Will Steam OS ever make Windows obsolete for gaming?

[Citizen Cook]

I have a Steam Deck on preorder. Tons of games in my library are not supported but I desperately want to say goodbye to Windows once and for all. Do you think the day will ever comes when every game on Steams runs flawlessly on Steam OS?

[☮ne✟rue𝓢ax☯n]

Linux won't knock Windows off its "gaming" perch, due to the fact it would be too much of a balls ache for the average gamer.

Linux is better than Windows for certain things, though gaming isn't one of them.

[naii.neocities.org]

JellyPuff님이 먼저 게시:

By proxy, this is also asking, wether Linux overall will make Windows obsolete for gaming, which i don't think it will anytime soon. People will always gravitate towards the OS with the most convenience and compatibility, regardless of all the downsides, it may have. Players will go to where all the games, they want to play are.

Microsoft could make Windows truly always-online and somehow, it would still be the most used OS for PC gaming, until most games will be easy to set up and run near perfectly on Linux, one way or another.

That's why SteamOS could actually have a chance if valve went further with it. It's far more user friendly than most other Linux Distros and doesn't have the Linux User stigma with it. With the steam deck it's even better because it's one of few ways to get a truly "plug and play" experience with a desktop OS.

[crunchyfrog]

☮ne✟rue𝓢ax☯n님이 먼저 게시:

Linux won't knock Windows off its "gaming" perch, due to the fact it would be too much of a balls ache for the average gamer.

Linux is better than Windows for certain things, though gaming isn't one of them.

Precisely.

Now imagine that for any OTHER user that doesn't game.

Now extend that even further to any business, hospital, bank, and so on.

Not going to happen.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

To be fair, gaming is less relevant on workplace computers than personal computers.

[ReBoot]

The thing is, Linux could become a force of nature on the client. All it takes is a stable base line.
A stable BINARY base line (and I don't mean the kernel ABI, it's scope is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ joke. Any non-trivial program needs more libraries. For what reason the Linux community hates stable binary interfaces, I don't know and I don't care.

I theorize it's because a lack of stable binary interfaces is a great way to keep proprietary software at bay. But that's a spiteful personal theory, not remotely fact-checked.

Then there's the problem of UIs. The creed of "you can tinker with anything, so I won't bother running own UX studies" works fine with nerds, works fine with server admins, works perfectly for supercomputers and falls flat on it's face for clients.

Linux could become a pillar on the client by taking a page out of Valve's SteamOS playbook: allow tinkering while providing a base line. Proton, while incredibly wrong from a principle point of view (software stemming from the un-libre-est ecosystems of them all, the arch-enemy Windows), provides a stable base line to run commercial software on, while the system facilitates simple use cases without forcing the user to tinker.

I personally do not think Linux needs to look like Windows to be successful. Being simple, easy to use (the Linux desktop I got at home doesn't even have a graphical user manager and apparently this isn't a bug, someone seriously thought of this as an acceptable state to ship a graphical system in) however, that's what matters. That said, SteamOS' KDE very much fit this particular bill.

[crunchyfrog]

ReBoot님이 먼저 게시:

The thing is, Linux could become a force of nature on the client. All it takes is a stable base line.
A stable BINARY base line (and I don't mean the kernel ABI, it's scope is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ joke. Any non-trivial program needs more libraries. For what reason the Linux community hates stable binary interfaces, I don't know and I don't care.

I theorize it's because a lack of stable binary interfaces is a great way to keep proprietary software at bay. But that's a spiteful personal theory, not remotely fact-checked.

Then there's the problem of UIs. The creed of "you can tinker with anything, so I won't bother running own UX studies" works fine with nerds, works fine with server admins, works perfectly for supercomputers and falls flat on it's face for clients.

Linux could become a pillar on the client by taking a page out of Valve's SteamOS playbook: allow tinkering while providing a base line. Proton, while incredibly wrong from a principle point of view (software stemming from the un-libre-est ecosystems of them all, the arch-enemy Windows), provides a stable base line to run commercial software on, while the system facilitates simple use cases without forcing the user to tinker.

I personally do not think Linux needs to look like Windows to be successful. Being simple, easy to use (the Linux desktop I got at home doesn't even have a graphical user manager and apparently this isn't a bug, someone seriously thought of this as an acceptable state to ship a graphical system in) however, that's what matters. That said, SteamOS' KDE very much fit this particular bill.

Exactly.

You CANNOT have the situation where an OS takes over in such a way as Windows has done PURELY by the nerds and niche groups taking it up.

[Randver]

crunchyfrog님이 먼저 게시:

ReBoot님이 먼저 게시:

The thing is, Linux could become a force of nature on the client. All it takes is a stable base line.
A stable BINARY base line (and I don't mean the kernel ABI, it's scope is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ joke. Any non-trivial program needs more libraries. For what reason the Linux community hates stable binary interfaces, I don't know and I don't care.

I theorize it's because a lack of stable binary interfaces is a great way to keep proprietary software at bay. But that's a spiteful personal theory, not remotely fact-checked.

Then there's the problem of UIs. The creed of "you can tinker with anything, so I won't bother running own UX studies" works fine with nerds, works fine with server admins, works perfectly for supercomputers and falls flat on it's face for clients.

Linux could become a pillar on the client by taking a page out of Valve's SteamOS playbook: allow tinkering while providing a base line. Proton, while incredibly wrong from a principle point of view (software stemming from the un-libre-est ecosystems of them all, the arch-enemy Windows), provides a stable base line to run commercial software on, while the system facilitates simple use cases without forcing the user to tinker.

I personally do not think Linux needs to look like Windows to be successful. Being simple, easy to use (the Linux desktop I got at home doesn't even have a graphical user manager and apparently this isn't a bug, someone seriously thought of this as an acceptable state to ship a graphical system in) however, that's what matters. That said, SteamOS' KDE very much fit this particular bill.

Exactly.

You CANNOT have the situation where an OS takes over in such a way as Windows has done PURELY by the nerds and niche groups taking it up.

That's exactly how we got Windows.

Prior to Windows if you had a PC in your home you more than likely were gaming on it or using it for word processing. We had one in our home in the early 80's because my mom used it for word processing related to her job.

Windows was a graphical interface for DOS to appeal to a niche group...the home user. Throw in some marketing and software to manage your finances, etc and you have new customers but it was still a niche group.

Windows did not get a warm welcome, it was forced on us.

[Cellmember]

More competition is better. I want to see more OS's.

[cinedine]

Randver님이 먼저 게시:

Windows did not get a warm welcome, it was forced on us.

What? Where? And who is "us"?
Windows made PC usage far easier and without it PCs would certainly not be found in nearly every household in the industrialized world.

The ease of just clicking on what you want Vs navigating around the file tree and menus in Norton Commander Vs knowing a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of arbitrary commands in DOS is nothing short of a stroke of genius.

You don't prefer a manual transmission to an automatic, by any chance, do you?

[Randver]

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

Randver님이 먼저 게시:

Windows did not get a warm welcome, it was forced on us.

What? Where? And who is "us"?
Windows made PC usage far easier and without it PCs would certainly not be found in nearly every household in the industrialized world.

The ease of just clicking on what you want Vs navigating around the file tree and menus in Norton Commander Vs knowing a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of arbitrary commands in DOS is nothing short of a stroke of genius.

You don't prefer a manual transmission to an automatic, by any chance, do you?

I'm talking about the transition from DOS to Win 1.0. Long term I agree with you, Windows made the PC what it is today but it didn't start off that way. High system requirements, compatibility issues with DOS programs and even the mouse....everyone was used to using a keyboard and it worked better than the mouse of 1.0.

When did gamers finally embrace Windows? Probably Win 98 because with 95 I was still booting into DOS to game because games were still be made for DOS.

[cinedine]

Randver님이 먼저 게시:

I'm talking about the transition from DOS to Win 1.0.

Okay, fair. Never heard anyone using Windows 1 or 2 anyway. 3.11 is where "Windows" started.
Which is probably the Ubuntu of Linux systems ^^

[Randver]

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

Randver님이 먼저 게시:

I'm talking about the transition from DOS to Win 1.0.

Okay, fair. Never heard anyone using Windows 1 or 2 anyway. 3.11 is where "Windows" started.
Which is probably the Ubuntu of Linux systems ^^

It was installed on the school computers one of my first years of college. I took a class called "Introduction to PC's" or something like that and on the first day instructor showed us how to launch it (win at dos prompt) and then we never used it again.

[crunchyfrog]

Randver님이 먼저 게시:

crunchyfrog님이 먼저 게시:

Exactly.

You CANNOT have the situation where an OS takes over in such a way as Windows has done PURELY by the nerds and niche groups taking it up.

That's exactly how we got Windows.

Prior to Windows if you had a PC in your home you more than likely were gaming on it or using it for word processing. We had one in our home in the early 80's because my mom used it for word processing related to her job.

Windows was a graphical interface for DOS to appeal to a niche group...the home user. Throw in some marketing and software to manage your finances, etc and you have new customers but it was still a niche group.

Windows did not get a warm welcome, it was forced on us.

Wrong.

Foir a start the situation was different. It was still rather niche to own a PC. But you are STILL not inlcuding the people who caused Windows to take off - all the businesses. That's the whole point here as I said right from the beginning.

It wasn't just few people doing accounts or anything. That';s simply not even remotely true.

[Electric Cupcake]

I well-remember Windows 1, with the big blue startup screen.

[Randver]

crunchyfrog님이 먼저 게시:

Randver님이 먼저 게시:

That's exactly how we got Windows.

Prior to Windows if you had a PC in your home you more than likely were gaming on it or using it for word processing. We had one in our home in the early 80's because my mom used it for word processing related to her job.

Windows was a graphical interface for DOS to appeal to a niche group...the home user. Throw in some marketing and software to manage your finances, etc and you have new customers but it was still a niche group.

Windows did not get a warm welcome, it was forced on us.

Wrong.

Foir a start the situation was different. It was still rather niche to own a PC. But you are STILL not inlcuding the people who caused Windows to take off - all the businesses. That's the whole point here as I said right from the beginning.

It wasn't just few people doing accounts or anything. That';s simply not even remotely true.

Businesses didn't have much of a choice after the IBM deal so everyone using a desktop had Windows on it.

Now the question is were they using it. MS DOS was the OS up until Windows 2000 (at least I think that was the first one without DOS). Most businesses were still using Lotus 1 2 3 and WordPerfect into the 90's (using DOS).

So I'd be willing to bet that most of the people using the Windows UI were home users and not businesses. You're not distinguishing between who was buying computers with WIndows installed and who was actually using Windows.

I think Windows 3.1 was the first version you actually had the option to boot into Windows at start-up without typing "win" at the DOS prompt.

So businesses made MS lots of money but home users made the OS popular because of it's ease of use.