Whats going to hold you back from running SteamOS/Linux

[desura]

I already paid for a copy of Windows 8 and I already have built a gaming pc.

That's it.

I won't be doing this for the forseeable future either.

Otherwise, I'd be all over the SteamOS. I've wanted something like this for a very long time.

 

[sweenish]

I want to play my Steam games.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Aside from the plentiful practical concerns, it's Linux and thus supporting the GNU foundation. I'm not at all interesting in helping the GNU foundation in it's goal of turning all programmers is people selling support.

 

[BladeVenom]

PC gamers really should stop buying Windows, when you consider where the money MS makes from Windows go. It goes to pay PC developers to stop making PC games and make XBox exclusives instead. We are shooting ourselves in the foot every time we buy a copy of Windows.

Secondly, Linux is more efficient than Windows, and OpenGL is more efficient that DirectX. http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

 

[Kalmah]

I'm not really sure what I'm going to do once the OS becomes available. I definitely will try it. I imagine that there will be performance gains (or should be), if the gains are significant I will consider a dual-boot option to at least try it out.

The thing is, I'm still going to need my pc with Windows on it for other things. After some time goes by(we're talking years), and depending on how things pan out, I could possibly see myself considering just having a second machine dedicated to gaming and a mediocre machine for other things. But, then I'd need a KVM switch for my monitors. Well, might as well dual boot if that is the case. Why buy hardware twice?

So that brings me full circle, I guess only if their is a significant performance increase will I use it.

Maybe if I can get comfortable with the controller will I consider it for a living room environment. But I will always want my mouse and keyboard for action games. Whatever becomes of it, it might take getting use to.

 

[BoberFett]

The fact that there are no benefits to SteamOS over my current environment.

 

[robvp]

windows only games, thats about it, i only use the machine for games, and the occasional netflix when the console is not available

 

[flexy]

15 years or so ago I would have said that SteamOS is a sensation and I wouldn't have been able to wait until I can install it. This was at a time when every MB and every CPU cycle counted. You would've known that the large overhead of Windows is eliminated and be able to build an "optimized" gaming machine which fully takes advantage of a PC's resources.

Today this is entirely different since with i5/i7 CPUs and 16, 32 or 64GB ram no one gives a hoot whether 3-4GB is taken by the OS. It's a non issue.

Reality is that there will likely be NO difference whatsoever, say, if you have a dual-boot system and can choose between Win7/8 and SteamOS in terms of "how the game plays". Reality will also be that there will still be MORE games running "on Windows" available...game companies won't just stop developing for DirectX/Win.

When the overall benefit will be rather "zero" and the majority of games will still be coming for Windows there is really no reason to run SteamOS, except some "coolness" nerd-factor. (And I really don't THINK that there will be a benefit, performance advantage or whatsoever)

Don't get me wrong, I would otherwise say that nothing can be better than gaming on hardware without the requirement for an entire OS underlying, but 99% of people WILL still have/keep Windows on their PCs and games WILL still be running under Win....SteamOS would need to offer something extraordinary which I cannot have under Windows, but what should that be?

Short: I think this is rather something which benefits Valve (expanding into the console market) rather than people/gamers.

 

[flexy]

Also.

This is not even REMOTELY a question of ditching or replacing Windows for SteamOS.

You don't built or own a PC with the goal to ultimately "ditch Windows".

For those people who want a system "without windows", they can already have it...they can buy a gaming console (Xbone, PS4 etc.) and know that it will satisfy them in terms of availability for games etc.

As said above...15 or more years back...it would've been GREAT. You could've built or bought a gaming PC w/ SteamOS, much cheaper and optimized..knowing that you get 50% more resources and power with such a machine over a machine which needed Windows.

 

[KentState]

Like I said in the other similar thread, it would take Windows becoming too expensive to own or a complete lack of games for Windows.

 

[Childs]

For those people who want a system "without windows", they can already have it...they can buy a gaming console (Xbone, PS4 etc.) and know that it will satisfy them in terms of availability for games etc.

The reason most PC gamers dont have a console is keyboard and mouse support, and a console doesnt fix that. Unless you want to use an adapter and cheat.

 

[Staples]

Games run fine in Windows 8 so there is no need for me to ever install Steam OS.

 

[desura]

15 years or so ago I would have said that SteamOS is a sensation and I wouldn't have been able to wait until I can install it. This was at a time when every MB and every CPU cycle counted. You would've known that the large overhead of Windows is eliminated and be able to build an "optimized" gaming machine which fully takes advantage of a PC's resources.

Today this is entirely different since with i5/i7 CPUs and 16, 32 or 64GB ram no one gives a hoot whether 3-4GB is taken by the OS. It's a non issue.

Reality is that there will likely be NO difference whatsoever, say, if you have a dual-boot system and can choose between Win7/8 and SteamOS in terms of "how the game plays". Reality will also be that there will still be MORE games running "on Windows" available...game companies won't just stop developing for DirectX/Win.

When the overall benefit will be rather "zero" and the majority of games will still be coming for Windows there is really no reason to run SteamOS, except some "coolness" nerd-factor. (And I really don't THINK that there will be a benefit, performance advantage or whatsoever)

Don't get me wrong, I would otherwise say that nothing can be better than gaming on hardware without the requirement for an entire OS underlying, but 99% of people WILL still have/keep Windows on their PCs and games WILL still be running under Win....SteamOS would need to offer something extraordinary which I cannot have under Windows, but what should that be?

Short: I think this is rather something which benefits Valve (expanding into the console market) rather than people/gamers.

At least for me, I think it's kind of a big deal. I'm a niche consumer though...

But like, for many people, the only reason to have a desktop computer is literally for games. Laptops are powerful enough for everything else with the glaring exception of games. And they're portable, etc.

So generally, when I go around building a desktop, I want to keep it cheap. I usually can configure it to within the price of a console (while being more powerful, technically) and then it comes time to get the OS, which kind of destroys the equation.

I'm niche, of course, but I would really have loved to have had something like SteamOS about a year ago when I built a gaming pc.

So, the TLDR of it is that it will mainly benefit guys who like to build systems from Newegg parts. Which is probably a shrinking demographic, but likely still sizable.

 

[QueBert]

It will already have full XBMC support, if it has a good selection of Steam games? I'd drop Windows in a heartbeat.

 

[Bateluer]

Whats stopping me? Right now, the lack of information. How compatible with SteamOS be with drivers, hardware? Will I be able to drop in a new video card and have it work when the card launches? What about software repositories? What level of compatibility are we looking at with existing Ubuntu repositories, for example?

I don't want to play games on my low resolution TV either, so good monitor support is also a must. I also don't want to play games with a controller of any kind, too cumbersome, too difficult to control, and imprecise. So if SteamOS is geared primarily to hook a box up to a television and kick back with the Steam controller, then forget it.

But, Windows definitely needs to go. Its becoming increasingly DRM laden, with profits from it going to stifle PC games. An OEM Windows 8 laptop lacks the ability to do a clean install of Windows, for example. If you replace the drive or want a clean install, you're up the creek with a paddle. Unless you download an OEM W8 ISO from torrent sites. With secure boot options locked in the UEFI, you can't install a Linux distro. Luckily you can turn that off for now, but you know full well Microsoft wanted that option removed. Thank the courts in the EU for that, I believe.

Fortunately, MS is doing everything they can do push people to Mac and Linux. With Microsoft continuing to stumble with Windows 8, 8.1, WPx, and Xbox One, Valve definitely has an opening.

Aside from the plentiful practical concerns, it's Linux and thus supporting the GNU foundation. I'm not at all interesting in helping the GNU foundation in it's goal of turning all programmers is people selling support.

Lol, wat? You're thinking of Microsoft, as they rebrand themselves into a services and support company with SaaS projects. Will you enjoy a subscription fee for Windows 9?

 

[desura]

I actually think the steam controller is awesome and while I probably won't be getting SteamOS, I definitely will pick up the controller.

What I want to know is will SteamOS have some sort of windows compatibility layer just like wine/Crossover.

 

[mizzou]

the only reason the enthusiast market exists (including forums like this) is for PC gaming. The server/programmer/etc. niche is so minutely small.

I imagine Valve is aware of this and is making a calculated risk that if it can corner the PC Gaming specific market, people will build PC's just to utilize Steam OS

Then Microsoft can have its way with people using tablets and micro-pcs to run windows 8 for office programs, etc. etc.

 

[stockwiz]

No reason to run it. Windows runs better than ever and with an overclocked 2600K and more ram than I need there's no reason to say that linux would run with 'less bloat' or any such reasoning. Windows is plug and play. That's what I want. No command windows and typing in commands. I'm sticking with windows 8.1

 

[crownjules]

Nothing. I'll run it, either dual boot or in a VM, to give it a shot and see what it can do. As I'm a PC hobbyist, this is the kind of thing I do.

Whether it's successful or not is a completely different matter.

 

[cbrunny]

The reason most PC gamers dont have a console is keyboard and mouse support, and a console doesnt fix that. Unless you want to use an adapter and cheat.

Disagree. The reason most PC gamers dont have a console is that consoles do not provide 1080p+ resolution @ 60+ fps. Most console games don't even have a "max settings" option. You are forced into a low-detail 720p world with sub-par framerates. ME3 is the perfect example of this dichotomy.

For me, KBM support doesn't matter at all. But I don't FPS often.

 

[Childs]

Disagree. The reason most PC gamers dont have a console is that consoles do not provide 1080p+ resolution @ 60+ fps. Most console games don't even have a "max settings" option. You are forced into a low-detail 720p world with sub-par framerates. ME3 is the perfect example of this dichotomy.

For me, KBM support doesn't matter at all. But I don't FPS often.

PC gamers have been playing games a lot longer than the goal of playing at 1080p. I don't even think most PC gamers can tell the difference between the different levels of graphical settings or even know what they do. The one thing they do notice is frame rate. If it doesnt feel smooth, lower the settings. If people could play games like Starcraft, Civ, FPSs, etc, on a console and use a keyboard and mouse, PC gaming would be a fraction of what it is. There are those that just like upgrading their machines and having something custom, but I would bet most rigs dont run modern games at 60fps at the graphical settings they are set at. Definitely not at high or ultra.

Obviously the reasons vary depending on the individual, but I think keyboard and mouse is a big part of it.

 

[HeXen]

Ah, the ever elusive, always expensive 60fps utopia for all games. Don't you guys ever get tired of chasing 60 fps averages/minimums? It's a cat and mouse game involving dodo birds where we follow each other off cliffs to tweak our testicles into raisins.
Then we're mad if we can't max it out (Crysis) which made Crytek mad. So now devs like them see future proofing as a financial and rep nightmare.( Dumb the options down in sequals and no one notices, go figure.)

Well I'm certainly tired of forever chasing it, Metro LL running at 40 fps on an i7/680 oc was the last in a long line of straws. I'm selling my rig after Xmas and going back to the consoles where I was stupid and happy to begin with, ignorance is bliss here and I always stayed more focused on just playing games and not tweaking and driver testing or even thinking about the OS and maintanence. I want to enjoy the simplicities, engage in normal non geek convos with friends without being the wierdo that spent countless bucks within a decade to play ports with graphical enhancement options but same everything else. I long for the return of days when I pop in a game and veg out without worry or nitpicking comparisons. This gen will at least have the ram and multitasking for me to do it unlike ps3 even if it's not the most leet experience out there, it'll be the most cosistant. I dont need pro level precision to jerk off, why do i need fancy kb mouse in a game i ask myself at times. I dont really, i can beat a game just fine with a gamepad. 60fps..guys it's either every game, every time or it's go home, screw the drama and screw steamos, I'm goin home

 

[Imaginer]

Ah, the ever elusive, always expensive 60fps utopia for all games. Don't you guys ever get tired of chasing 60 fps averages/minimums? It's a cat and mouse game involving dodo birds where we follow each other off cliffs to tweak our testicles into raisins.
Then we're mad if we can't max it out (Crysis) which made Crytek mad. So now devs like them see future proofing as a financial and rep nightmare.( Dumb the options down in sequals and no one notices, go figure.)

Well I'm certainly tired of forever chasing it, Metro LL running at 40 fps on an i7/680 oc was the last in a long line of straws. I'm selling my rig after Xmas and going back to the consoles where I was stupid and happy to begin with, ignorance is bliss here and I always stayed more focused on just playing games and not tweaking and driver testing or even thinking about the OS and maintanence. I want to enjoy the simplicities, engage in normal non geek convos with friends without being the wierdo that spent countless bucks within a decade to play ports with graphical enhancement options but same everything else. I long for the return of days when I pop in a game and veg out without worry or nitpicking comparisons. This gen will at least have the ram and multitasking for me to do it unlike ps3 even if it's not the most leet experience out there, it'll be the most cosistant. I dont need pro level precision to jerk off, why do i need fancy kb mouse in a game i ask myself at times. I dont really, i can beat a game just fine with a gamepad. 60fps..guys it's either every game, every time or it's go home, screw the drama and screw steamos, I'm goin home

I don't chase it. I get the cards that are good enough with window room for some future play. But it is not the reasons why I PC HDTV game.

Being able to play any media file, unrestricted, without much effort on a Windows system is another big one. I can access any website, on any flavor of browser, with all access - not gimped by cellular or mobile restrictions, having access to my file systems to work with the web interfaces out there, and having the greatest choice of internet services.

But it also does not stop there.

Peripherals. I can choose from a larger pool of peripherals so far for the PC. I can throw any number of hard drives and it will work with no additional effort. Heck, I can even throw in capture cards and do what console gamers are just now doing with their own boxes for game recording - and I can also record more than just games, my own screen as well.



The .doc and .docx interoperability with ebooks? It is a confilict of working with someone's standards and not falling in line, expecting those standards to be your own. But file type interoperability has always been an issue. Perhaps one also needs to look at the infamous .pdf extension.

Not to mention, when Word was first conceived, it would never be dreamed that it would be going as far as being used for e-reader programs - of which also has their own operands and standards - and may not play nice to begin with anyways.



I also would mention, I use stable drivers, not beta. I do not overclock. I use the standard memory settings.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

If I was on a really tight budget a free OS that supports my gaming habit would be the ticket. Having all the games available in the steam library would be very compelling.

 

[ThinClient]

Why would I install SteamOS when Win7 works perfectly?