Valve announces Steam OS, Steam Machines, and Steam Controller

[Rydian]

Erm...I'm not sure if you read my quote correctly here. That sure goes for windows, but I said:

And aside from the streaming feature, I don't see what the benefit over steam on linux is to begin with.

I can just install ubuntu or mint on this computer*, use the package manager to install steam on it and game that way. Why should I instead go for steamOS?
It's all nice and dandy that it's "built for gaming"...but aside from some interesting benchmarks when compared to windows**, I have no idea how it stacks up against other linux clients.

Or how the overall interface will look on an operating system that's built for a television screen to begin with... :-\

Oh, well, I didn't get that at all since you asked about it on Linux, so I assumed that you meant Linux versus non-Linux.

Anyways it'll probably have some interface that's easily dealt with on the relatively large-size and low-resolution of TVs. Most people that

**besides...exactly how fair is such a comparison? On windows, I don't dare to disable my firewall or virusscanner. Kind of obvious that linux benchmarks better then.

Those aren't going to impact gaming unless a HDD scan is happening while you game, and most AVs are courteous enough to not do that anymore, especially since it's very obvious that disk I/O is the slowest part of any modern machine nowadays.

Oh wow. That was entirely unintentional.

Fraid I still don't understand though, do you mean aspects of the GUI that you can normally change on Linux distros? Like for instance, Valve being able to make a Start button type thing that pulls up your game library instead? Or am I entirely missing your point?

Yeah, but it might be more limiting, think ChromeOS or the PS3's OS, or Android. Linux distros generally have KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Blackbox/fluxbox, and more. Therese desktop environments can have radical differences and change the way you interact with the system, something you can't really do on Windows (just launch a fullscreen program and try your best to stop it from being minimized).

 

[Skelletonike]

I'll be sticking with my Windows 8 (gaming desktop) and Windows 7 (work laptop). I love my microsoft OS's and I'm not changing anytime soon.

 

[chrisrlink]

god i hate linux compiling programs is NOT my fave thing to do

 

[Wisenheimer]

god i hate linux compiling programs is NOT my fave thing to do

I have a Samsung Galaxy S4. It runs Linux (Android OS) and I have never had to compile a program to get it to work. Apple computers running OS X use an operating system is called Darwin. It is based on a version of UNIX called Open BSD which is very similar to Linux.

If you look at the primary tasks people use their computers for these days, user-friendly versions of Linux such as Ubuntu can do 95% of things fairly well. It is that other 5% of things that prevent it from being a serious contender for desktops.

But if you look at the kind of PCs people have these days, tablets and smartphones are starting to dominate. Tablets use many different operating systems, such as Windows, Windows RT, iOS, et cetera. One of the most popular tablet operating systems is a version of Linux called Android, which does a pretty good job of replacing a desktop computer for most people.

You probably use Linux and do not even know it. Almost everything these days contains a computer, from cash registers to cars. Many of those run either Linux or embedded/CE Windows.

 

[Foxi4]

I have a Samsung Galaxy S4. It runs Linux (Android OS) and I have never had to compile a program to get it to work.

Maybe because it's been covered with so many overlays that it's barely recognizable at this point and only really runs the kernel... somewhere deep, deep down.

Apple computers running OS X use an operating system is called Darwin. It is based on a version of UNIX called Open BSD which is very similar to Linux.

BSD and Linux have one thing on common - they're UNIX-like. That's it. OS X is a case similar to Android OS - there are so many overlays on top of the basic kernel that you don't really notice that it's UNIX.

If you look at the primary tasks people use their computers for these days, user-friendly versions of Linux such as Ubuntu can do 95% of things fairly well. It is that other 5% of things that prevent it from being a serious contender for desktops.

Linux still isn't all that great for your everyday PC user though - you do have to compile things every now and then, updates are hardly an automated process as it is with Windows or OS X, and you do have to use the Command Prompt every now and then - none of these things are welcome by modern users.

But if you look at the kind of PCs people have these days, tablets and smartphones are starting to dominate. Tablets use many different operating systems, such as Windows, Windows RT, iOS, et cetera. One of the most popular tablet operating systems is a version of Linux called Android, which does a pretty good job of replacing a desktop computer for most people.

Tablets and smartphones never really replaced desktops - they are portable companions to a full-blown PC.

You probably use Linux and do not even know it. Almost everything these days contains a computer, from cash registers to cars. Many of those run either Linux or embedded/CE Windows.

That is true. Thing is, how often do you update a cash register's kernel? A cash register is designed to perform one particular function and if it does it well on the basic firmware, you never really build on top of that. PC's on the other hand are expandable in terms of features by proxy - you install and uninstall programs from them very often and when these operations are a pain, we have a problem... also your metaphorical register must be pretty damn fancy if it runs Linux - I would've expected some very basic program on a chip with no OS whatsoever... maybe you mean a POS station?

 

[whinis]

Maybe because it's been covered with so many overlays that it's barely recognizable at this point and only really runs the kernel... somewhere deep, deep down.

You could say the same of Mint or Ubuntu, or even windows (look at the structure some time). However android is using a functional component of linux and has proven that one can in fact have automated updates, something you complain about later

BSD and Linux have one thing on common - they're UNIX-like. That's it. OS X is a case similar to Android OS - there are so many overlays on top of the basic kernel that you don't really notice that it's UNIX.

Actually they tend to have a lot more than that in common, surprisingly many of the api's are nearly the same and as far as graphics, they both use opengl. Also many of the file structures are similar, the many difference is down in the kernel where most users (even super users) won't care or delve much anyways. There is a reason many programs can quite easily and quickly be cross compiled for both

Linux still isn't all that great for your everyday PC user though - you do have to compile things every now and then, updates are hardly an automated process as it is with Windows or OS X, and you do have to use the Command Prompt every now and then - none of these things are welcome by modern users.

Command prompt or consoles are not necessary in linux for the average user any more than they are necessary in windows by the average user. What would end up happening is that if it ends up breaking to the point its needed one would take it to a repair shop just as they do with windows machines. For everything else one would be running mint or ubuntu where everything is in a package file or in the manager, no more difficult than downloading a EXE installer. Both of which have automated update processes that allow one to update to the latest version without much headache.

 

[Rydian]

Command prompt or consoles are not necessary in linux for the average user any more than they are necessary in windows by the average user.

Just wo years ago, in Ubuntu, I still needed the command prompt to chmod files in order to run an .exe that I downloaded via browser through WINE.

So uh. You're pushing pretty hard...

 

[whinis]

Just wo years ago, in Ubuntu, I still needed the command prompt to chmod files in order to run an .exe that I downloaded via browser through WINE.

So uh. You're pushing pretty hard...

We wouldn't be "average" users though, the average user would find a program like playonlinux and just press the play button

 

[grossaffe]

Just wo years ago, in Ubuntu, I still needed the command prompt to chmod files in order to run an .exe that I downloaded via browser through WINE.

So uh. You're pushing pretty hard...

You should be able to right-click a file, go to properties, and set it as executable.

 

[TemplarGR]

It is true that most Linux distros are not user-friendly. But this can change. See for example Android. Although not a Linux distro technically, but more of a Linux-kernel-based OS, Android is really user-friendly.

I am sure SteamOS will be "idiot-proof(tm)"...

 

[Rydian]

We wouldn't be "average" users though, the average user would find a program like playonlinux and just press the play button

http://www.ubuntuupdates.org/package_logs?page=2&type=ppas&vals=50
Reports that that wasn't available until 08-20 2011.

I mentioned the timeframe I did for a reason because it was about that time that a lot of Linux groups finally realized that "user-friendly" didn't just mean "Linux user-friendly" and they had to step up their game.

You should be able to right-click a file, go to properties, and set it as executable.

Now, yes. Then, no. Even in Ubuntu, you still needed to use the command prompt and chmod executables to even run them through Wine just two years ago (as things downloaded via the browser were not marked as executable and while the "file properties" of the DE would give you the info, they would not change it).

It's a pretty big testament to how slowly Linux becomes user-friendly, which is part of why the popular distro seems to shift around every few years (and major things built off of Linux include tons of customizations). It's a whole 'nother discussion on why things work like that though.

At least WINE was already considered 1.0 by that time and the only issues I had with it were games with DRM (which WINE has issues with because it does user-mode translations and not kernel-mode, and while technically the blame for games not running is often that reason, I'd rather morally and logically say it's the publishers unnecessarily including DRM in the first place).

 

[grossaffe]

Now, yes. Then, no. Even in Ubuntu, you still needed to use the command prompt and chmod executables to even run them through Wine just two years ago (as things downloaded via the browser were not marked as executable and while the "file properties" of the DE would give you the info, they would not change it).

It's a pretty big testament to how slowly Linux becomes user-friendly, which is part of why the popular distro seems to shift around every few years (and major things built off of Linux include tons of customizations). It's a whole 'nother discussion on why things work like that though.

I don't think progress has really been all that slow. I've been running variants of Ubuntu since around 2007, which I guess is about three years after initial release, and it's made some huge leaps in that time-frame. Mounting different partitions with proper permissions is easy, mounting USB drives, setting files as executable, multi-booting, flash videos... compared to when I was using Ubuntu for the first time, Ubuntu variants have become much easier for new users to assimilate to.

 

[Rydian]

I don't think progress has really been all that slow. I've been running variants of Ubuntu since around 2007, which I guess is about three years after initial release, and it's made some huge leaps in that time-frame. Mounting different partitions with proper permissions is easy, mounting USB drives, setting files as executable, multi-booting, flash videos... compared to when I was using Ubuntu for the first time, Ubuntu variants have become much easier for new users to assimilate to.

I'm not talking which flavor is going to get the "most improved" reward if they also got the worst user-friendly rating when the class started. It's about absolutes here, not relative, and it even took major distros like Ubuntu far too many years to become user-friendly enough for common use.

 

[Mythrix]

Streaming your games does sound cool! I tried to just pull a long HDMI cable from my PC to my living room TV (my apartment is not that big), but for some reason it stopped working after some nVidia update, and I basically gave up on it...

Family sharing is interesting but the fact that you can't even play different games at the same time makes it not really all that user friendly...

 

[Sakitoshi]

Yeah, but it might be more limiting, think ChromeOS or the PS3's OS, or Android. Linux distros generally have KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Blackbox/fluxbox, and more. Therese desktop environments can have radical differences and change the way you interact with the system, something you can't really do on Windows (just launch a fullscreen program and try your best to stop it from being minimized).

you are a little wrong there.
on Windows you can change the shell to have a different desktop environment, back in the day of Windows 9x you could change the shell to the good'ol Program Manager.
I used to install Aston XP(XP like appearance and more without the need of install Windows XP when sucked and nothing was compatible) and men, what a change, wasn't that radical like compare Blackbox with a more traditional desktop like Gnome but the change was enough to make any tech-savvy wonder about what OS were you running. there are other shells out there but that is the only one I remember now and I don't really know if you can change the shell on Vista/7/8.

on-topic I can only hope this bring good driver support for graphic cards, some games doesn't run that well on Linux because drivers aren't optimized enough like Windows drivers.
and if this make Linux people put their shit together about install software(their are doing well with Ubuntu market but still there are complications) then Linux would be a hit like Android(lol since Android is Linux for cellphones) and make normal users shift from Windows.

 

[FAST6191]

Re Linux in schools. Oh if we are including tertiary education then that changes things somewhat.

lol since Android is Linux for cellphones

To quote an article I once read

android is linux somewhere under all that java

I think it is pretty apt.

 

[SifJar]

i hate linux compiling programs is NOT my fave thing to do

I doubt Steam OS is going to require much compilation on the user's part. It's using Linux as a base, sure, but it's not going to be a "standard" Linux distro. The stuff you need to play games will either come with the OS or get installed from pre-compiled packages on Steam's servers. (The same way Steam on Windows will download and install any required run times etc. for any new game you install).

A number of posts above have mentioned how Android is Linux based, which was responded to with "yeah under all the overlays/java"; I'd say Steam OS is likely to be the same. It will be Linux at it's core, but to the end user, it'll just be Steam. In much the same way as Chrome OS does not require terminal access for a standard user (who is essentially wishing to just use the Chrome browser, which is what the OS is designed to do & which works perfectly without touching a terminal), despite being based on Linux, nor will Steam OS (or rather, " nor should"; obviously I haven't used Steam OS).

 

[Foxi4]

I doubt Steam OS is going to require much compilation on the user's part. It's using Linux as a base, sure, but it's not going to be a "standard" Linux distro. The stuff you need to play games will either come with the OS or get installed from pre-compiled packages on Steam's servers. (The same way Steam on Windows will download and install any required run times etc. for any new game you install).

A number of posts above have mentioned how Android is Linux based, which was responded to with "yeah under all the overlays/java"; I'd say Steam OS is likely to be the same. It will be Linux at it's core, but to the end user, it'll just be Steam. In much the same way as Chrome OS does not require terminal access for a standard user (who is essentially wishing to just use the Chrome browser, which is what the OS is designed to do & which works perfectly without touching a terminal), despite being based on Linux, nor will Steam OS (or rather, " nor should"; obviously I haven't used Steam OS).

This is all very true, but there's only one question - will it easily dual boot with the user's current Windows/other OS installation or will it require him/her to stand on their heads and setup GRUB? Because if it's the latter, I sincerely doubt people will gladly forget about all the functionality offered by their predominantly Windows-based desktops just for a Steam-oriented OS and I do believe the vast majority of users isn't adept enough to create such a setup. If that part is automated, sure, makes sense - if not, it probably won't be a popular choice, especially since Windows-based Steam works just fine as it is.

 

[Sakitoshi]

android is linux somewhere under all that java

I think it is pretty apt.

so it was truth after all. I know that Android runs apps on individual virtual machines and all that but I was reluctant to believe that the apps were java. I guess that's why Android run sluggish even with a quad-core processor and lots of RAM when the iPhone 4s has a moderate dual-core processor and 512mb RAM and still runs very smooth.
virtual machines and java are resource hogs(or at least RAM eaters) even after all the optimizations made over the years.


I just hope SteamOS doesn't use any sort of virtual machine or java implementation if they plan on make their own compatibility layer for Windows only games, that just drop the performance IMHO.

 

[SifJar]

This is all very true, but there's only one question - will it easily dual boot with the user's current Windows/other OS installation or will it require him/her to stand on their heads and setup GRUB? Because if it's the latter, I sincerely doubt people will gladly forget about all the functionality offered by their predominantly Windows-based desktops just for a Steam-oriented OS and I do believe the vast majority of users isn't adept enough to create such a setup. If that part is automated, sure, makes sense - if not, it probably won't be a popular choice, especially since Windows-based Steam works just fine as it is.

Well, it seems like there are two main use cases for Steam OS to me. The first is an HTPC-type device, connected to a TV in a living room. In this case, the machine is probably specifically built/purchased for Steam OS, and booting it exclusively. In this case, the device may ship with the OS pre-installed (if bought pre-built), or if being built by the user, they'll have the know-how to install it themselves.

The second case is on a regular desktop PC (or I guess, gaming laptop). In this case, I would imagine Steam will release some sort of Windows-based installer to automate the setup of a dual boot (something akin to "WUBI" for Ubuntu, if you're familiar with it). I certainly would in their position, and it stands to reason that they will too. It's in their best interests to make it as easy and straight-forward as possible for people to get the OS up and running.