Running Minecraft on Ubuntu Desktop Linux. If you're one of the millions of fans of the game Minecraft, you may be aware that it runs on Java, which is available not only for Mac and Windows, but also Linux.
Running Minecraft on Ubuntu Desktop Linux. If you're one of the millions of fans of the game Minecraft, you may be aware that it runs on Java, which is available not only for Mac and Windows, but also Linux.
You didn't answer the question, you just tried to be fancy and use bold.
OT: While Ubuntu is a lighter weight operating system to Windows/OSX, the performance increase wouldn't be worse, so there is nothing stopping you from using Ubuntu if you are okay with the limitations and consequences.
You didn't answer the question, you just tried to be fancy and use bold.
OT: While Ubuntu is a lighter weight operating system to Windows/OSX, the performance increase wouldn't be worse, so there is nothing stopping you from using Ubuntu if you are okay with the limitations and consequences.
Ubuntu requires a much smaller amount of resources to run, which will give you a much lower idle resource usage, and a much lower resource usage in general. As for the raw FPS output, I doubt that you will notice any difference at all. It's best to use the OS you are most comfortable with.
For some reason Ubuntu takes 15 - 20% of CPU usage in idle on my machine so that's why I went back to Windows.
Kind of wierd that it takes almost 20% when I don't do anything with the PC or have any apps open.
That's not a good reason to switch to Windows from Linux. If the computer is idle, because you are not using it, it doesn't matter what the OS is doing with your CPU.
Im building a computer and i dont want to spent another 100$ for a Os .... does Ubuntu run minecraft better?
I use both Windows and Ubuntu systems. My experience has been that if your machine is sufficiently powerful, no matter the OS, if your desired application will run on it, your experience will be quite pleasant.
The answer to your post is that having Ubuntu (or any Linux for that matter) will not, in and of itself, improve your Minecraft experience. This is actually up to your hardware. There are three components that matter the most in this regard and those are RAM, CPU, and VIDEO. There are other things of course, such as bus speed etc, which are a part of the system architecture, ie the motherboard. It has been my experience that you concentrate on the main three and get the motherboard that allows them to communicate in the fastest most efficient way possible.
I didn't mention hard drives above, because the difference between HDD speeds has more to do with load time, once Minecraft is loaded, there won't be any more major disk access. This includes the server too. However, if you want advice on a HDD, I'd suggest you go with a SDD as they are now $1/GB or less, boot really fast and have a 300 year life expectancy (I personally don't believe anything longer than my only life, but wow!).
Since Windows 10 can handle all of your cores I would suggest your cpu be 6 cores or better, however, this is entirely up to your budget, a 4 core cpu running at around 3.0+ GHZ will be more than sufficient for Minecraft. The same is true of Linux and has been truer much longer than it has been for Windows.
Actually if Minecraft is your only concern and you are not talking about running Modded Minecraft, a cheap 2 core cpu at 2+ GHZ is more than sufficient. In my opinion the PC version gives rise to the idea that you can run modded. Which begs the question, if you are not gonna play modded, why waste money on a computer, just get a console.
My existing system specs are AMD A6-5400K APU 2-CORE 3.6GHZ, 16GB DDR3 RAM, NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 460 1GB VRAM.
I also have several 500GB+ HDD's and one 250GB SSD. This setup works really well for Minecraft and many games. However, if I had to improve it, I would replace the cpu with a 4-CORE model and replace the video card with an 800 series or better from NVIDIA. I would also replace all of my HDD's with SDD's. I do lots of production work, so not waiting for graphics and sound to load and then waiting for the product to save would be a great boon to me. The other caveat is that I would be able to player other more intense games, and I would be able to crank all of the settings on Minecraft to the max even with modded. To be clear, I can run League of Legends and Total Annihilation on my rig, but only if I scale all the options down.
Check out my website at http://www.kreezcraft.com for information on the first official 1.8 Mega Mod Pack that has been around for just about a year now. It's public and it has servers. Btw, I would not try to run a single player instance of my pack unless your machine is twice as powerful as mine, because mine lags hard when I do that. What I do is run a server on another machine and connect to it. Then everything is blazing fast.
And no, running it on Ubuntu would not resolve any of my problems, the hardware will do that.
As a side note, I run Windows because it is more mature in that it has a better selection of programs to include payware, shareware and freeware. But then Linux has some awesome stuff too, however you are really limited because developers don't really crank out anything very fast on it, it's a problem with the organic model of coding. That's another debate for another topic.
Sorry, but I can't believe such SSDs exists; at least I don't think they'll work for that long if you use them the wrong way.
The components holding information can only be written with information a set amount of times until they break.
This means the more information gets rewritten the faster SSDs will lose capacity, so the only sensible way to use them is for data and software, which doesn't change on a fast pace (example: OS).
The concerns for SSDs were true when they first started to become popular, but in a short couple of years these concerns disappeared entirely.
Right now, the only reason not to get an SSD is if the ~$1/GB price is too expensive for your needs. The failure rate is a lot, lot, lot, lot lower than what it was in 2012. As is the price, a 60GB SSD used to be incredibly expensive, now they are less expensive and more reliable.
SSD technology has improved at a very rapid pace (faster, more capacity, cheaper and that 300 year usage isn't an advertising scheme).
Sorry, but I can't believe such SSDs exists; at least I don't think they'll work for that long if you use them the wrong way.
The components holding information can only be written with information a set amount of times until they break.
This means the more information gets rewritten the faster SSDs will lose capacity, so the only sensible way to use them is for data and software, which doesn't change on a fast pace (example: OS).
The 300 year life expectancy is likely some advertisement scheme, which assumes the SSD isn't used much to get eye-catching numbers.
That was based on my own calculations and I probably erred too so I'll admit that. However it's still a mixed bag of which type of long term storage is best as seen at http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283327-32-life-span, there are plenty more examples of these experience throughout the Internet. The sum general consensus is that whatever the long term storage is, if you keep at 50% full or less, it'll last a decade easily. Consider that unless just built or bought a cutting edge rig, you'll likely be upgrading every 2 to 3 years anyways, so whatever the life expectancy of anything is in fact a moot point, it's a good point however, more as metric of quality.
Im building a computer and i dont want to spent another 100$ for a Os .... does Ubuntu run minecraft better?
Running Minecraft on Ubuntu Desktop Linux. If you're one of the millions of fans of the game Minecraft, you may be aware that it runs on Java, which is available not only for Mac and Windows, but also Linux.
Check Out My YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRFXLUIBtXPymWXqkBifkIg
You didn't answer the question, you just tried to be fancy and use bold.
OT: While Ubuntu is a lighter weight operating system to Windows/OSX, the performance increase wouldn't be worse, so there is nothing stopping you from using Ubuntu if you are okay with the limitations and consequences.
- C.C.
Limitations and consequences such as... ?
Ubuntu requires a much smaller amount of resources to run, which will give you a much lower idle resource usage, and a much lower resource usage in general. As for the raw FPS output, I doubt that you will notice any difference at all. It's best to use the OS you are most comfortable with.
Farewell everyone o/
I have a laptop that I have run Windows 7 & 10 on as well as Ubuntu. While MC lags on Windows it runs fine under Ubuntu.
That being said, others here seem to have other experiences.
Perhaps, try Ubuntu then buy Windows if you don't like the result?
That's not a good reason to switch to Windows from Linux. If the computer is idle, because you are not using it, it doesn't matter what the OS is doing with your CPU.
I use both Windows and Ubuntu systems. My experience has been that if your machine is sufficiently powerful, no matter the OS, if your desired application will run on it, your experience will be quite pleasant.
The answer to your post is that having Ubuntu (or any Linux for that matter) will not, in and of itself, improve your Minecraft experience. This is actually up to your hardware. There are three components that matter the most in this regard and those are RAM, CPU, and VIDEO. There are other things of course, such as bus speed etc, which are a part of the system architecture, ie the motherboard. It has been my experience that you concentrate on the main three and get the motherboard that allows them to communicate in the fastest most efficient way possible.
I didn't mention hard drives above, because the difference between HDD speeds has more to do with load time, once Minecraft is loaded, there won't be any more major disk access. This includes the server too. However, if you want advice on a HDD, I'd suggest you go with a SDD as they are now $1/GB or less, boot really fast and have a 300 year life expectancy (I personally don't believe anything longer than my only life, but wow!).
Since Windows 10 can handle all of your cores I would suggest your cpu be 6 cores or better, however, this is entirely up to your budget, a 4 core cpu running at around 3.0+ GHZ will be more than sufficient for Minecraft. The same is true of Linux and has been truer much longer than it has been for Windows.
Actually if Minecraft is your only concern and you are not talking about running Modded Minecraft, a cheap 2 core cpu at 2+ GHZ is more than sufficient. In my opinion the PC version gives rise to the idea that you can run modded. Which begs the question, if you are not gonna play modded, why waste money on a computer, just get a console.
My existing system specs are AMD A6-5400K APU 2-CORE 3.6GHZ, 16GB DDR3 RAM, NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 460 1GB VRAM.
I also have several 500GB+ HDD's and one 250GB SSD. This setup works really well for Minecraft and many games. However, if I had to improve it, I would replace the cpu with a 4-CORE model and replace the video card with an 800 series or better from NVIDIA. I would also replace all of my HDD's with SDD's. I do lots of production work, so not waiting for graphics and sound to load and then waiting for the product to save would be a great boon to me. The other caveat is that I would be able to player other more intense games, and I would be able to crank all of the settings on Minecraft to the max even with modded. To be clear, I can run League of Legends and Total Annihilation on my rig, but only if I scale all the options down.
Check out my website at http://www.kreezcraft.com for information on the first official 1.8 Mega Mod Pack that has been around for just about a year now. It's public and it has servers. Btw, I would not try to run a single player instance of my pack unless your machine is twice as powerful as mine, because mine lags hard when I do that. What I do is run a server on another machine and connect to it. Then everything is blazing fast.
And no, running it on Ubuntu would not resolve any of my problems, the hardware will do that.
As a side note, I run Windows because it is more mature in that it has a better selection of programs to include payware, shareware and freeware. But then Linux has some awesome stuff too, however you are really limited because developers don't really crank out anything very fast on it, it's a problem with the organic model of coding. That's another debate for another topic.
Hope this helps you to decide what to do.
The concerns for SSDs were true when they first started to become popular, but in a short couple of years these concerns disappeared entirely.
Right now, the only reason not to get an SSD is if the ~$1/GB price is too expensive for your needs. The failure rate is a lot, lot, lot, lot lower than what it was in 2012. As is the price, a 60GB SSD used to be incredibly expensive, now they are less expensive and more reliable.
SSD technology has improved at a very rapid pace (faster, more capacity, cheaper and that 300 year usage isn't an advertising scheme).
That was based on my own calculations and I probably erred too so I'll admit that. However it's still a mixed bag of which type of long term storage is best as seen at http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283327-32-life-span, there are plenty more examples of these experience throughout the Internet. The sum general consensus is that whatever the long term storage is, if you keep at 50% full or less, it'll last a decade easily. Consider that unless just built or bought a cutting edge rig, you'll likely be upgrading every 2 to 3 years anyways, so whatever the life expectancy of anything is in fact a moot point, it's a good point however, more as metric of quality.
How Much Fps Would it get:
Amd A6 6400k Apu
4GB ddr 3 1600mhz
500GB HDD
Linux 15.04