| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Valve’s Gabe Newell: Windows 8 will be catastrophe for PC space |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-26 00:28:40 |
| Valve's Gabe Newall on Linux and Windows 8: "We want to make it as easy as possible for the 2500 games on Steam to run on Linux as well. It's a hedging strategy. I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. I think we'll lose some of the top-tier PC/OEMs, who will exit the market. I think margins will be destroyed for a bunch of people. If that's true, then it will be good to have alternatives to hedge against that eventuality." |
|
| RE: Comment by Wafflez |
| By JAlexoid on 2012-07-27 03:44:36 |
|
> And I know that I'd rather have Live integration than that POS steam client. So... yeah. You must be one of those.... masochists. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: Interesting but wrong |
| By JAlexoid on 2012-07-27 03:54:40 |
|
> The loss was from writing off an acquisition ... it is technical loss not a real one. It's a factual loss. It's as real as you burning a few $100 bills. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: Not bothered |
| By Kochise on 2012-07-27 06:32:42 |
|
This is not a comment, this is your fact. If you want to make a true comment, then elaborate a bit about why you never play games and buy softwares. Are you Stallman ? Kochise |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[4]: Not bothered |
| By Coxy on 2012-07-27 06:54:18 |
|
No, it is my comment. I don't see you complaining at every one why just posts "+1" or "I agree". I don't play games because I have other things I want to do, and people to talk to. Most of the people i know have children, so do I, the last thing you do when you have children is sit in front of a computer screen 8 hours at a time playing WoW. Most people I know are sozialarbeiterinnen und sozialpädagoginnen. None of them have games consoles or use computers just for fun. Neither do I. Fun for me is something else - like talking to real people, sitting by the river with friends, talking, laughing, having a picknick. Why would anyone play games on a hot day when they could be doing that? As for apps, I have no need to buy apps. The ones that I use are either free or they came with my computer. Edited 2012-07-27 06:55 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: Interesting but wrong |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-07-27 07:27:36 |
| nope it is technical, this year they had record revenue. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: Interesting but wrong |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-07-27 07:28:51 |
|
Record Revenue this year, 1 bad aquisition years ago. "Microsoft is Dying" meme is getting old. Stock value went up. Edited 2012-07-27 07:29 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[5]: Not bothered |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-07-27 07:34:35 |
|
> Most people I know are sozialarbeiterinnen und sozialpädagoginnen. None of them have games consoles or use computers just for fun. Neither do I. Fun for me is something else - like talking to real people, sitting by the river with friends, talking, laughing, having a picknick. Why would anyone play games on a hot day when they could be doing that? Good for you ... but I like playing COD and Capcom vs SNK. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: Gabe's sky is falling |
| By moondevil on 2012-07-27 07:48:54 |
|
> Regarding different operating systems, why not a FreeBSD based distribution with work done by HP? A Linux based one from Dell? a NetBSD distribution from Lenovo? As for the cost of development - given the volume they sell the per-unit cost would be minuscule especially when you consider that they can easily create open/closed source hybrids that take an open source core such as FreeBSD, graft a ground up proprietary display technology then work with something like KDE to integrate the desktop into the underlying operating system. Personally I can't see it costing an astronomical sum for the operating system itself but the biggest challenge would probably be getting an ecosystem up and running which would cost a bit at least in the short run by long term it would halt the race to the bottom which would allow them to make back any money from the initial investment. As a developer you would be in a territory similar to the complaints some developers now have about Android. Either make use of OS agnostic deployment tools, which are not able to take advantage of the platform uniqueness, or resort to choose a selected few as the target platforms. In the Amiga days, for example, I only cared what was available for the Amiga. The Atari ST was not even in my radar. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[5]: Gabe's sky is falling |
| By darknexus on 2012-07-27 12:21:31 |
|
> Regarding different operating systems, why not a FreeBSD based distribution with work done by HP? A Linux based one from Dell? a NetBSD distribution from Lenovo? As for the cost of development - given the volume they sell the per-unit cost would be minuscule especially when you consider that they can easily create open/closed source hybrids that take an open source core such as FreeBSD, graft a ground up proprietary display technology then work with something like KDE to integrate the desktop into the underlying operating system. Personally I can't see it costing an astronomical sum for the operating system itself but the biggest challenge would probably be getting an ecosystem up and running which would cost a bit at least in the short run by long term it would halt the race to the bottom which would allow them to make back any money from the initial investment. You said it yourself, the ecosystem. Think of the current Android situation only worse, as at least Android versions no matter how different do retain a few similarities at the core. Can you imagine what would happen, for both the users and the developers, if they tried that now? It might have worked out had they done this from the start, but now when everyone's used to being able to run common apps no matter which brand of machine they buy? How many versions of Office, Photoshop, or insert common workplace app here might there end up being if this were to take place, each with their own bugs and missing features? I shudder to think of it. Twenty years ago they could have pulled it off, but as things stand now one of two situations would come to pass: none of them would take off, or only one of them would and you'd end up with yet another monopoly and this time it would be both a hardware and software monopoly. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[4]: Interesting but wrong |
| By Fergy on 2012-07-27 17:48:42 |
|
> he has YET to hit 45% CPU usage! I find it hard to believe he only used 90% cpu power. Most of the time starting an app peaks your cpu to 100%. There is a big difference between having enough cpu power and having enough cores. Most users can use 2 cores one foreground and one background. But if you could have a single core 6Ghz i3 most users would notice if you couple it to an ssd. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |