One thing that wasn't really mentioned is stability. On my work computer (a dual dell powerstaion bought in 2002), twice I got uptimes of > 200 days (and I could have gotten more, if I also had an UPS)
It's true that getting your hardware to work with Linux can sometimes be a big pain. Testing an OS on a variety of hardware configurations is extremely time- and money- consuming. I once read an interview with Mandrake senior, who was saying that hardware testing is the #1 cost in assembling a distro.
My advice - 1) it's generally a good idea to check hardware compatibility lists before if you buy a computer specifically for linux. 2) Nvidia. Their support for linux is stellar, compared to ATI (who generally have a very bad history with drivers).
And yeah, Microsoft will eat your soul. On one hand, they're complaining through their pet organization, BSA, how piracy is a severe blow to them, on the other hand their operating margins are ~33%. But they're not stopping with BSA. The "trusting computing"/Palladium architecture will effectively transform computers into digital prisons. The point of such an architecture is not to fight viruses/malware, but simply to prevent the user from doing things (e.g. moving an mp3 file to a different computer/device, or installing a piece of software that Microsoft hasn't signed).
The free software foundation has a pretty good piece on it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html . So does Bruce Scheier: http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0208.html
My favorite quotes from the latter:
<<1. A "trusted" computer does not mean a computer that is trustworthy. The DoD's definition of a trusted system is one that can break your security policy; i.e., a system that you are forced to trust because you have no choice. Pd will have trusted features; the jury is still out as to whether or not they are trustworthy.>>
and:
<<4. Pay attention to the antitrust angle. I guarantee you that Microsoft believes Pd is a way to extend its market share, not to increase competition.>>
So please, windoze users, OPEN YOUR EYES. Microsoft is not a benign entity. There's a big difference between "eating your money" and "eating your soul". Microsoft is doing the latter.
One of the reasons I just *love* stardock is that they don't treat their customers as criminals.
To change the angle, I played Galciv 1.* under winex and it worked quite well. I did have to change an .ini file (as mentioned ). So I was wondering - why doesn't
Stardock use an open platform for future game development ? Like libsdl + OpenGL ? Yes, I'm very well aware that DirectX is considerably more feature-rich than sdl+opengl, but this way your games would be very easily portable to other platforms, like Linux, Mac, and even PocketPC PDAs. While you don't have opengl and hardware acceleration on pocketpcs, SDL works quite well. Some PDAs have processors that clock at 600MHz, so perhaps a game like galciv 1 could work on a high-end one.
