To their credit, most system requirement queries are easily answered by simply downloading the free client, and giving it a try. I found a single forum entry, which I lost as quickly as I found it, where a Unity developer actually stated that the 3000 series should run Unity but he still mentioned that it probably was not a good idea, as you would be severely limited. Surely we have something more concrete in regards to system requirements? Sometimes, a driver update can make the difference, albeit only in the few cases where the difference required is minimal. That said, it is always worth double checking you have the latest drivers. As a result, Windows may actually run the "officially not compatible" software at a slower pace, where Linux may just give up and give you a black screen. In several cases, I have seen speculation that although Windows should be more hardware intensive, it is still far more efficient in managing problems that come up (especially in graphics). Usually, the issue is just put down to a difference at the driver level. This might be a question for those more versed in operating systems and the core differences, but I have certainly seen this happen, before. If my computer doesn't support the Linux version, why did it successfully run the Windows version? The best reference I could find to your reported card lists it as almost 10 years old. That said, it is fair to say a 128Mb graphic cars may not meet these requirements, in today's standard. Unfortunately, there is no clear definition of "modern graphics card". "Unity on Linux: Release Notes and Known Issues" Machines also need a modern graphics card with vendor-supported graphics drivers ![]() ![]() While I find that model did have the DirectX capabilities required as per the official system requirements page, the Linux version appears to be listed with additional requirements.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |