This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
This is the sole reason my gaming rig is now running on Ubuntu. I have never had Linux on my personal computer before but since I was forced to update the OS anyway, I thought might aswell give Linux a shot.
It's great that Linux is a feasible alternative nowadays. But it's not like you are using Ubuntu 10.04 from 2010, right? OSs get outdated and stop being supported. That's just the way it is.
Out of curiosity (I no longer run win 7 at all so can't check), does this mean steam will give an error if you try to run it on win 7 and will refuse to run? Or is this just valve saying they are no longer committed to releasing any updates for win 7? Or a combination of the two where they aren't deliberately making it incompatible, but they also aren't deliberately making it compatible so some patch is expected to break it entirely, maybe even today?
End of support means no more security updates. MS already ended support for Win 7 which has numerous unpatched vulnerabilities.
Lmao i only knew they could stop supporting windows 7, people uae more windows 7 than windows 8
Launching 8 for the first time was almost as bad as time I first experienced vista, so I can understand there being fewer 8 users.
I'm on Linux :)
Translating into Linux terms, Steam has dropped support for:
Nobara Project is another good Fedora based build for those wanting to try Linux that will work relatively smoothly for gaming.
No big. Just run everything in compatibility mode and pick Windows 10 or 11.
/s
Pro tip, set it to Windows 12 so you don't have to worry for another decade or more
Please, that's rookie terms.
Set it to 98, you won't have to worry about it again for like, a century.
Get this set it to 2000, not even your great grand kids will have to worry about it.
I like how you think!
Surely NT (No Time) would be better?
8 and 8.1 is a shame. Best versions if Windows we've ever had.
Your post would do well in "unpopular opinion".
To be fair, W8.1 wasn't that bad, you could even change the full screen start menu to a regular one. W10 was better though. W11 is... well they fixed the most glaring issues over the last year but I still can't get over the crippled start menu.
The "modern" (aka metro) interface was possibly good on a phone or tablet. Arguably even possibly on a touch screen laptop (not for me though). However it had no business being on a mouse driven computer or even worse a server operating system (Windows 2012).
Even the idea for "metro" apps was horrible. Full screen only. The whole reason the OS is called windows is because you could have two "windows" with two different applications on screen at a single time.
MS could have still included the metro interface if they still shipped the classic Start menu as an opt-in. Yes, its the first thing 90% of users would opt-in to, but at least it wouldn't have had Windows 8 be a rotten footnote in the history of computing.
I was done with Windows when the spying and built in advertising. Poor design decisions are one thing, but untrustworthy untoward actions to the user are another. The last shred of trustworthiness Micro$oft had in my eyes was was being mostly straight in Windows instead of the shady and underhanded shit. We should've seen it coming when they started offering free upgrades
Are/were you a big fan of Vista and ME as well?
Vista wasn't actually a bad OS, it just got a bad reputation pretty fast because it had higher hardware requirements than XP and most people didn't have decent enough hardware for a smooth experience. That in combination with the new UAC feature that most people thought was annoying drove people away pretty fast, although the OS itself wasn't bad - in fact, it's pretty similar to Windows 7.
Then it's an example of a previous time Microsoft made the same dumb decision it made with Windows 11; setting hardware requirements too high for a large enough subset of your customer base that it will be noticed and cause part of that subset to drop your product instead of purchase compatible hardware. I did use Vista for about a year back when it was the latest Windows version, but even with a laptop that had it pre-installed, it lagged like crazy and eventually straight-up died irrecoverably. Installed Linux on that laptop, it worked fine, and have only really used Windows for work at my job I have to use it for since. If you control an almost monopolistic market share like MS does and you want to keep that market share, you have to keep in mind any types of hardware that a reasonably large portion of your userbase uses and make sure your product works solidly on that hardware. You can certainly drop support for really old or rare stuff, you have to move along SOME innovation, but the whole incompatibility problem with 11 shows that MS didn't quite fully learn their lesson from Vista.
99 % of people didn't "upgrade windows" back then. That would have required buying a whole new, full-price, license (or pirating). Even Service Packs were a whole deal to install. In those days you'd use your OEM Windows license the computer came with and that'd be that.
What did actually happen was OEMs selling millions of brand new shitbuckets, particularly laptops, with 1GB of RAM. That was fine on XP, but barely enough to boot Vista and if you stared any program it would swap like a motherfucker (sure, maybe it should have used less memory, but 7 wasn't any better yet people were fine with it). Microsoft's real mistake was allowing OEMs to sell new machines with 1 GB of RAM (IDK if it was to allow OEMs to install Vista on existing SKUs, but regardless it was the critical mistake that made everyone despise Vista).
Yeah, many OEM manufacturers wanted to jump onto the „Vista-compatible“ train and installed it on their low-end hardware, even though they shouldn’t have. This probably also played a big part in why Vista was considered bad.
Yeah, I've used windows from prior to 3 (when it was more of a shell to navigate DOS apps) to 3.11, 95, 98, 98 SE, ME, XP, XP SP2, Vista, 7, 8, and 10 (and probably NT via school). The only ones I'd describe as awful are the < 3 version (mostly because I was already using 95 at the time), 95 (unstable mess), ME (even more unstable mess), and 8 (UI screamed "we need to make our OS more appealing for the tablet market"). Vista might be the one I spent the most time on, now that I think of it.
LOL wasn't ME sorry of a bolt on to 98? IIRC that was the most unstable version of Windows I had ever used. It actually forced me to explore Linux as a desktop seriously for the first time (and shit was jacked in 98-00). I seriously used NT4 as a desktop because it was the most stable version of Windows I could find at the time. Hard time playing games though.
It was basically supposed to be one last short-lived DOS based Windows version before Windows switched to an NT base with XP, and in that sense it served its purpose. But although it was a separate product, it was basically '98 second edition in a box. It certainly worked to push people towards jumping to XP a year later, lol. XP is still the best version of Windows MS ever made, IMO. Heard good things about 7, but I was already daily driving Linux by the time 7 was released after Vista bricked itself.
I remember using 2k for a long time, after the laughably unstable previews where mice would go crazy. I don't remember exactly what the tool was called, but I was an MCSE back then and had the big binder of MS discs, so I would build my own windows ISOs with a bunch of the built in drivers stripped out and slip stream other packages like Firefox in. Would end up with core installs of only a few hundred MBs. Did the same with XP when it came out, but I started daily driving Ubuntu around 2004 and I left Windows behind for the most part with the exception of work.
I'm sure battery life is still better with Windows, but it's not enough to make me want to go back to it, I'd probably pick up a Mac before that happens.
Vista was fine. I never had any issues.
It was during this time the transition to 64 bit systems became necessary to deal with needing to have more than 4GB of memory which was not helped by Vista using 2GB just to run, iirc. If you ran Vista 32 bit you had memory problems. If you ran Vista 64 bit you had major compatibility problems. It wasn't until the end of Vista's life did 64 bit go mainstream.
What can I say? I had a laptop with Vista pre-installed and it was fine.
I was helping my grandma with her old laptop that had Windows 8 and let me tell you, I only wanted to punch the screen 4 times!
Ow.. and Windows 11 also have stronger hardware requirements, making your laptop not usable in the future if Windows 10 is also deprecated. Causing more and more e-waste ;( just because of software from Microsoft.
Steam would be smart to package their steam deck OS as a dual boot installer for PCs. Boot right into steam when you want to play games.
They're eventually going to release SteamOS onto desktop platforms, but for now you can just install Linux.
SteamOS has so many deck and handheld specific features that it's not really a good OS for desktop hardware. HoloISO is something you can install, though, as long as you don't have a Nvidia card, which is just SteamOS packaged in a way that let's it run on other hardware
SteamOS has a normal linux desktop, its only in deck mode where everything is deck specific
Yeah, it's just Arch with KDE plasma
Microsoft doesn't even support Windows 7 or 8 anymore, so hardly a surprise. Affected customers can switch to either Windows 10/11 or Linux.
I, for one, am glad that from a security standpoint that companies like Valve are stopping support and giving patches and stuff to people using such outdated operating systems. If you are forced to use an old OS for work because of software limitations, that's one thing, but there should be no reason you use an old OS as your daily driver if you ain't getting any more security updates and patches. I don't care how long it would take to reset everything and get things set up again, upgrade your damn OS when it's not being supported anymore!
When no longer supporting Ubuntu 16.04: No big deal, just update, duh...
When no longer supporting Windows 7/8: How dare you!
Gotta wonder how that affects older games that haven't been updated since....
