So you are building only for Windows?

[tuomo.hirvonen]

Please build on real operating systems as well. I know its not that difficult. "SteamOS" at least so we Linux-people can play as well. And dont tell me anything about emulation: i wont do it :)

[DaviddesJ]

Windows today is a "real operating system", it has essentially all of the same features as MacOS, Linux, etc. The main difference is that it's not free.

[MissingTarget]

*Sigh* We all have access to the same information and even if you just want to use the steam hardware survey (which is a pretty solid snap shot of gamers these days) you already know the answer to this question.

They develop on windows because 96.77% of all the users (who are opt-ed in to the survey) use Windows. Effectively you are asking the same question as the super low amount 0.08% of people still on Windows 7 using a similar argument asking why no one develops games for Windows 7.

Linux (which apparently according to you is the only "real" operating system) only accounts for 1.44% of all users.

Look I know its hard to accept sometimes that just because you are using something you assume everyone else is but its just not the case. The reason developers make games for Windows systems is the same reason they make games to operate on or close to the median processors in the steam hardware profile because thats what most people have (or they have stronger ones) and thats the market. Your choices are to either emulate windows or to only play games that still bother to support linux which often requires them building a different version of the game and updating it which a lot of studios simply don't have the resources to do or the will. Good luck.

[Maltavius]

Also, Proton

[Goldhawk]

Yes, we're currently building only for Windows. Apparently the game runs fine in Proton although I've not tested it myself.

We'll take a look at Mac and Linux once we're approaching final release. We're using Unity so hopefully porting to those platforms will be straightforward, but I really don't think it's a good idea to try and support three platforms while development is still ongoing.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ:

Windows today is a "real operating system", it has essentially all of the same features as MacOS, Linux, etc. The main difference is that it's not free.

oops no internet connection detectedWindows 11 install has this bug since launch....F**K Windows

[baddoggs]

Lol, widows was the first real OS... Unless you count
M.S. or XT Gold.
Everything else is a try hard copy.
Is it true you get paid to use Linux and brag about it online...

[DaviddesJ]

GM produced the first operating system in the 1950s, for the IBM 704. In those days, every customer developed their own operating system.

[baddoggs]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ:

GM produced the first operating system in the 1950s, for the IBM 704. In those days, every customer developed their own operating system.

I actually remember those days. I was talking about "mainstream" "commercial"
O/S. They were very bespoke.

[Cabbage]

I agree Linux is superior but this post is cringe.

Also XTree was a file manager not an OS.

[baddoggs]

Originally posted by 𒂍𒀀𒈾𒍢𒅕:

I agree Linux is superior but this post is cringe.

Also XTree was a file manager not an OS.

I know, That is what an early O/S was back then in basic terms, still is.

[Cabbage]

Originally posted by baddoggs:

Originally posted by 𒂍𒀀𒈾𒍢𒅕:

I agree Linux is superior but this post is cringe.

Also XTree was a file manager not an OS.

I know, That is what an early O/S was back then in basic terms, still is.

DOS is the OS XTree used. A file manager is just a GUI.

[baddoggs]

Originally posted by 𒂍𒀀𒈾𒍢𒅕:

Originally posted by baddoggs:

I know, That is what an early O/S was back then in basic terms, still is.

DOS is the OS XTree used. A file manager is just a GUI.

You are correct, but, an O/S IS a glorified file manager itself...
Unless yours makes coffee and drives your kids to school as well.

Lol, i still have a copy of DOS... and windows 1:3..
Anyone need an O/S for there potato?

[cswiger]

Originally posted by baddoggs:

You are correct, but, an O/S IS a glorified file manager itself...

No, a file manager is not the OS. A file manager does not contain filesystem code or the device drivers needed to talk to disks directly.

An OS manages hardware resources and provides a mechanism to run user programs which use interfaces provided by the OS to access hardware, often allowing shared access, virtualization, and security which are not possible for user code. An OS will have block I/O device drivers to access storage like hard drives, and will provide a filesystem API like C's stdlib or POSIX file semantics for user programs to call.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by baddoggs:

You are correct, but, an O/S IS a glorified file manager itself...

That's not at all what an operating system is. For example, it needs to manage multiple processes each with their own protected memory, and control hardware devices and manage interrupts and real-time inputs. Managing files is only a very small part of what an OS does.

[baddoggs]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ:

Originally posted by baddoggs:

You are correct, but, an O/S IS a glorified file manager itself...

That's not at all what an operating system is. For example, it needs to manage multiple processes each with their own protected memory, and control hardware devices and manage interrupts and real-time inputs. Managing files is only a very small part of what an OS does.

But it DOES manage files... right? Amongst other things...