Valve's SteamOS Not a Replacement for Windows 8

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
it just me who thinks that they do not want to replace windows, they just want a OS just for gaming?
it might be a good option to go dual boot system, so you can choose from the console layout for gaming, that can be easier to use. as far as I am aware it is not made for the hc linux fan gamers, it is made for people who use Windows and does not really like that it is complicated.
 
IMO this project was something great , which ended up being something crap. SteamOS was better of being a real OS , Valve should have given it a more break if they wanted , more time on development. Even a 2yr delay is better than something great being spoil just because of hurry. I'd prefer Ubuntu. It gives me a break from OS X and W7 atleast...............................
 
Damn. That sucks.
I already have a MythTV (Linux based PVR) box on my TV in my front room. I was holding off some maintenance until SteamOs came out as I thought, being Linux-based, I could put MythTV over SteamOs so my one box could then do both. Guess not.

If SteamOs is really only a console-like launcher, I can't understand why they made it a whole OS so youd need a whole new box, rather than just an app that you could install on any existing linux box.
Oh wait, isn't that kinda what Steam for Linux is when in full screen mode?
 
I'm not too worried.

By the time SteamOS ships (or even prior) someone will have reverse engineered and come up with a way to totally customize it.

Hell we were installing Linux on PS3 boxes in less than three months of release, well until Sony swooped in.
 
What excites me most about the Steam box is its potential. Linux has suitable apps for most requirements, it is only lacking in the games. That is the only reason I didn't move to Linux years ago. With the Steam box though, I'm hoping more games will be available on Linux and actually make Linux a feasible OS for gamers.

Also keep in mind that Steam would have to take upgrades to their OS slowly and make sure they are not competing with Windows (yet). For those that moan about that lacking of other OS functionality on the Steam box, how long really would it take for people to put apps up on Steam for these functions? And they could actually make money from selling such apps. Before you know it, Steam has an entire app ecosystem the likes of which Microsoft is aiming for.

Personally I do not want an Android desktop OS. I don't trust Google where my data is concerned. They give usage of Android away for free and keep spending money on developing it - obviously they are getting money back from this investment somehow...
 
Do we really need an article that states the obvious? Did we get an article on 'XBox One is not a replacement for Windows 8!'...??? Does no one understand what Steam is trying to accomplish here?

Were I the Steam team, I'd make a nice, tight well integrated hardware oriented OS that had rather strict requirements on what hardware would actually work. I might also give out a dev kit for mucking around, but I sure as hell wouldn't be taking support calls from those that did so. (Although I might have a tier two dev support group...)
 
This is why the general public doesn't run Linux. Say I want to install the XBMC media player in Windows or OSX. I click on the download link, and select 'Run'. That's it, job done. With Linux...
Before you run these comands type "sudo echo" into the terminal and hit Enter.
Then copy the area below up to sudo add...
Go back to the terminal, hit the middle mouse button and when it prompts hit Enter.
Copy the part after sudo add... and paste it to the terminal.
If it askes you if you want to install enter y and hit Enter

sudo apt-get install python-software-properties pkg-config
sudo apt-get install software-properties-common
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:team-xbmc/ppa
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install xbmc


Repositories

https://launchpad.net/~team-xbmc/+archive/ppa ppa:team-xbmc/ppa
https://launchpad.net/~team-xbmc/+archive/unstable ppa:team-xbmc/unstable
https://launchpad.net/~team-xbmc/+archive/xbmc-nightly ppa:team-xbmc/xbmc-nightly

Frodo is available from Ubuntu 11.10 (Oneiric Ocelot) to 13.04 (Raring Ringtail), you can install from the team-xbmc PPA as follows or replace the ppa with the desired from above.

sudo apt-get install python-software-properties pkg-config
sudo apt-get install software-properties-common
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:team-xbmc/ppa
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install xbmc


For more details, see the HOW-TO install XBMC for Linux on Ubuntu, a Step-by-Step Guide.
 


Hrm... I haven't fiddled with Linux for over four years. Curious, is this literally the norm for installing lesser known programs on contemporary Linux builds? I've heard several users make claims that contemporary Linux is more user friendly than Windows and, if the above is *still* what Linux of requires of you, I'm guessing that's just BS I shouldn't buy into.
 


If the software has been tailored to a particular distro it may be found in that distro's repository. The drawback of this is that the software in the distro's repository may be behind the product's upstream repository or even a customized version of it.

If the software hasn't been tailored to a particular distro it may very well work by porting from another distro or building from the maintainer's own repostiory. For example, many Debian packages will run just fine on Ubuntu as they both use the same underlying package management, and software designed for RHEL can often be ported with a little bit of effort. Compatibility issues may arise when the major version of some shared libraries change.

So yeah, if the software is present in the distro it's pretty easy to install. However, if it's not present or the distro version is out of date it requires a lot more work on the part of the user.
 
Why would people want this to basically be a replacement PC OS? It's entire point is to simplify gaming/video on an upgradable system and play with a controller. I want SteamOS so that I can play computer games on my computer, then walk downstairs to my big TV and play the same games with the same saves with no hassle with a controller on a larger screen.
 


Look at the issue from the point of view of the person that has to do the support, and the answer will be obvious.

 


Simple solution: No support on unapproved hardware but still functional
 


You've never really worked in support, have you...

 


No. Have you done software development?
 


You've never used Linux have you? Sure, you can install applications via command line interfaces, but you got GUI-based software managers to handle it now...
 


What does that have to do with this topic?
 
The reason it's not a full-on OS, is the reason why it's coming out as an alternative to Windows gaming in the first place and why it is not leaning towards any other existing distros of Linux. OS's are general purpose, they are used for a multitude of things...mostly office tasks and day-to-day tasks. Multimedia and gaming OS's are media-centric and will not have a ton of extra processes/ services running and therefore, are light as to not occupy too many resources. If it was a full-on OS, we'd arrive back at the problem that is gaming on an ordinary OS to begin with...especially Windows, which is not at all a gaming friendly OS. So, dual boot. Use Windows for what it is for. Reboot the computer and enter gaming mode (Steam mode).
 


This is a load of crap.

Extra processes and services do absolutely nothing. The system sits there idle 99% of the time. Those extra processes and services consume a token amount of extra memory but that's a pittance on a modern computer with 8+ GiB of DDR3.

Windows is an extremely gaming friendly OS. Nothing else has the compatibility layers needed to run games made for Windows 95 in 2013.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.