I see what you did there!
“We want to make it as easy as possible for the 2,500 games on Steam to run on Linux as well. It’s a hedging strategy,” Newell is reported to have said.
Means that Valve are dropping all support for Windows?
First it was Gartner, now Gabe Newell, the former Microsoft executive and billionaire computer games baron behind Half-Life, has laid into Windows 8. Newell, who oversaw the first three versions of Windows under Bill Gates among other roles during his 13 years at the software giant, has reportedly called the touchscreen- …
All this talk about rat's arses, but does anyone actually have a rat's arse to give, and does the rat get a say in it?
No one actually deals in real rat-arses any more, as a quick Google search or Wikipedia check would have shown you. The nominal rat-arse went off the actual rat-arse standard in 1874, since when it has been backed by the faith and credit of the International Rat Association (RatAss). When someone says they "don't give a rat's arse", they're talking about a virtual financial transaction between two accounts, denominated in rat-arses.
Of course, people might refer to exchanging rat-arses on the commodities markets, but those always deal in bulk, so unless someone says something like "I don't give 2000 barrels of rat-arses" they're probably not talking about a physical exchange.
There was an article about all this in the Economist just a couple of weeks ago. Or maybe it was in FT.
Yes, i'm one of them. And i can run windows or linux and i don't care (aside from netflix which i can watch on smart TV).
Thing is - gamers so far been largest group of PC users that HAVE to run windows. If most games start supporting linux, windows may loose at least some of those users.
The problem with linux is fragmentation. It's both linux's strength and weakness. Valve can make games for linux but which flavour and distro?
It's almost like linux need a java/emulator type solution. Build a game engine platform and give it to the distros to get running and include, then release the standard engine/platform to the game developers to make the games.
I have enough problems trying to get android software working between version let alone trying to get stuff to run on my PC. Most users expect to install the software and just have it work.
This post has been deleted by its author
You mean "fragmentation" such as:
Wow! How will Valve manage to cope with building their games for such a "fragmented" range of targets?
Other than architecture (i.e. hardware) differences, which would equally apply to any other multi-architecture capable OS, a static elf binary is a static elf binary, and will run on any Linux distro. In fact they could even get away with producing just the x86 binary, since that'll run just fine on x86_64 too (with 32-bit support libs).
So that's a total "fragment" count of ... one.
Or did you have some other sort of "fragmentation" in mind?
"Fragmentation" my arse.
I'm so sick of seeing clueless Windows dilberts peddle FUD about Linux "fragmentation".
Well with some other apps (take Skype for instance) they support the popular distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora) which also covers some of the other distros based on the popular distros (yes, I'm aware Ubuntu is based on Debian :-D) and for other distros they can supply a .tar.gz with with statically linked binaries with all the libs compiled on or non-statically compiled maybe with the libs in the archive.
I think for a lot of gamers ditching Windows for Linux they'd probably go for one of the more popular distros anyway (maybe Ubuntu, Fedora etc) and for others on officially unsupported distros they might well know enough to make it work anyway.
I'm not really a PC gamer myself, but I think that might change judging by the prices in the Steam sale. Take Left 4 Dead 2 for instance, I was looking at getting that for the XBOX360 and it's about a quarter of the pre-owned price (from Game) on Steam in the Steam sale. The savings I could make could pay for a better graphics card (currently got some cheapo AMD Radeon card from around 2008 ish).
That's one way of covering all the bases.
Another is to release the game code itself as Free Software, and just let the distros build and package it themselves, a la most id Software titles. That way they can still sell the game by keeping the data files proprietary, but no platform/architecture is excluded. This also relieves the vendor of much of the effort/cost of maintaining/bugfixing the code, since he now has an entire community doing it for him.
> The problem with linux is fragmentation. It's both linux's strength and weakness. Valve can make games for
> linux but which flavour and distro?
That's not really a problem at all. You can statically link your binaries (removing any lib dependency and version problems) and use LSB and package managers to manage installation. Seriously, this is a non-issue.
Fragmentation? Sorry, I'm sick of hearing that word thrown around. Its like the latest word to get Godwin invoked. :)
Most desktop distro's (by penetration) these days are built on Debian. Very little *effective* fragmentation at that point. Ubuntu has the biggest penetration, so support that (and you get Mint in the process). Done. (which is EXACTLY what it sounds like what Valve is about to do.)
... there are some of us who don't give a rat's arse about computer games ...
I don't give any part of a rat about computer games ... but I do appreciate that the wants of computer gamers have an impact on the PC industry, so I find articles of this kind interesting even though I don't play games myself.
Beer -- or "first person drinker" as I believe the gamers would have it -- 'cos it's Friday.
That's not the point. The point is that gaming has been one of the mainstays of the Windows OS at homes, and prevalence of Windows at home PCs has secured Windows as an enterprise OS. Giving a beachhead for Linux at home computers could well spell doom for Windows in the long term. IMHO this is not the best moment for MS to start performing risky experiments with their OS.
It's not even will be catastrophic, it's could be catastrophic to some people maybe theoretically. Even if Microsoft could seriously lock people into a you can only buy from us with a massive markup model (i.e. people were Apple-customer levels of stupid) they'd have all sorts of competition issues up the ass.
I don't know if its really ever going to be practical, but I've had in mind a 'glass' touch sensitive desk as a user interface of the future for some time. Its not really very clear in my mind, but something like a stylus rather than a mouse. I never find a mouse that great for really precise work. I think I'd be happier with an inkless biro that just wrote on the screen. Whether it would replace the keyboard is another matter though.
Perhaps something like docking your mobile device into a slot on the back of the desk and that enables a 3ft by two foot touch sensitive display built into the desk surface...
I can't imagine sitting hunched over a desk will do much for your posture. Wacom have produced their Cintiq range of monitors with pressure sensitive stylus for quite a few years though. They've got a clever stand so that the screen can be set into a sloped position like a draftsman's desk.
Why would you need to hunch over it? The reason desks are flat today is because things roll off them if they're not. But if it's all digital then there's no reason you can't have it like a drawing board. - they are much more comfortable to work at.
Sadly the cost of something like this will still be too high for the time being. But it would be awesome to have a drawing-board format device. Maybe an A3 version would be affordable.
> Did you only read the first sentence of my post or something?
I think the idea's fine: something like that coupled with a keyboard for typing on when you need to. The 24" of that Wacom wouldn't be big enough though: it's got to be A1 sized or might as well go home. And the pitch would need to be a print-like 300DPI minimum, so overall resolution would have to start at 7k x 5k. And the screen would need to stay stone cold to the touch. So like @h4rm0ny says, the technology's not there yet, but with OLEDs on the way, it probably will be in the next decade or so.
I envisage something like a tablet with a screen that reaches right to all four edges and a stand which couples an array to them together. The on-board processors would seamlessly form a cluster when the individual segments were docked. (Oh, and the segments couldn't have roundy edges as otherwise there'd be annoying gaps - neatly side-stepping any patent abuse from Apple.)
Best get cracking on a decent UI/OS for it now. :-)
(I tried the Win 8 pre release and can tell that's definitely not it.)
maybe something with labels representing the target action with colored backgrounds and connecting flows to more relevant data on that action? And have these touch surfaces all over the ship^h^h^h^hplace so anyone can use them. This means a login system known everywhere and maybe even a communications mechanism via voice. While we're at it, lets have a little comm pendant we can just talk to and ask "the computer" questions and get nice female voices answering us. Too bad nobodies thought of that before.
There is perhaps something to like about touch, but I think it's a bit wrong to compare it to a mouse and or a keyboard.
The thing that so easily is forgotten, is for instance, that with a mouse your hand rests, the movement your hand has to do is small and apart from that you have easy input from a least four fingers, and your hand does not hide your screen.
Touch is rather heavy work and very restricted, really, compared to a mouse, and the bigger the screen the longer your hand movement will become.
Touch is very old, (too) used, for instance, on monitors for those dealing with air control.
Right now I can understand touch only on very small handheld devices like cell phones or "industrial" screens used only now and then to define stuff, but not as a constant input.
Now, I did forget to mention the mouse less laptop I use right now, of course, and also Microsoft.
Then about Valve Software, why would they not be interested in a growing market like linux.
"Certainly Microsoft’s new requirements for future computers could act as a deterrent to new entrants "
Seriously, don't these people read the specs? If your computer runs Windows 7, it will run Windows 8. So at current count, there's over 600 million of them around (MS figures at WPC a few weeks ago). For slates / tablets / things, the hardware is baselined, its a new option for new devices - how is that an issue for compatibility?
Well I can say this. My 2002 Windows XP machine is running Windows 8 right now. However unfortunately my Dell Inspiron 1501 wouldn't run Windows 8. In fact its having issues running Windows 7 as the built in Radeon Xpress 1150 chipset is not able to play hulu and netflix shows and movies without freezing up. It works fine on Youtube videos and what games it can run though. And I can use the Aero glass theme with it also.
Wonder if my Windows Vista Compaq would have a problem with Windows 8. It runs Aero Glass also, and seems to be more compatible with Windows 7 than my Inspiron is.
"I believe they also said that if your machine runs XP it will run Vista, and look how well that worked out."
I think you have false memory syndrome. Plenty of computers that were running XP could run Vista. And plenty couldn't. It had to do with the age of the computer. I don't believe that MS ever said that just because XP ran on your machine that it met the requirements for Vista. Citation?
But anyway, we can see how well Win8 runs on a machine that runs Win7 because I'm doing it at home on my Desktop and my laptop. In both cases, I actually find Win8 faster. People have backed that up with various performance tests as well.
I never made such a claim; the referent of 'they' in my earlier comment was deliberately left hanging, and the comment to which I replied made no reference to Microsoft saying anything on the subject.
Nice how you jump straight from misreading my argument to ad hom; it's very progressive of you, although citing such an old-fashioned thing as "false memory syndrome" shows a disappointing lack of imagination -- you might as well tell me I have a false consciousness! If that's the way you want to argue, then perhaps you'd prefer to do so in this thread, where I've said a couple of things you can really get your teeth into.
"I never made such a claim; the referent of 'they' in my earlier comment was deliberately left hanging, and the comment to which I replied made no reference to Microsoft saying anything on the subject."
Well you're blaming Microsoft so either your "they" meant MS or else you're blaming MS for what other people said. In either case, I stand by my post.
"Nice how you jump straight from misreading my argument to ad hom; it's very progressive of you, although citing such an old-fashioned thing as "false memory syndrome" shows a disappointing lack of imagination"
That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is where I say your argument is wrong because of who you are. Suggesting that you might be suffering from false memory syndrome is actually a conclusion based on me perceiving your argument to be flawed and seeking an explanation for why that may be. E.g. you are 'remembering' something that never actually happened. People do this all the time.
Basically, my intent wasn't to insult you. My intent was to explain that I'm pretty certain that you're wrong and ask you to provide evidence for what you wrote. That still stands. So either you aren't saying Microsoft stated that any XP machine could run Vista (though you've only said that it's not proven that you were, which is a weird response), or you are saying that other people than MS misled you and you are using this as a basis to criticise MS. Which also doesn't seem supportable. That's not an ad hominem. I've made none.
I downloaded and installed the first Windows 8 Consumer Preview. I installed it on a rather old computer that is this very minute running Windows 7 very successfully. That was, obviously, a few months ago.
Week before last I downloaded the latest Windows 8 Consumer Preview because I'd couldn't find the first installation disk I'd created and I wanted to try i8 again after a period to see what the changes amounted to. Well young Jedi, guess what? That same computer that is running Windows 7 as we speak, and ran Windows 8 a couple of months ago will not even install the latest Windows 8 Consumer Preview.
Seems there's a little thing called PAE, and the machine on which I tried the second download of the consumer preview doesn't have it and the installation fails for that reason. It does however, run Windows 7 beautifully. You see I have a system image I restore when I'm done playing.
BUT ... I found my first Windows 8 Consumer Preview complete with the original key and it did install on the old PC without PAE that runs 7 so well.
Funny thing how what we often know we know we don't really know huh?
Yes if you have a computer that runs Windows 7 it will most likely run Win8.
But if you want to sell computers, just being able to run Win 8 is not enough to get you the Windows 8 sticker. If you want the sticker then you have to follow the new rules for stuff like secure boot.
Broadly true, but there are actually some older boxes that don't have the CPU features (PAE, NX, SSE2) required for Win8 and there's no "non-accelerated-GPU" option anymore either.
But actually I think the article *was* talking about what you call a "new option for new hardware". It's not that it is technically difficult to build what MS are asking of slates and tablets but rather (as the article explains) it is politically a hard nut to swallow for would-be vendors to turn themselves into sub-contractors of "Microsoft Hardware Division", which is what happens if you build a WoA tablet.
"I'm not so sure you're right. Doesn't Win 8 mandate secure boot?"
Windows 8 does not require Secure Boot. Windows 8 certification for new machines requires it. So if you want to purchase Windows 8 and deploy it on your home PC or in your company, you don't need Secure Boot machines. You can go right ahead. But if you're a manufacturer and you want the laptop you've just released to have the sticker on it, then it needs Secure Boot (and except on ARM, the ability for the user to disable it as well).
No. The "logo program" for selling PCs that carry a Designed for Windows 8 mandates secure boot, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
If your PC carries a Designed for Windows 7 logo, it will be of a suitable spec that it can run Windows 8. If it doesn't, but runs Windows 7 anyway, it might be capable of running Windows 8.
> the ARM version of Windows that will be found solely on appliance like devices and not desktop PCs or laptops.
You seem to have a strange limitation that has you compartmentalizing items for no logical reason.
Surface RT: screen: check, keyboard: check, trackpad: check, keyboard is attached and folds over screen: check.
In what way is Surface RT plus keyboard significantly different from a 'laptop' ? In particular from various devices that have been called laptops.
There are many ARM based 'desktop' models, mostly in the 'all in one' sub-category. What prevents these being made to run Windows RT ?
" If your computer runs Windows 7, it will run Windows 8"
I seem to recall similar statements by MS from some years ago, but regarding W2000 and Win XP or Win XP and Vista. Probably even Win 3.11 and Win 95. If MS continues playing this same old trick over and over again, people will end noticing it, sooner or later.
> I seem to recall similar statements by MS from some years ago, but regarding W2000 and Win XP or Win XP and Vista. Probably even Win 3.11 and Win 95.
Your ability to "recall" stuff that was not said is not a constraint on other parties.
Win 95 had requirements above those for Win 3.11. ie 4Mb vs 3Mb, 80386DX vs 80386SX, 50-55Mb disk vs 10.5Mb.
Windows 2000: 133MHz, 64Mb, VGA, 650Kb disk.
XP: 233MHz, 64Mb, SVGA (800x600), 1.5Gb disk.
Vista: 1GHz, 512Mb (home basic) or 1Gb, DirectX 9 32Mb GPU (home basic) or 128Mb GPU, 15Gb disk.
Right, so, it couldn't be anything to do with the guy being upset that Microsoft will have their own distribution channel for getting games to users?
Seriously ,the article doesn't mention the Windows App store /once/! Newell could just as easily be feeling slighted by the possibility that Steam might get some serious competition from the Windows App store.
I suspect that he's less worried about a competing store, more being railroaded until MS have the only store on the platform.
The Games For Windows (stop laughing) store is an excellent example of competition from MS that doesn't scare Mr. Newell. Being locked out, on the other hand, is something he can't out-engineer without lawsuits.
"I suspect that he's less worried about a competing store, more being railroaded until MS have the only store on the platform."
Being able to buy software is far too ingrained for MS to take it out anytime soon - even Apple don't do that. Of course WOA is different but that's a special case more like the iPad where this IS the way things work, on a new type of device. But a PC and buying software from any vendor just go hand in hand and realistically even MS don't have the clout to make that happen.
I didn't mention the 'Games for Windows' store, I 'm talking about the new Windows Marketplace built into the Metro environment of WIndows 8. Yes, I know it's hardly going to be delivering a half-life 3 anytime soon, but then, it doesn't need to. If 'PC' gaming is moving toward the more 'casual' gaming experience of mobile devices, then that's exactly what will be delivered throug the app store in Windows 8, serious gaming moves ever more solidly toward the console, and that leaves Newell where... ? Well, presumably it leaves him without the sort of freedom to which he is used to - but he'll need to just get used to it.
I assume though that he's hoping the 'year of the linux desktop' can still come ... if it didn't happen during the Vista years, it's not going to happen now.
"serious gaming moves ever more solidly toward the console"
This actually made me laugh! Serious gaming has never been the forte of the console. Anyone wanting cutting edge gameplay, graphics, audio, loading times, and mods, will be playing on PC. As soon as consoles are released their architectures are usually a generation or two behind the current PC tech.
Look at the state of the console market now, the Xbox 360 is 7 years old - the games companies are all complaining about the lack of progress in the console market, and rightly so - people shouldn't be conned into thinking that low-res (not even HD in most cases as consoles tend to scale-up lower res content), high game prices, and horrific loading times are the pinnacle of the gaming experience.
Console gaming isn't like it was, lets face it consoles are not consoles anymore, each one is now a computer and most console games need to install prior to use. Most games are not as detailed or complex as PC games (RAGE, Crysis 2, gears of war) and so don't offer the online or gaming experience where you actually get to save when you want and have proper controls customisable etc. So windows still has a massive following in games and a lot of people only use it for the actual proper games that people play on line where mouse and keyboard skills are much better. (And most of the biggest online games people play are via steam or by Valve itself L4d2, Half life, Counter strike etc.) If consoles were the same experience you would have servers where both worlds coulc meet, without consoles having aimbots. But it isn't like that and MS needs gamers to fund and support it, without games graphics won't have the need to improve and move on. How many Nvidia adverts sell with blu ray film advert?, it is all about games. And steam as said is 70% of the online market.
If the guy who runs steam thinks windows 8 is bad, then MS should be listening.
For me windows 8 will die a death because all of the new stuff won't hit the companies any time soon, who afterall will not shell out for touch screens and overhaul all of their legacy software to make way for touch screens. I know we won't, I know massive companies can't afford the outlay. Not to mention health and safety of all the call centre staff moving round wiping fingers on a screen. A legal nightmare companies will just steer wide of.
"I assume though that he's hoping the 'year of the linux desktop' can still come ... if it didn't happen during the Vista years, it's not going to happen now."
It didn't happen primarily because of lack of 3rd party support. Wouldn't you say that Steam is a rather large name on the PC? And given that several other online game distributors already support Linux, I'd say things are looking up.
The "Vista years"? You make it sound like an era, not a short blip on PC users' radar. It's not like two-and-a-bit years is enough to repair the damage done by four decades of Microsoft's OEM racketeering. Like this, for example:
"Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement, which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped, even if it didn't include Windows."
It's gangster tactics like that which make the "Year of the Linux Desktop" so elusive. Kinda hard to make any headway when your only outlet (i.e. the "channel") is controlled by the "competition" (not that anything Microsoft does should be characterised so euphemistically).
OTOH, take a market with a healthier, less monopolised distribution channel, such as mobile devices (or frankly anything other than the extremely unnatural
Microsoft PC desktop market), and suddenly Linux is allowed to thrive ... from zero to a million units per day, or around 60% of the market, and rising, in less than four years.
Now, consider the increased popularity of mobile devices, at the direct (and pretty severe) expense of "desktops", a still very shitty economy, and what is very likely to be the worst flop in Microsoft's history, Tiles® 8, and it's little wonder that companies like Valve want to abandon the sinking Windows ship.
There may never be a "Year of the Linux Desktop", but it's a moot point if there isn't much of a "desktop" left to bother with.
Microsoft can have what's left of the "desktop", and good riddance. May they choke on it.
The built-in Windows 8 store is perfectly capable of selling AAA class title written entirely in C++/DirectX and capable of everything a modern gamer wants. It's very much a direct competitor to Steam, so it's hardly surprising Gabe sees it as such.
Trying to counter that by attempting to sell software to a user base that has repeatedly demonstrated it doesn't like paying for software is, as the say, a "catastrophe" in the making though.
You're right, and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned. A key part of Newell's objections to Win8 is that with the Windows store, Microsoft are moving towards a walled garden approach like Apple. This will have a serious effect both on independent software makers, and on hardware resellers.
To be fair to him, he's entirely right to express concern and make a move towards other platforms like Linux. His job is to look after his own company, not boost Microsoft.
HTF can a one word answer be taken out of context? it IS the context
Read the article a bit more closely. To paraphrase it seems that the Gartner man meant something like "we usually write paid-for reviews, and in this case we weren't paid to say nice things about Metro without a touch interface. Summing up the experience as 'bad' was an obvious thinko on my part in the context of getting paid for further shill work".
Yes, I find it quite astonishing that he'd say something like that, but that's what I read the article as meaning.
He's worried about the Store - at the moment, you buy games through their app. Windows 8 brings in a store like the App Store to Windows - are all online sales for software going to be pushed through that, as Microsoft increasingly apes Apple? If so, what's their cut going to be? At the moment, there's no cut for Microsoft, and in the foreseeable future this will continue, but, as the article points out, Microsoft are starting to wield Cupertino-esque control freakery, and so in the future, it cannot be ruled out that the Store will be the way for software to go on to the machine, and that will have a negative impact on their bottom line.
I mean...Ok I get it. Its not normal. And I think MS should open up Visual Studio express to all, and not force everyone who can't afford to pay for the software, go metro only. But I've been using the release preview for a while now, and once you figure out that the Metro UI is nothing more than a replacement for the Start button and bar, its pretty decent.
Of course, I'm no power user. I don't go digging into the internals of the OS to find every tweak and hack. But I'm more than a casual user though, as I like to tweak and hack here and there. So far what I couldn't figure out on my own has been found on the internet. Not having a start button is not the "end et all people.
And take this from an Amiga user from back in the day that's still using Amiga OS in multiple forms(WinUAE w/Amikit, Icaros Desktop, and Amithlon). I think, at least, this current release of Windows 8(Preview release), excites me as much as the Amiga days of OS3.1, which were very awesome, as many of you will fondly remember. I think MS went in the right direction with the OS, giving it a totally fresh new look.
A word of warning to Microsoft though. I'm still able to go back to those Amiga OS variants I love as of right now because you're not requiring me to decide whether or not I have to go with Windows 8 or stick with old hardware right now(The BIOS lock issue, or whatever its called.). You would do well to keep it that way. People don't like to be told what they have to choose, when its their money buying the product. To make people do so would indeed be catastrophic for the PC industry.
It's not so much the internals of Windows 8 that's the problem (by a lot of accounts it works slightly better than Win 7 in some ways), it's the half baked incompetent and ugly user interface that's been bodged on top of it that's the problem. There are so many elementary basic design and user interface mistakes in Metro that it's a wonder that it's usable at all.
Just FYI, the new Visual Studio Express WILL allow Desktop applications to be created - Microsoft back-tracked and changed their decision:
Please ignore a lot of the nonsense spouted about BIOS lock or as it is correctly called: UEFI Secure Boot.
It doesn't stop you installing Windows 8 on your existing PC!
It doesn't stop you building a custom PC!
It doesn't stop you installing some other OS on a PC that is 'Designed for Windows 8'! (You will be able to turn it off in the UEFI configuration screen for most PCs though I suspect there may be a few manufacturers that will hide that option to get a better deal from MS, you'll just need to be a bit more careful what kit you buy).
It does mean that an ARM PC designed purely for Windows 8 will only run Windows 8 RT.
Badvok wrote :-
Please ignore a lot of the nonsense spouted about BIOS lock or as it is correctly called: UEFI Secure Boot.......It doesn't stop you installing some other OS on a PC that is 'Designed for Windows 8'! (You will be able to turn it off in the UEFI configuration screen for most PCs though I suspect there may be a few manufacturers that will hide that option to get a better deal from MS, you'll just need to be a bit more careful what kit you buy).
That's a pious hope. "Being careful" about what kit you buy immediately rules out most potential users who have bought a PC from Currys and one day want to give Linux a try - that is how most people start a change to Linux and MS hate it. Even I, who has built my own PC's for years, often find it difficult or impossible to find facts on a particular piece of kit no matter how careful I am - makers change chipsets and BIOS versions all the time and don't seem to make any one particular motherboard for longer than a month or so.
And you can take a safe bet that those makers won't be bothered to provide the UEFI key to their kit, or if they do it will be lost somewhere in the supply chain and not reach the end-buyer. As long as Windows works, they will consider it "Job done", even *IF* MS is not leaning on them.
"And you can take a safe bet that those makers won't be bothered to provide the UEFI key to their kit, or if they do it will be lost somewhere in the supply chain and not reach the end-buyer. As long as Windows works, they will consider it "Job done", even *IF* MS is not leaning on them."
It's a requirement by Microsoft to get your Windows 8 sticker for your x86 device, that the user be able to disable secure boot. That's been said several times on these forums.
h4rm0ny wrote :- "It's a requirement by Microsoft to get your Windows 8 sticker for your x86 device, that the user be able to disable secure boot."
Is that a fact? Can you give a reference for that please ? (I am not being sarcastic, it would be helpful, I'd like to see the wording, thanks)
"Is that a fact? Can you give a reference for that please ? (I am not being sarcastic, it would be helpful, I'd like to see the wording, thanks)"
No problem. You can find the MS hardware certification requirements on their website. Here is a link to the PDF of them: MS Hardware Certification Requirements
If you skip down to the section on UEFISecureBoot (begins on page 118) it is covered in this section. As per usual, when you actually get into the detail it's more complicated, but the summary version that it is a requirement to be able to disable secure Boot on x86 is correct. Relevant passages below:
"17. Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:
a. It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx), which puts the system into setup mode.
b. If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system is operating in Setup Mode with SecureBoot turned off.
c. The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults.On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled.
18. Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. A Windows Server may also disable Secure Boot remotely using a strongly authenticated (preferably public-key based) out-of-band management connection, such as to a baseboard management controller or service processor. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems."
> It doesn't stop you installing Windows 8 on your existing PC!
> It doesn't stop you building a custom PC!
It doesn't stop you from being marginalized in the marketplace.
Those are your solutions? Aging legacy hardware and building it yourself?
You might as well declare that I have the option to buy a farm in Lancaster, PA.
All true, as far as I have been able to determine. However, I consider the last item completely unacceptable for equipment that I own. Accordingly, I do not expect to purchase any Windows RT/ARM hardware unless to establish standing to join a lawsuit aimed at overturning that requirement.
The problem (on x86 type hardware) is in how UEFI implementors and PC manufacturers choose to arrange secure boot configuration. If they do the Right Thing, and supply the platform key with the mainboard or PC, there really is not a problem. Anyone wanting to install a different OS can use the platform key to apply necessary updates to the security database and install what they want and take advantage of secure boot. I do not doubt that Linux (and others like FreeBSD and NetBSD) distributors can come up with decent installation packaging to do that, although it would be nice to see them working together on it. If they do it the minimal Microsoft-compliant way, it will deny users advantages of secure boot, such as they may be. In that case, my issue would be with the manufacturer who declined to give me information needed to control my own hardware,
not with Microsoft.
This post has been deleted by its author
I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim Windows 8 or Valve developing a native Steam client for Ubuntu will bring about the 'year of the Linux desktop'.
That said, after years of p***ing about with virtual machines, Wine and PlayOnLinux scripts only to achieve sub-par results, I can't wait to get my hands on that native Steam client. Since they've also ported L4D2 (in internal beta now) and it's version of the Source engine to OpenGL it'll only be a matter of time before we see the rest of Valve's catalogue running on Linux. As an added bonus all of Valve's older titles (Half-life, Counter-Strike, etc.) already run under OpenGL because they use a modified Quake II engine and will need minimal work to run on Linux.
Start marking the days Windows partition. Your doom approaches!
Its more about a migration strategy than the immediate effect.
If Steam becomes the cross-platform games provider, it helps move people to opengl (from directx) even if they are looking at windows-only releases initially, since that gives more flexibility for OSX as well as linux for the future, especially as even iMacs now have reasonable graphics capabilities.
Linux might be the trendy dev-bait but I suspect that Valve would like more OSX games to sell and linux (opengl) games are going to be easier to port than directx. As MS knows, its all about the developers. If W8 is a disaster then more people will pick up Macs at home and Valve would like something to offer them rather than suffering a drop in sales due to a lack of Mac games.
It's not hard to see why he thinks it will be a disaster. Nobody will bother with Steam when an app store installs by default on every Windows box and in some cases such as Windows RT is the ONLY way to purchase, download and install apps & games.
Steam is basically screwed at that point. Valve might attempt to move the games to the cloud (and I would be surprised if they don't have a project in advanced stages to do that) so that the Steam client is just a dumb proxy. But even then Microsoft could do an Apple by forcing increasingly abusive to get their cut of any games or subscription sold by Valve.
It has monopoly written all over it. Even if Windows continues to be open, the very fact that a store is built in is an unfair advantage to Microsoft.
I'm not so sure that porting to Linux is so much hedging as leverage with Microsoft. If Steam has the means to make gaming heterogeneous then one of the main attractions of Windows disappears in a puff of smoke. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Linux thing is just to pull Microsoft into negotiations and will be quietly dropped if those negotiations go to Valve's benefit.
Every attempt MS has made to sell games on Windows has been a disaster. They have maybe a dozen or so games available for the PC in their Games for Windows Marketplace, compared to 2,500 on Steam. Games for Windows Live is a universally reviled DRM system that has a nasty occasional trait of getting confused, and preventing legitimate owners from playing their games. On other occasions it will refuse to let you play a game until you download a large update. The option to do it in the background (Steam's preferred method) is not provided. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is all deliberate, since they would much prefer to sell games for the XBOX. More likely though, it is a combination of incompetence, and not understanding the market. As for MS being a serious competitor to Valve in the PC games market, that is about as likely as them beating NASA with a manned Mars landing.
There is a difference this time. The Windows App store will be there by default and it will work well enough that nobody will be interested in another client except legacy users. Secondly since Windows Phone 7, Microsoft have been integrating stuff like XBox / Windows Live into the experience so all that side is sewn up too. Even if Windows 8 were "open", the power of the default means they effectively shut down interest in Steam, GOG, Pulse and all the rest of them.
And Windows RT isn't open so there isn't even the option for users to install a second app store even if they wanted to. As I said, if Steam ever appears on such a restricted system it'll be gimped to just provide social information. Potentially it could offer cloud gaming but MS would want their cut.
It's anticompetitive to be sure, but that's the storm that Valve is sailing into. There will be lawsuits and with that in mind the broadening of the platform to Linux could be seen as a gambit to bring about a settlement from Microsoft rather than an earnest attempt to broaden the platform.
I've seen it all before. AOL loudly proclaimed it was going to switch from using Internet Explorer to power its thick client to Gecko as a prelude to an anticompetition lawsuit they were launching. But when it came to it they just took the money hat MS held out to settle and dumped Gecko and Mozilla on its ass. Fortunately Mozilla survived this but the point is companies do cynical things and loudly saying they're supporting the other team is a good way to get concessions.
Uhhh...you've never actually TRIED Games For Windows live, have you? To call it half baked and painful is the understatement of the century! If they can't get that right, where they are trying to sell AAA games at $40+ a pop, what makes you think they'll make their appstore run ANY better?
Lets face it boys and girls...MSFT has become the PHB from Dilbert. they hear a buzzword, get all excited, come out with a half baked ripoff, and then are shocked! Shocked I tell you! when everyone doesn't trip all over themselves to buy their half baked mess. they've failed with Zune, Kin, Zune Market, GFWL, its debatable whether they have ever broke even with Xbox (since we don't know if they include the 2 billion RRoD writeoff or the R&D costs for Xbox 1&2) lost money hand over fist with bing, frankly worrying about MSFT actually getting something right at this point is more than a little premature.
Most likely everyone will try the appstore, find it a corporate committee designed piece of trash and go right back to Steam. I bet a year from now Gabe will be backing up the money truck and laughing about how all the reports have Windows appstore right there with WinPhone on the fail scale.
For me, games are the only reason I still need Windows.
All the tools I use have reasonable equivalents on Linux. I tried it for a while, but having to duel-boot into Windows is a pain for those casual or hardcore gaming sessions. It's just easier to run Windows all the time instead.
Valve currently allow you to buy certain games once and play it on both Mac and Windows. I presume Linux will be added to that, encouraging people to give it a try and maybe stick with it once enough games appear.
I can see Steam and Portal being a packaged as standard with Ubuntu in the near future. There might even be Steam on your TV or set-top box as many are based on Linux.
I have it on good authority that Valve and MS have been barely on speaking terms for a long time. Maybe they have an effective symbiosis on Windows, but it isn't a happy one. And I'm pretty sure that the reason for the bad blood is at least partly to do with the XBox certification process. Valve can't be happy at seeing a similar regime arrive on Windows as well.
I did see Windows 1. I don't recall its getting to 1.03, but I may have missed it.
Metro is a fork off of that design. Windows 1 was written in response to Apple's claim that overlapping windows were somehow its intellectual property, the notorious "look and feel" lawsuit. So Win1 used tiles, non-overlapping windows. And of course it didn't multitask.
Win8 appears to be based on that tiled design, with a touch of DoubleDOS rather than multitasking, updated to waste about a million times more available graphics cycles while most apps appear to run as fast as Win1 on an 80286 did.
There's not a single mention of Gabe in the Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry - and Made Himself the Reachest Man in America book, but there's one (and the only one) in the Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire, on page 312:
"Dedication quickly turned into fanaticism. Gabe Newell, one of the Windows testers who went on to enjoy a long and successful career at Microsoft, showed up at the office with a sleeping bag. For a solid month, he camped in his office, working around the clock and catching a few catnaps when he could no longer stay awake. He became known as "Madman" Newell from that point on."
This could be something that finally helps establish Linux as an alternative to Windows on laptops and PCs.
Product Activation was the first big catalyst. User Account Control was the next big catalyst. Now Metro will allegedly be the catalyst.
Wake me up when the Big Linux Exodus Really Happens, k?
For many of us users, a fondleslab is unworkable. It's based on the Steve Jobs paradigm of a user who doesn't touch-type but who has fantastic hand-eye coordination. Steve, after all, was a calligrapher; he loved the feel of quill in hand. His "computer for the rest of us" was for handwriting fans; it was and is hell for visually-challenged touch-typists.
The fondleslab model extends that. You don't even feel the keys (we touch-typists don't look at them; F and J have bumps); you need fantastic coordination to touch the glass just right. For some people this is easy and thus adequate for writing their tweets and other brief texts. For serious keyboardists, it's as useful as a bicycle pump on a heavy truck. When I see a fondleslab I don't want to fondle it; I want to hold it by the edge and smash it against a stone wall. Win8 is all about recreating hte fondleslab experience for desktop users, a truly horrific idea.
But having tried desktop Linux distros going back to Yggdrasil (1993?), I remain convinced that Linux is three years away from being a useful desktop distro, and will always be. It's a serverOS and a geek toy. And Ubuntu is how a geek programmer insults what it thinks are ordinary users.
"The fondleslab model extends that. You don't even feel the keys (we touch-typists don't look at them; F and J have bumps); you need fantastic coordination to touch the glass just right."
I agree that fondleslabs are useless for a lot of 'real' work. I don't understand your point about touch typists though. Touch typing allows you to look in one direction at the screen whilst typing on a physical keyboard out of view. Since the keyboard on a tablet is the screen the inability to touch type is redundant surely?
No, the virtual keyboard is a different part of the screen. And a touch-typist does not need to look at the screen. I often know when I typed an error because I can feel the keys, not just by looking. But in any case I can't make the damned virtual keyboard work. I can't rest my keys on it, can't feel the keys, and often hit the wrong one when I try to look. And yes this is a major problem with touchy feely smartphones too; I can't use one of those either.
Oh no... the expert keyboard user can't cope with the new-fangled on-screen keyboards!
What a shame, can't you *learn* to use one? Maybe the same way you learnt to use a normal keyboard, or were you born a touch-typist? Boohoo!
(Sorry - I must have eaten something that disagrees with me) :-P
@AC 18:57 - Fred Goldstein was talking about visually impaired touch typists. How exactly are they going to learn to use a keyboard *totally* dependent on the user being able to see the keys?
Oh, and, shove your witless sarcasm up you back-end. That's where it belongs.
jaygeejay - do you know what? I was completely wrong.
Maybe if I had read more thoroughly I would have spotted the 'visually impaired' paragraph.
Otherwise everything I said still stands. Just not in this case.
Oh yeah. It's only witless sarcasm if I actually knew I was attacking someone with visual problems. As it is - I was just being a jerk.
The Reg has become your one-stop-shop for Microsoft hatred. Not a day now goes by that they don't find some pundit or 'expert', somewhere, to tell us that we'll never be able to figure out Windows 8. Apparently, over the last 10 years or so, our species has lost the ability to learn and understand a new computer interface. We can no longer adapt to change; Congress will have to pass legislation freezing Windows at version 7 and the courts will throw out Metro.
To be honest, I never got past the headline of "Somebody-or-Other says Windows 8 is a 'catastrophe' for PC biz. I've quit reading all the hatchet jobs on Metro that the Reg has been running lately and I assumed this was just another in that continuing series.
So just apply my comment to whatever Metro story they run tomorrow :-)
This article offered very little in the way of Gabe Newell's opinion and rather more of Gavin Clarke's.
Why would Secure boot on Windows RT tablets be something that mattered to Newell, or kill any OEMs? There is nothing stopping Dell from shipping a tablet running Linux or Android or any other available OS. The only thing Secure Boot means is that people who buy a Windows RT tablet should intend to only run Windows RT on it.
Shocking revelation time: That is already how the vast majority of consumer expect to use any computing device they buy. How many people who aren't trusted with sharp objects go shopping for an iPad on the basis of what other than iOS might be made to run on it? The Linux contingent has been so dependent on Windows PC to have a place to run they've developed a mindset alien to how most of the world actually works.
It's not secure boot that matters to Gabe, it's MS's app store monopoly on Win 8 RT, which will be on the cheaper ARM tablets and therefore have more mass-market exposure. The vast majority of consumers won't know the difference between Win 8 x86 and Win 8 RT until it's too late. Secure boot on Win 8 RT just means that it's also impossible for savvy users to put another OS on the slab or for Steam to automatically partition the slab and stick a version of Linux on there which runs Steam games.
This is why he's hedging his bets by porting Steam and Source to Linux, it allows his app store to be present on Android slabs.
You could argue that he's being egotistical but he's got a point; why should MS strangle competition at birth just based on the processor?
We're all slowly nudging towards losing control of what we can put on our computers. Every version of Windows, Mac OS or smartphones OSes gradually increases restrictions.
While you can turn off a lot of these code signing checks now you won't be able to in the future.
All thanks to the excuse of reducing malware, largely thanks to XP and how Microsoft chose to stop letting "pirates" get security upgrades.
"We're all slowly nudging towards losing control of what we can put on our computers. Every version of Windows, Mac OS or smartphones OSes gradually increases restrictions."
Seriously? Ignorant, much?
Atari ST. Commodore Amiga. Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Amstrad CPC464. Timex 2000.
ALL of these were "closed" systems: you had no more control over what OS(es) they ran than you do over what OS a games console runs.
Choices are only worth having when they're meaningful, useful choices. Choice for its own sake merely confuses and annoys 90% of your customers. That's why GNU / Linux has only made it into consumer territory in any sizeable numbers through the actions of a mega-corporation called "Google", despite having existed since the days of Windows 3.1.
Good design matters. And good design is a hell of a lot easier to achieve when you get to design the whole device, from the hardware right down to the last byte of the software.
> ALL of these were "closed" systems: you had no more control over what OS(es) they ran than you do over what OS a games console runs.
> Atari ST.
MiNT, EmuTOS, MultiTOS, XaAES, FreeMiNT
> Commodore Amiga.
> Sinclair ZX Spectrum./ Timex 2000.
It has an 'operating system' ?
> Amstrad CPC464.
CP/M 2.2, CP/M 3.0, FutureOS
This post has been deleted by its author
Windows as it is is a dead end, The only thing that keeps it relevant is the over dependance on Office which they are also killing off with the Ribbon interface. A thing Sooo horrendous that I'm still using Office 2003.
Gaming on the PC is tiresome. You play One crappy FPS, and you've played them all MMORPG that cost 60€ + an additional 10€ a Month to Play. Your joking right?
And then Microsoft are busting out this Tablet OS, and is trying to pass this off as the next-gen OS refresh?
This can not end well.
Then again, my Smartphone has warmed me onto Tablets more so then the Tablets ever did, and if Tablets really are the future then this is all really moot to start with.
But, in my opinion the day of the big beige box is over.
The more I use it, the more I like Linux but, how the hell would Valve publish for every Linux Distro under the sun is beyond me.
Depends what you're calling the beige box.
If you think of the tablet as a UI device, in the same category as a joystick, mouse or keyboard, and if you only use it to connect to Amazonian or Googly cloud servers, there's no beige box in sight. If, however, you have a home server to share stuff around various network-aware screens that have replaced what we old farts still call a television, the beige box is right there.
I wouldn't want to make any predictions about how the average person uses PC-like hardware in five years' time.
Touch tech has been around a very long time. More than 30 years now. It still hasn't taken off on the PC. It is convenient on a tablet as it makes it much more portable to go without a keyboard. However on a PC with applications that are designed for keyboard and mouse touch doesn't make sense for that reason by it's self let alone the fact that I don't happen to have my monitors with in arms reach. It just doesn't work well for me to have them closer and do my work. The same can be said for most office workers.
Touch is just isn't for regular desktops or big screen use. They would be better off going for the Minority Report interface complete with holographic projection.
It isn't that I don't like change. I don't like work being made worse than it is and more cumbersome. That is what Metro (aka Bob 2) does. It makes things just more cumbersome for a desk jockey. Sure if I'm running all over traveling the world it would work great for my tablet. But not for the desktop.
Those are the real functional gripes either of which is a killer for the enterprise. But to add the "Playskool" effect of giant "friendly" tiles and requiring to swipe through panels of crap and have things automatically take the full screen and well nothing new to add to what has already been stated. It just is terrible for the enterprise. Till the mouse and keyboard are outlawed the touch tech will not take off for the desktop.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well, I do care about computer games. I enjoy them, despite not being in what is generally regarded as the target demographic. And, to be honest, games are the only reason I still have windows on my home PCs (my office PC ran linux only for years before I retired). If Win8 forces a reasonable number of games developers over onto Linux I will jump for joy and happily purge the ghastly Windoze mess from my life forever.
This post has been deleted by its author
Because Microsoft aren't interested in letting the ARM platforms be "open". Selling open hardware platforms is a terrible way to make money.
People have clearly forgotten that IBM never, ever, intended their PC to be an "open" platform; it took Compaq's clean-room reverse engineering of the original IBM BIOS before manufacturers were able to sell IBM's PC clones that were 100% compatible! IBM hated it, got litigious, and ended up ceding the market entirely to a bunch of parasites whose entire raison d'être was to simply copy someone else's product without paying for the R&D.
Even Apple tried letting others make "Mac-compatibles", even selling licenses for their OS at the time. It damned-near bankrupted them. Shutting that part down was one of Steve Jobs' first moves on his return to Apple.
As a method for making a profit—which is, after all, what businesses are for—selling "open" hardware is as stupid as it gets. Microsoft don't let you install Linux on an XBox 360 either, for much the same reason.
> IBM never, ever, intended their PC to be an "open" platform; it took Compaq's clean-room reverse engineering
Well, they did supply an awful lot of information in the blue Tech Ref manuals. Like a complete source listing of the BIOS...
This post has been deleted by its author
That source listing complicated things for producing a legal BIOS that offered full compatibility. It made it that much harder for Compaq to assemble a team of coders to work on their clean room BIOS that had not been tainted by any exposure to those documents. This meant finding guys who were very good at 8088 code while having had no exposure to the most popular implementation of an 8088 system in the market.
Apple was in serious financial trouble before the licensing program began and it's problem were due to a severely limited market interest in a Mac OS that was severely showing its age in the years before OS X (which is really the NeXT OS with Mac APIs bolted on) offered a desperately needed update.
Apple tried to claim at one point that they were losing money on each OS license sold but this was revealed to be based on an accounting methodology that could get you thrown in jail in most businesses. Jobs ended licensing because he wanted absolute control over anything calling itself a Mac. It's that simple.
Microsoft made tens of $Billions letting vendors do whatever they wanted in terms of systems running the OS. But that only worked for specific markets and few companies want to stay put when new product categories are proven viable by a competitor. Microsoft has seen the result of their traditional licensing approach in the tablet market, where tons of awful bargain basement Android devices are cluttering up the market. They draw customers with very low prices and those customers blame Android rather than the specific hardware implementation when it turns out to be crap.
The PC market could prosper with systems of lesser and greater quality but the expectations are difference in the tablet market where a single brand with a very narrow product line sets the standard.
"Apple tried to claim at one point that they were losing money on each OS license sold but this was revealed to be based on an accounting methodology that could get you thrown in jail in most businesses. Jobs ended licensing because he wanted absolute control over anything calling itself a Mac. It's that simple"
Actually, there's a bit more to it than that. Apple found itself playing catch-up with the Mac clones in terms of specs at the same time as being beaten by price. Mac sales by Apple in the two years of licensing declined (from 4.5 million per year to 2.8 million).
The clones didn’t increase market share for the Mac OS, which was the point of licensing.
I have no doubt that Jobs had other reasons for canning the licensing program, but it had come far too late, was born out of desperation and from the various stuff I’ve read, there was wasn’t a strong economic case for it.
If I was a certain company with cash to burn, did not want to upset shareholders (or Wall Street) severely but faced serious incumbents on the mobile front, and possible future competition on the desktop, why would I not unify my OS kernel across mobile and desktop (including multiple architectures)? Windows 8 would be derided, but it would provide feedback of what worked, what didn't, and the projected cash burn and lost sales cycles would be worth the market intel and future market share + profit. Enterprise customers would know better than to adopt a test platform (with well placed "nods" and "winks" to make sure). Free or greatly reduced upgrades to the Windows 8 successor would soothe much of the consumer backlash, and Nokia could advance this game plan for their own sake.
Several commentators have correctly pointed out that Gabe's real beef is that MS will feature a built-in Win8 store which will potentially hit 3rd party stores like Steam (yes I know Steam is also a delivery service, but it is a defacto Store as well).
You can't really blame him for showing self-interest and trying to sow FUD so MS back down on this aspect but don't mistake his self-interest and concern for his own companies bottom line for it being any concern for us, the users/public.
As an aside I wonder what percentage Steam charges it's external clients given Apple are at 30% and MS will be at 30/20% (depending on volume).
Why did this bloke and Gartner only come out of the woodwork when it is too late for M$ to change course?
The reviewers and bloggers have been doing the spadework on this for months. Now it is a done deal, and the problems are as obvious as a shark in a garden pond, now these two go public. Is it just for an easy dose of told-you-so?
The only reason I ever boot into MS these days is to play games. I can do everything else I need to do on Linux or Mac just fine. Make my games work on Linux and I can quite happily delete every last vestige of MS from my machines. And imagine... a life with no MS in it. I never thought I would ever see the day. Thank you, Valve.
It's always been the curse of the successful Windows developer: if you create something too popular, Microsoft will create their own version and include it in Windows for free. I'm sure that is a big reason why Gabe Newell is so pissed off at Microsoft - he's been on the inside and knows how ruthless Microsoft can be.
Why is this bad for anybody except Valve employees, then? There's a reason Steam is currently the runaway #1. Valve's response so far has been exemplary: instead of suing Microsoft, they add value to their users by releasing an OS X version of Steam, and are making noises abour releasing a Linux version. None of that may matter - Steam may fall in the end and Valve have to resort to lawsuits - but they point to a work culture that is able to adapt and innovate.
GOG is another example of a "good", innovative company. It would be a pity if Microsoft manages to kill off these kinds of stores. You just know their store will be much more corporate and never quite as good, and you just know Microsoft *will* throw developers under the bus if and when the internal strategy changes (see: Windows Phone 6.5 apps, Windows Phone 7 apps).
Valve doesn't sue Microsoft because they have no basis for complaint. The idea that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to offer a channel for their customers to purchase software on the Microsoft OS they already bought is completely mad. If Microsoft took some action that prevented Steam from running on Windows 8 there would be a legit complaint but Steam works perfectly well on Windows 8.
Microsoft is hardly alone in incorporating ideas that were first seen in third party products. The majority of function I once relied upon add-ins to provide in Firefox are now built-in features. Must suck to be a Firefox add-in developer. You never know when Mozilla is going to steal your idea.
Games are the only reason I use Windows, and in the last 4 or so years, Steam has been the only reason I've used Windows. If Steam moves over to Linux, I will ditch Windows altogether. Linux is significantly better as a development and work platform; as I said, the only reason I've been forced to use Windows was the poor support for games.
Currently I do all my work inside a VirtualBox Linux machine running inside Windows 7. I basically use Windows 7 for games, and then everything else (e.g. my work) I do inside the VirtualBox. Sounds mad I know, but the virtualisation of Linux inside Windows is impeccable. There are no issues at all, it runs just fine. The same cannot be said for Wine, so that's why I do things this way round. If Windows ceases to be the open games platform it has historically been or if Valve adds good Linux support (which seems increasingly likely given the Mac support and recent news) then I will finally be able to move over completely.
Switch me to Linux? Here's a list of programs I run on my Windows 7 box:
(3) Adobe Master Suite
(4) Visual Studio 2010
(5) Google Chrome/Newsleecher/Vuze
(6) 3D Studio 2010
(8) SQL Server 2008
(9) Windows Media Player
I can live without 3, there's a Linux alternative to 2 (although not as shiny), there's a Linux alternative to 4, there are Linux versions of 5, 6 would be hard to live without I think... flaky enough on Windows 7, 7 would be impossible, 8 can be replaced with an OSS alternative, 9 I don't know much about Codecs and what plays on what.
But... I've got over £1,000 worth of games in my Steam library. There's no way I'm switching from 7 if I can't play them in Linux. I wouldn't want to lose out in performance from doing so either (Wine).
So, if Newell can pull this off I don't mind jumping ship. Even though I can't stand Balmer, I think Windows 7 is pretty good.
They are simply saying what we been saying all along.
That windows is a dead end. Almost all the hardware is running linux nowadays .. from consumer tv to top of the line gear. Linux has made inroads in a lot of electronics.It's just a natural to see it midrate slowly in the everyday computer. The work being done , the quality of the desktops we have at this moment and the number of companies that adopt it and work on it .. It cannot fail .. It's a huge snowball that's going to be hard to stop.
Focus : Hardware support . Better video drivers .
Mr and Missus everybody loves gadgets to tend to their needs , they love when it's simple.Got a cam or any other gadget and they love to have it working easily without having to pain over it.
That is crucial to adoption. Better all round hardware support and the interest of companies that yet don't provide hardware that can be used , drivers and control software , need be there to tip the scale. But one by one , when using rationale and logic , they also begin to cooperate and see sales through supporting the GNU / Linux environment . There's a good future for Linux . Manufacturers see it . They use it .
I can't wait for Steam on linux. I got it on windows for a long time , hate windows but im forced to use it for gaming. oh im 50+ . Gaming is not only for kids .. but for guys like me that want to r and r after a hard day' and just love to hack Linux in their spare time , in my case 12 years , heck add games to it and whohoo.
I cant wait to see the results of their r and d .
The adventure of computing lies in replacing all of yesterdays devices and integrate their functionality into newer devices making life simpler..
That is the bridge i see for linux. It's already in the peripherals , let's finish the job we began so long ago .
Time to get that sucker off the ground and give it wings .. It earned it's stripes.
Steam in Linux ? .. ill be in line to test even a pre alpha release :)