Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2012 23:34 UTC
Games I'm not 100% sure this is actually word-for-word, but alas. "In a presentation at Ubuntu Developer Summit currently going on in Denmark, Drew Bliss from Valve said that Linux is more viable than Windows 8 for gaming. Windows 8 ships with its own app store and it is moving away from an open platform model." I feel like a broken record by now but here we go again: keep an eye on Valve, even if you're not into games. This is the company pushing NVIDIA and AMD to improve their Linux support, with enough clout and name to actually get stuff done. Valve doesn't mess around.
Thread beginning with comment 540478
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

And yet, neither of those stop Steam from working as it does already, which is exactly what I was saying: Steam works, and will continue to work, as-is just fine. The future is the future and yes, Microsoft is pushing for Metro, but right now it is NOT a requirement and therefore there is absolutely no functional difference between Steam on Windows 7 and Steam on Windows 8. In other words Windows 8 is no more or less viable than Windows 7. The next Windows-version will probably be, but it is misguided to say this one is.

Yes, you are right of course. But some promises from Microsoft concerning the status of win32 going forward would settle a lot of nerves.

Incorrect: In other words Microsoft does allow PEGI-18 to enter the store, now.

Didn't see that - good to know. Still, do you think they would have reversed course on this if no one complained about it? That is really all Im saying, the complaining from people is a good thing - even if it is from Valve.

You're misunderstanding everything I said. I am merely saying Windows 8 is not any worse or better for gaming than Windows 7 is and claiming otherwise is silly. The next Windows - version, whatever it will be, possibly will be worse, but then the complaints should be about the future direction.

It may not be worse for gamers (as in end users) but it is certainly worse for gaming (as in the economy around how they are made and distributed). Its worse because Microsoft has created doubt as to the future of the platform for them - whether intentionally or not. With Windows 7 there was no reason to believe the rug might be pulled out from under you as a developer, with Windows 8? I mean do you know Microsoft's plans for win32 in 5 years? It used to be fairly obvious, now not so much.

Edited 2012-10-30 04:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

ansidotsys Member since:

Yes, I know Microsoft plan's for Win32 for the next five years and its not going anywhere. WinRT itself is built on top of Win32, as is the .NET Framework. Win32 is going no where. If there is one thing that Microsoft is consistent at, it is backwards compatibility on the x86 platform. But even on Windows RT, it is running Win32.

For at least the next ten years, Win32 is here to stay. Microsoft cannot get rid of Win32 even if they wanted to. The only way to get rid of it is for Windows 9 to break full compatibility of EVERYTHING out today, including Windows 8.

With the way WinRT is dependent on Win32, the staying power of Win32 is more obvious now than it has ever been.

Reply Parent Score: 4

galvanash Member since:

Yes, I know Microsoft plan's for Win32 for the next five years and its not going anywhere.

Of course its not going anywhere... You guys are missing the point. Microsoft doesn't need to kill win32 to start down this path...

Step one - "since the Windows Store has been such a success, MS is now gong to offer developers the opportunity to sell their win32 apps through our app store. The process is virtually the same as Metro, submit your app for approval and we will sign them for you!"

Nay, I don't want to do that. I like to distribute myself...

Step two - "from now on, in an effort to eliminate malware, you will be required to sign your win32 apps just as is already done for in store apps. We won't make you sell through the Windows Store, and we won't make you get approval, it will simply allow users to establish the identity of the publisher and scan the apps for malware and viruses. Getting an app signed will be easy and free, but you have to supply identity credentials. Unsigned apps will now start generating a warning in the desktop UI"

? huh... Thats kinda sucks. Oh well, not too terribly troublesome (I don't mind giving up anominity), and anyway, its free. Geez though, having to submit my app to MS just to get it signed is a pain. But getting rid of malware is a good goal, Im in.

Step three - "We have determined that the benefits of app signing (for security) are so great that in the next version of Windows unsigned apps will no longer run. We have implemented a whitelist of known-good legacy apps so that they will run going forward without signing, but going forward signing will be required. We highly recommend selling your app through the app store, as the process will be much easier..."

???? Now I HAVE to do it? This is starting to be a real PITA. Maybe I should just publish in the app store?

If it is not obvious, at this point it is game over. They have effectively closed off their platform - even though they havent really closed off the platform yet. All without breaking a single app (at least the ones they don't want to break). The infrastructure to do this is already in the OS - it would be trivial for them to pull this whenever they want to....

Just saying, the issue is not them "killing off" win32, it is closing it off.

Edited 2012-10-31 04:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4