sailing, but now that is not the case anymore? I don't know if you are arguing with yourself now, but that doesn't obviously change anything MattRocks, me or Trashbytes has said: Hardware support absolutely sucked and that goes with drivers as well. If your Riva, TNT or GF series cards could only use some generic 2D VGA compatibility modes with Linux, you might as well as use your Linux system with ISA VGA card from a decade ago by that point. It really is not a situation where a viable general use OS should be.

At the time there wasn't any 3D, games were at the level of minefield, videos were usually stamp sized, even the fonts were not antialiased. All you had to do was to show something on screen. If a specific driver was available it was obviously better, but if it wasn't ,all you had to do was to use generic ones, VESA, VGA, or framebuffer.

This is nonsense, by 97-98 3D accelerated graphics were quickly becoming a de facto and common with games, first with 3DFx Voodoo1 and then 1998 with cards like Voodoo2 and Nvidia TNT and so on. It was established technology by that point, supported by majority of games that could benefit from hardware acceleration. For consoles, accelerators had been thing like since 1994 starting with the release of Sega Saturn and PS1. They weren't that feature complete as V1 for example, but nonethless. Games had full screen pre-rendered or greenscreened videos for years, but I guess Linux with their bad hardware support couldn't properly scale videos to full screen or otherwise. And high resolution text in windows at least was a pleasure to read on a high resolution and good display.

To me it feels that you just confirm what everyone here is saying and your are describing the horrible state of Linux hardware support which also often meant a subpar or unnecessary complicated experience for majority of users. I never had to settle with "at least I had something on screen" level of display with windows, but that was apparently what Linux had to offer 😉

Bad hardware support and atrociously un-user-friendly Linux installation was one of the main reasons why Linux desktop was only used by poeple who really were into FOSS, often programmers or developers themselves and were equipped with a patience and knowledge to install and maintain such installation. Trying to paint linux as some mostly trouble free experience if somewhat quirky (while possibly claiming that modern Linux is somehow worse?) and people who didn't like this quirkiness or weren't ready to take up the challenge were just somehow spoiled by Windows in their mind, is just asinine. If spoiling means that with windows user could easily get his or her hardware working after running a simple setup.exe from a floppy or a CD manufacturer delivered owith the said hardware r you downloaded the driver package from the website, then I guess you are right. But what you didn't need to do is to live with hardware that doesn't work because there simply isn't a driver for it, find ways to mitigate or go around these problems or install 17 dependencies manually before you got it working. For majority of computer users it was just too much unncessary hassle without any actual reward, not something that is a fault of Windows. On the contrary, it was a fault of Linux and manufacturers at the time, but ultimately it was just a matter of time: Linux had too little users for many manufacturers to actually care. When this changed, Linux changed too.

Your downplaying of the state of Linux on desktop ~30 years ago really doesn't do a service to the developers who did a lot of work to bring the Linux to where it is nowadays or those users who originally went through the trouble and formed the small, but steadily growing user base of the OS. Which meant that in the long term it grew to a success and to an OS that even your average granny can use without much hassle instead of it being relegated to a sidenote of the computing history.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on Today, 11:40:

A while ago you said that you just needed to install some ATi and Nvidia drivers, and it was smoothe sailing

No I said that installing Nvidia drivers on linux was almost monkey proof, ATI experience was less smooth, but still manageable by the typical linux user base of the time

, but now that is not the case anymore?

Are you having you fun writing random things on forums, or what?
Where I said that?

This is nonsense, by 97-98 3D accelerated graphics were quickly becoming a de facto and common with games

Again they were becoming *somewhat* common IN WINDOWS, in Linux you could call them experiments made by enthusiast people, far from being mainstream or even practical.

To me it feels that you just confirm what everyone here is saying and your are describing the horrible state of Linux hardware support which also often meant a subpar or unnecessary complicated experience for majority of users.

Ok you were not skilled/flexible enough to use Linux at the time, no one forced you, but such retroactive FUD is just pointless and dishonest.

Bad hardware support and atrociously un-user-friendly Linux installation was one of the main reasons why Linux desktop was only used by poeple who really were into FOSS, often programmers or developers themselves and were equipped with a patience and knowledge to install and maintain such installation.

Yeah yeah, keep telling that. 😁

Your downplaying of the state of Linux on desktop ~30 years ago really doesn't do a service to the developers who did a lot of work to bring the Linux to where it is nowadays or those users who originally went through the trouble and formed the small, but steadily growing user base of the OS. Which meant that in the long term it grew to a success and to an OS that even your average granny can use without much hassle instead of it being relegated to a sidenote of the computing history.

Why nowadays everyone feels entitled to speak as he was a CEO of something.

I couldn't care less of market share, I care of ideas, principles, privacy and so on, if that means a bit of effort leaning new things I'm all in.

Nowadays Linux is what I call a commercial SW with released sources, a broken dream, a shadow of itself.

But likely that pleases people like you.

Trashbytes wrote on Today, 11:23:

97/98 was Voodoo 1 and 2 Era along with TnT2 in 99, ATI was slow to get there and didn't have serious competition to nVidia till 2001 with the Radeon 7500, Rage 128 was pathetic but it was 99 .. so your memory may be a little off with your dates. Unreal was 98, Quake was 96 for DOS with GL Quake in Jan 97, Quake 2 was late 97.

My memory is just fine, it's that I talk about Linux and you two respond with the status of Windows.

I couldn't care less if I could play accelerated Tomb Raider or Quake in windows if in Linux the 3D support was inconsistent/experimental/split across various implementations by many vendors etc...

You are moving the target of the discussion, I responded to the urban legend parroted here about the lack of linux drivers, you are talking of features that started to work consistently only after 2003 or so, they are different arguments.

Forget D3D its OpenGL that's important and Linux

Eh captain obvious, I never thought that D3D (that barely worked on windows, at the time) wasn't a Linux thing in late 90s early 2000s 😁

Google is as useless as it can be because it keeps feeding me AI drivel.

Ohh, at last you wrote something of uncomfortable, It's 10 years I don't touch Google, not even from my android phone (which is obviously rooted and running a my ROM), I use mainly DuckDuck as a search engine, but be sure it will succumb to the AI stupidity in matter of months.

The Solutor wrote on Today, 12:07:

Are you having you fun writing random things on forums, or what?
Where I said that?

Do you have trouble remembering what you wrote? You said that there was not even 3D stack, so the driver thing with your 3D capable card is more or less moot anyways as you got barely got image on the screen and that's it.

Again they were becoming *somewhat* common IN WINDOWS, in Linux you could call them experiment made by enthusiast people, not

Here you say again that the support absolutely sucks. We agree again, it was just experimental at best!

Ok you were not skilled/flexible enough to use Linux at the time, no one forced you, but such retroactive FUD is just pointless.

Retroactively claiming that using Linux 30 years ago had serous limitations and complexity is just "urban legend" is just pointless.

And you are correct. That is exactly the reason why I pretty much installed Linuxes on my old secondary boxes after getting a new computer was mostly for the sake of experimenting and being interested in it. For daily use it was just too much of hassle without that much reward. That goes with majority of computer users in those days, but we certainly were not the computing gods like you.

Yeah yeah, keep telling that. 😁

See above.

Why nowadays everyone feels entitle to speak as he was a CEO of something. […]
Show full quote

Why nowadays everyone feels entitle to speak as he was a CEO of something.

I couldn't care less of market share, I care of ideas, principles, privacy and so on, if that means a bit of effort leaning new things I'm all in.

Nowadays Linux is what I call a commercial SW with released sources, a broken dream, a shadow of itself.

But likely that pleases people like you.

You are serieously imagining things in your head now. I didn't say anything about market share, I said that lot's of people did a lot of work so that Linux could be actually something that can be used comfortably by as many people as possible. But I guess in this certain type of geek cirklejerk it means absolutely nothing that your average Windows user can nowadays pretty easily change to Linux is absolutely meaningless improvement and all that matters to you is your personal idea what Linux was, what it should be and probably the more hostile the Linux would be to the regular user, the more it would please to you so your idea what it should be isn't spoiled by the requirements or needs of mainstream users. Am I correct?

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on Today, 12:34:

For daily use it was just too much of hassle without that much reward.

Reward was FUN and EDUCATION, If you pretended to use a Linux machine as your productive/only machine in 1998 you were just a fool

This forum is plenty of people that do retrocomputing, they do because fun or they do because a machine released 20/30 years ago is more productive?

Linux in 1998 was both reasonably easy to setup but not ready for primetime, because the lack of SW, lack of capabilities, fragmentation (which is a thing still today) and so on. Those two part aren't mutually exclusive they are both true, they are two different aspects of the user experience.

Isn't that hard to understand, even if my English is poor

The Solutor wrote on Today, 12:43:

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on Today, 12:34:

For daily use it was just too much of hassle without that much reward.

Reward was FUN and EDUCATION, If you pretended to use a Linux machine as your productive/only machine in 1998 you were just a fool

This forum is plenty of people that do retrocomputing, they do because fun or they do because a machine released 20/30 years ago is more productive?

I got the impression from your first post regarding the "urban myth" that it was completely usable. You didn't say anything about it being only good for FUN or EDUCATION there. And why wouldn't it be good for productivity, if for example hardware support is that good as you are constantly trying to argue? Then again, previously you didn't say anything that it was just good for education, so again you are arguing with your own claims here.

Nobody has claimed that retro computing is being done beicause of productivity and that wasn't the issue here, why would you even use that comparison? What we were arguing whether or not Linux had serious limitations for example in hardware support in its formative decade or so and how this affeceted to it back in the day when it was not vintage yet. Two completely different things, yes?

The Solutor wrote on Today, 12:29:

My memory is just fine, it's that I talk about Linux and you two respond with the status of Windows. […]
Show full quote

Trashbytes wrote on Today, 11:23:

97/98 was Voodoo 1 and 2 Era along with TnT2 in 99, ATI was slow to get there and didn't have serious competition to nVidia till 2001 with the Radeon 7500, Rage 128 was pathetic but it was 99 .. so your memory may be a little off with your dates. Unreal was 98, Quake was 96 for DOS with GL Quake in Jan 97, Quake 2 was late 97.

My memory is just fine, it's that I talk about Linux and you two respond with the status of Windows.

I couldn't care less if I could play accelerated Tomb Raider or Quake in windows if in Linux the 3D support was inconsistent/experimental/split across various implementations by many vendors etc...

You are moving the target of the discussion, I responded to the urban legend parroted here about the lack of linux drivers, you are talking of features that started to work consistently only after 2003 or so, they are different arguments.

Forget D3D its OpenGL that's important and Linux

Eh captain obvious, I never thought that D3D (that barely worked on windows, at the time) wasn't a Linux thing in late 90s early 2000s 😁

Google is as useless as it can be because it keeps feeding me AI drivel.

Ohh, at last you wrote something of uncomfortable, It's 10 years I don't touch Google, not even from my android phone (which is obviously rooted and running a my ROM), I use mainly DuckDuck as a search engine, but be sure it will succumb to the AI stupidity in matter of months.

Wat .. I've not mentioned windows here at all. Mesa has been running OpenGL on Linux since 95, you need to get your story straight here.

D3D will never be a Linux thing, its Vulkan now and OpenGL in 95.

I think you are just circle jerking yourself here, this is a truly silly thing to be doing.

Remember when this thread was about showing off your retro hardware?

The Solutor wrote on Today, 12:43:

Reward was FUN and EDUCATION, If you pretended to use a Linux machine as your productive/only machine in 1998 you were just a fo […]
Show full quote

Reward was FUN and EDUCATION, If you pretended to use a Linux machine as your productive/only machine in 1998 you were just a fool

This forum is plenty of people that do retrocomputing, they do because fun or they do because a machine released 20/30 years ago is more productive?

Linux in 1998 was both reasonably easy to setup but not ready for primetime, because the lack of SW, lack of capabilities, fragmentation (which is a thing still today) and so on. Those two part aren't mutually exclusive they are both true, they are two different aspects of the user experience.

Isn't that hard to understand, even if my English is poor

Made another quote as you continued your post after my previous quote.

Your english is fine and I get what you are saying, I think. Saying that something is easy is very relative. I think it is safe to say and you might agree that in your first post about this you little bit cut corners and downplayed the limitations with using Linux in those days. Yes, some distros had relatively straight forward installers, but for example partitioning was often completely manual. Even a simple thing like this meant that majority users were immediately in a trouble with how should you size them. Installing dependencies was also often manual, at least what I remember from my first experiments perhaps 96, 97 or so, can't remember exactly. II think debian was first to introduce "modern" package management in 1998, 99 or so that could at least somewhat resolve dependency issues. If I remember correctly, dual booting was also absolute pain, which practically meant that you needed that secondary box to play with Linux because as you said, it really wasn't that usable for most computer users: too much hassle, too little reward for daily use.

Lack of SW, lack of capabilities, fragmentation (which is a thing still today): I agree 100% and the last is probably one of the biggest hurdle nowadays for Linux desktop growing. There just won't be large enough ecosystem for it to really push in current state and effort is spread too much between different distros and energy is wasted on issues which I think don't actually move things forward (such as DE wars etc).

But this contradicts so much what your first post was and that's why you got all this backslash from few of us.

ldeveraux wrote on Today, 13:14:

Remember when this thread was about showing off your retro hardware?

Yeah . .sorry Ill get back on Topic.

Trashbytes wrote on Today, 13:18:

ldeveraux wrote on Today, 13:14:

Remember when this thread was about showing off your retro hardware?

Yeah . .sorry Ill get back on Topic.

You're certainly not the offender here!

In the spirit of this thread, my office was cleaning out an old workspace and I found ~5 older laptops in varying degrees of usefulness. Most are from the Windows 7 era, one I was able to put Win10 on, another Win8. Pretty excited as I've never tried Windows 8 before, and even though this isn't a touchscreen laptop, I still dig it. Don't know what I'm going to do with them when they are finally setup and updated, but that's my journey!

Trashbytes wrote on Today, 13:06:

Wat .. I've not mentioned windows here at all. Mesa has been running OpenGL on Linux since 95, you need to get your story straight here.

I think you are just circle jerking yourself here, this is a truly silly thing to be doing.

OK you're the kind of users who take discussion on forums as a pissing context rather than a friendly exchange of experience and ideas, you keep bringing Mesa that in the early days was SW only and half backed, and in that condition worked even with basic drivers like VGA/VESA, so nothing related with the supposed lack of drivers in Linux

D3D will never be a Linux thing, its Vulkan now and OpenGL in 95.

Again 😮 ?

You limit telling that to me or you explain also what water is to fishes? 😁

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on Today, 13:16:

Yes, some distros had relatively straight forward installers, but for example partitioning was often completely manual.

Yeah because DOS fdisk's was a bright sample of user experience, sure NT was already a thing but almost no one used it, at home I mean

I got the impression from your first post regarding the "urban myth" that it was completely usable. You didn't say anything about it being only good for FUN or EDUCATION there. And why wouldn't it be good for productivity, if for example hardware support is that good as you are constantly trying to argue? Then again, previously you didn't say anything that it was just good for education, so again you are arguing with your own claims here.

I said that the lack of drivers was mostly a urban legend. And I repeat it

Then you moved the target to reward, I replied to your question, trying to reverse the order of the sentences, just to appear right, is childish.

Installing dependencies was also often manual, at least what I remember from my first experiments perhaps 96, 97 or so, can't remember exactly.

No it wasn't both rpm and deb based distros had dependency management, albeit initially Debian was way better at managing them.

On rpm based distros a sure way to look for problems was to mix red hat and mandrake packages, even worse with suse ones..

If I remember correctly, dual booting was also absolute pain, which practically meant that you needed that secondary box to play with Linux because as you said, it really wasn't that usable for most computer users: too much hassle, too little reward for daily use.

I had quadruple boot machines Win9x/NT/OS2/Linux and I never had huge problem, but this is something that requires some skill, still today.

It requires some knowledge to dual boot even Win10 and Win 11, let alone older windows, multi boot is not for average Joes, you understand how it works or not, you learn the quirks of each OS or sooner or later you end in troubles, that is, learn or stick with a single OS.

There just won't be large enough ecosystem for it to really push in current state and effort is spread too much between different distros and energy is wasted on issues which I think don't actually move things forward (such as DE wars etc).

Almost nobody really cares of end users anymore, Linux is pushed by corporations (MS included) because the usual reasons, making money, gaining control/power.

Linux works well in servers, embedded, and phones, on desktops the war is mostly lost, and isn't even relevant. The browser is the OS for most people.

Windows Linux and MacOS are becoming what the dumb terminals were in 1950/60. Just a tool to access a (paid) service somewhere on the net.