Why Steam for Linux? Because Windows 8 is a 'Catastrophe'

[Rob Williams]

As we mentioned in our news section last week, Valve finally put an end to all of the "Steam on Linux" rumors by announcing its plans officially. The reasons for its attention to Linux should be obvious. It's a small market, but it is growing, and no group of folks have proven more fervently that they want games for their platform.

Read the rest of our post and then discuss it here!

[Big Red Machine]

I think Windows 8 is the first salvo towards mass adoption of touchscreen UIs as well as a closer integration between portable devices and the traditional PC. It's not just Metro and touchscreen capability; remember that Windows 8 is the first Windows ever that will won't be x86-exclusive. Windows 8 will also be ARM-compatible. It's not a stretch at all to believe that Microsoft may be trying to force a change towards a "do-it-all" type of OS that works with any type of chip architecture.

[Rob Williams]

I just think that Microsoft is trying to pull an Apple by forcing adoption on something that no one needs. I mean, it -does- work for Apple, right?

On a desktop or notebook, I don't want to use a touchscreen. It's inefficient. If I am getting work done, I don't want to take my hands off the mouse just to touch the screen because it's suddenly less efficient to use the mouse due to Microsoft's design.

Designing for multiple architectures is one thing, but forcing an interface on people that don't want it is another.

[Big Red Machine]

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

I just think that Microsoft is trying to pull an Apple by forcing adoption on something that no one needs. I mean, it -does- work for Apple, right?

On a desktop or notebook, I don't want to use a touchscreen. It's inefficient. If I am getting work done, I don't want to take my hands off the mouse just to touch the screen because it's suddenly less efficient to use the mouse due to Microsoft's design.

Designing for multiple architectures is one thing, but forcing an interface on people that don't want it is another.

Agreed on all points, actually.

I originally thought of stating that perhaps Microsoft may be trying to foist something more of a "closed" system a la Apple. If anything, MS's strategy looks to be more promising than Apple's, if only because of the fall of the incompatibility wall that exists between x86 and non-x86.

I think that whether or not this touchscreen interface takes off as Microsoft might want depends very strongly on corporate adoption. I've long thought that the enterprise-level of the market dictates the route software development goes. The corporate market is the sole reason why WinXP has been around for so long; in my opinion, it was also the primary reason why Vista failed. Windows 7 is gaining traction in the corporate sector, but the rate at which it's moving is slow, as typical with corporate environments.

If businesses and corporations want touchscreen, then Windows 8 will see faster and more complete adoption. But I remain very skeptical of this.

[Rob Williams]

Originally Posted by Big Red Machine

I originally thought of stating that perhaps Microsoft may be trying to foist something more of a "closed" system a la Apple.

That'd be the death knell for Microsoft, so it's not going to happen. Desktop OSes should never be locked down, unless they're developed for a certain purpose. No one wants to be locked down at all. It might be understandable on limited-use devices like phones and tablets, but not so on the desktop.

Originally Posted by Big Red Machine

I think that whether or not this touchscreen interface takes off as Microsoft might want depends very strongly on corporate adoption.

That does tend to be true. Are we going to see IT departments out of nowhere decide to replace all their monitors with touchscreens? I doubt that. What does it offer them? Not a damn thing. Sure, they might opt for touchscreens the next time they need to get a shipment in, but more often than not, it comes down to need and cost.

Given that the server edition of Windows 8 has the same Metro interface, Microsoft must be assuming that everyone is going to enjoy it. Imagine needing to go work on a server, only to have to deal with that interface. Seems kind of clunky, when server configuration / fixing isn't exactly a simple thing.

I've been meaning to install W8 for a while just to use it and see how things fare. Might do that this weekend.

[Dangerously]

Microsoft should have a prompt when installing Windows 8 with these options:
"Touch Metro Theme"
"Non-touch screen with out Metro"

Windows 8 is a little better then 7 (I did say "a little") when Metro hides its self. It is clean and uses less resources on the graphis side due to the absence of "Areo". I do not get a prompt to turn off Areo every time I play a Blu-ray movie or run a program with high resource issues. You can get the clasic start menu using some registry hacks (tested on the first 2 public betas) that will most likely be removed on offical launch :-(

[Rob Williams]

Welcome to the forums, Dangerously!

I agree with you completely, which is why I'm half-excited about Windows 8 and half-annoyed. I like the improvements made behind Metro, like the UI enhancements and overall usability improvements, but if I have to deal with Metro at -all- on the desktop, I'll freak out. I know there are tools to disable Metro and go back with a typical Start menu, but I'm really not a fan of using hacks like that. I'd rather an official solution. Microsoft needs to stop being so ignorant.

[DarkStarr]

Meh, 8 sucks 9 will probably blow people away but be a bit slow and Windows X (hmmmm WinX sounds pretty cool) will make everyone's eyes bleed due to the improved awesomeness over 9. Well...... hopefully otherwise the future doesn't look so good for M$.

[Tharic-Nar]

Microsoft taking the intel strategy; Tick - New architecture and fundamental improvements, whether people want it or not, Tock - Refine the architecture, bug fix, polish. Repeat. The problem is that Microsoft isn't very good at giving people what they want, rather it likes to give what it 'thinks' you want.

Steam for Linux is more of a seed. It's not going to be much to begin with. I think it's just natural progression for Valve, I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with Win 8 being a 'catastrophe'.

[Rob Williams]

Tick / Tock is a good analogy here.

I have a billion questions about Steam on Linux but I am just going to have to wait and see. Michael at Phoronix thinks that the client should run on most distros without much of a problem, but I can't quite fathom how that'll be the case.