Windoz suxx, but what is the best alternative for game developpement? I''m thinking about Linux or QNX...

Its unfair to say that all versions of Windows suck.

Windows 95 sucks.
Windows 98 is kinda ok.
Windows ME sucks.
Windows 2000 rules.

I''d choose Win2K. There are just as many free tools for windows too if you are strapped for cash.

Windows 2000 or - dare I say it - Windows XP.

~~~~~~~~~~
Martee

Well in a way you''ve already answered your own question. What OS do you want people to play your game on? If you''ve answered windows 98. Then your Development OS should be windows 98. If your targeting a game on linux then you should use what ever linux distro you feel comfortable with. Same goes for win2k, me, xp and all the other OS''s. Your going to run into compatability problems, there is no reason you should complicate this by using a diffrent Development OS than your games target system.

What kind of OS to use is up to you. What do you have on your computer? I''ve had Windows and Linux for a long time, and I see the difference between them: Windows: uuhh... Linux: Nice! Newer versions of Windows have been better, but are still NOT bug-free. It just makes you pissed-off at some times.

You mentioned Linux, and I think you should try it if you''d like to. It''s not very different from Windows programming, just that it''s a bit safer, no reboots, no blue screens etc. Atlest, I haven''t seen any...

It''s getting more popular these days to use a cross-compiler. So you develop on Linux (or some other OS with at least a pretense of stability and reliability) and the compiler produces a Win32 executable for you, which far more people can run. The best of both worlds.

Please don''t be elitist, there is a little system out there called the macintosh. As a developer from strangeflavor(strangeflavor.com) said at the idevgames.com forum(about directX):
"In the long run though, it''s just a case of waiting for X-Box to fail and take the DirectX games market with it, as Direct X is *only* used on Windows boxes (OpenGL is useable on most systems and consoles in some form or other), a failed X Box campain (X Box will decimate the PC Games market) could easily backfire for Direct X.".
Then later:
"Windows is 90% of the market, but a game for Windows sells less than 5% of what is does on any of the other consoles. (due to a flooded PC games market , not all Windows machines being used for games, or being fast enough for the latest games and there being a *lot* of consoles out there).
A DirectX game will possibly sell more than a MacOS game, but it will sell a lot less than an OpenGL written game that can be easily transfered to Windows, MacOS, Nintendo, X-Box and at a push Playstation 2."

So remeber, it''s not only the system you chose, it''s the technology you use, how portable will it be? This will determine the market value of your game. If you''re looking for free tools and people willing to help the macintosh has those(Apple gives away a free compiler called MPW). And as said above, if you use DirectX on a windows machine you are limited. If you use OpenGl(available on many platforms) you can increase your market value.

And the reason to develop on a Mac instead of a PC running Windows is .... ?
Windows has free tools.
Windows has OpenGL.
PC's are far cheaper than Macs.

Oh, and nobody said _anything_ about using DirectX, so I don't know why you brought it up.

~~~~~~~~~~
Martee


Edited by - Martee on August 19, 2001 12:08:49 AM

I brought up directX because almost every programmer that uses windows(take a look at just about any thread in this whole forum telling newbies what to do and you will see them suggesting directX) uses it. I said that to let people know OpenGL is better and I didn''t say macintosh was better... I said PORTABILITY is better, it doesn''t matter what system you make it on as long as it runs on most of them. I just mentioned that stuff about Macintosh development because
Macintosh has free tools
Macintosh has OpenGL
and panda_master said "Windoz suxx"

Well since people are getting picky:

The Amstrad CPC464 was a damn sweet machine. 128K bankable in 16K chunks, 2 voice mono synth, 16 color programmable 6845 CRT (read vertical scrollers, screen taller than wide dimbos), 2MHz Z80, expansion port, mouse and floppy disk (140K).

That was a piece of hardware.

D.V.