Microsoft is fucking butthurt no one wants Windows 11 so they're stopping the sale of Windows 10 licenses this month

[The Ugly One]

some games that do not run AT ALL in modern Windows, like Bioshock 1, and many other older games, run in Linux.

There are the rare old Windows games that need some bullshit to run, typically because of the way Win 11 handles security, but it's not half the work it takes to get Windows software running under Linux.

https://appuals.com/how-to-fix-the-bioshock-remastered-crashing-problem-on-windows/

 

[Miller]

When will Linux get better at playing games? Never? Are troons at fault for this?

It's already better (I've played Prey and Death Stranding the other day). The only issue is the anti-cheat systems. EAC works for most games but it's up to the game studios/publishers to enable it, only the more intrusive anti-cheats like Riccochet don't work.

 

[Matt Damon]

Along with Vista came Games for Windows Live, which was heavily panned for demanding a paid subscription to play online, alongside demanding you to log into your Xbox Live profile. That's not nearly as big as the whole thing about Vista just having high requirements for the time, but, gamers are noisy, so I heard about GFWL problems a lot.

Halo 2 was one of the early flagship titles that used GFWL and they fucking encrypt your save files. I just cannot fathom what the rationale for that idea was. The whole pseudo-platform seemed to offer inconvenience for the sake of inconvenience and nothing else.

some games that do not run AT ALL in modern Windows, like Bioshock 1

I literally have Bioshock installed on my Windows 10 computer as we speak and it runs just fine.

 

[Never Scored]

These threads always turn into a bunch of people talking at each other and not really listening :

Poster 1: A Linux distro would work fine for the majority of users.

Poster 2: Oh yeah, well here's my specific use case that doesn't apply to the majority of users.

Poster 3: Have you tried gimp?

If someone says it will work for most home PC users and you have a really specific use case involving your hobby or work, you're probably not included in "Most users." If someone needs to use a specific piece of software that is industry standard for work, even minor incompatibilities with open source versions can be a huge liability and they're probably not looking for "helpful suggestions."

Why is it always literally impossible to have any nuance to this conversation? lol

Signed,
-A Guy who changes operating systems more than he changes his pants

 

[The Ugly One]

These threads always turn into a bunch of people talking at each other and not really listening :

Poster 1: A Linux distro would work fine for the majority of users.

Poster 2: Oh yeah, well here's my specific use case that doesn't apply to the majority of users.

Poster 3: Have you tried gimp?

If someone says it will work for most home PC users and you have a really specific use case involving your hobby or work, you're probably not included in "Most users." If someone needs to use a specific piece of software that is industry standard for work, even minor incompatibilities with open source versions can be a huge liability and they're probably not looking for "helpful suggestions."

Why is it always literally impossible to have any nuance to this conversation? lol

Signed,
-A Guy who changes operating systems more than he changes his pants

The problem is Average User doesn't exist. The average person doesn't use Photoshop or, for that matter, play Bioshock. What matters isn't the percentage of users who use this one specific application, it's the percentage of users who have a felt problem that switching to Linux would solve, and switching wouldn't introduce new inconveniences that outweigh the benefits of change. Linux continues to hover around 1.5% market share in the desktop space, so whatever it is Linux is offering, it's clearly not enough to justify disrupting your average person's system.

 

[Pee Cola]

Why is it always literally impossible to have any nuance to this conversation? lol

1. Linuxfags.
2. People that are sick to the back teeth of hearing from Linuxfags.

It's the same reason why some people wouldn't touch an EV with a 50 foot pole, even if they have a use case for one. There are too many EVfags (well, mainly Teslafags) that are all "lol oil" without realising that not everybody's personal transport use case involves driving a few miles to the local Whole Foods followed by a stop at the local single source organic tofu bar on the way home. Y'know... people that have to drive hundreds of miles a day and/or do real work such as construction, farming or whatnot.

This also explains why rolling coal has become such a big thing over the past few years; some people whose personal transport use case can't be fulfilled by any EV currently on the market are sick of these faggots going on about how great EVs are and how the internal combustion engine rapes babies and rigged the 2000 US Presidential Election. Rather than screeching about it online, these folks take it to the real world by creating as much black smoke as they can whilst driving a few miles to the local Walmart followed by a stop at the local Chick-fil-A on the way home.

 

[Never Scored]

The problem is Average User doesn't exist. The average person doesn't use Photoshop or, for that matter, play Bioshock. What matters isn't the percentage of users who use this one specific application, it's the percentage of users who have a felt problem that switching to Linux would solve, and switching wouldn't introduce new inconveniences that outweigh the benefits of change. Linux continues to hover around 1.5% market share in the desktop space, so whatever it is Linux is offering, it's clearly not enough to justify disrupting your average person's system.

Well there are multiple factors at play here. Using a PC at home has become a niche market and most people simply use a smartphone. Because of that fact, you already have a large percentage of casual users who do not use a desktop operating system at all. Out of people that that do have a PC simply for general purpose browsing at home, I would wager well over half of them just use whatever shipped on their PC and would not be able to tell the difference between Windows 10 and Linux riced to look like Windows 10 and don't even know what the fuck Linux is.

I would point out that at this point Chrome OS has over 10% market share and that is indicative of the fact that a huge and growing chunk of people who just want a browser. These are the people who will find little difference in their user experience as long as there's a big icon in the middle of their screen that opens a browser that works out of the box. They're also not going to switch operating systems because they probably don't know what an operating system is. The point is simply that because of the way those people use a computer, it makes little practical difference what operating system they are using as long as there is a modern, easy to access browser.

 

[Pissmaster]

These threads always turn into a bunch of people talking at each other and not really listening :

Poster 1: A Linux distro would work fine for the majority of users.

Poster 2: Oh yeah, well here's my specific use case that doesn't apply to the majority of users.

Poster 3: Have you tried gimp?

If someone says it will work for most home PC users and you have a really specific use case involving your hobby or work, you're probably not included in "Most users." If someone needs to use a specific piece of software that is industry standard for work, even minor incompatibilities with open source versions can be a huge liability and they're probably not looking for "helpful suggestions."

Why is it always literally impossible to have any nuance to this conversation? lol

Signed,
-A Guy who changes operating systems more than he changes his pants

It's just a lot snappier to say "Linux doesn't run Adobe CS" rather than take the next 40 minutes to try and remember all the dumb little problems I've had with Linux over the years, from finding an obscure driver I needed for an old laptop that whomever wrote it expected me to just magically know how to compile it from source and where to install it, to stupid shit like Grub just not working with no solution because of my GPU's brand. I wouldn't care so much if I hadn't already given Linux several fair tries, just to wind up right back at Windows.

Adobe CS incompatibility is the biggest factor for me, but as I get older and quit giving a fuck, I just want things to work. Upgrading to a new version of Windows about five years after its release, when service packs have been added and anti-telemetry & activation hacks are mature has worked for me for years now, though the writing's on the wall about Windows going full SaaS someday, and that's when my big squeaky cherry red ass will be forced to move to Linux or have my stupid computer just not work because pajeet clogged the fans of the login server with his shit again.

 

[SilentDuck]

Well there are multiple factors at play here. Using a PC at home has become a niche market and most people simply use a smartphone. Because of that fact, you already have a large percentage of casual users who do not use a desktop operating system at all. Out of people that that do have a PC simply for general purpose browsing at home, I would wager well over half of them just use whatever shipped on their PC and would not be able to tell the difference between Windows 10 and Linux riced to look like Windows 10 and don't even know what the fuck Linux is.

I would point out that at this point Chrome OS has over 10% market share and that is indicative of the fact that a huge and growing chunk of people who just want a browser. These are the people who will find little difference in their user experience as long as there's a big icon in the middle of their screen that opens a browser that works out of the box. They're also not going to switch operating systems because they probably don't know what an operating system is. The point is simply that because of the way those people use a computer, it makes little practical difference what operating system they are using as long as there is a modern, easy to access browser.

I would disagree. ChromeOS is being pushed in schools, the 3rd world and with poortards/cheaptards their userbase doesn't say much in regards to technically inclined end users. Literally no one in this thread has said bro you should try ChromeOS and upload all of your data and everything you've ever done on your computer to google so they can retain it in perpetuity and hand it over to any government or paying business entity that would like unrestricted access.

What happens when their automated AI finds all your TempleOS memes and discovers you recently purchased one too many bottles of Diet Shasta on your local grocers rewards card and concludes you are a subversive? Auto deplatformed from big G, loose access to all of ChromeOS features tied to your Google account and backups, and your name is added to an NSA database.

I don't know what that has to do with Windows or Linux. Let's talk OS/2 and Arca next.

 

[Never Scored]

Literally no one in this thread has said bro you should try ChromeOS and upload all of your data and everything you've ever done on your computer to google so they can retain it in perpetuity and hand it over to any government or paying business entity that would like unrestricted access.

I don't think anyone accused anyone of saying that. The number of chromebooks being sold just illustrates the point that a large percentage of users don't use anything other than the browser.

I'm not interested in telling you what operating system to use. I don't care what operating system you use. I had two points in this thread:

1) A large percentage of PC users do not use anything that can't be accessed through a browser and it doesn't really matter what operating system they use. The large volume of Chrome OS devices sold illustrates this.

2) I'm reasonably tech savvy and 90% of my time on the computer is spent in the browser, torrenting movies/tv shows and editing personal documents. I don't understand why similar users that are tech savvy enough to flatten their PC and install a new OS wouldn't at least give Linux a shot simply based on the data Microsoft collects these days and the fact that they are trying to railroad everyone into upgrading their PCs and using online accounts. Maybe you prefer the look and feel of Windows. Whatever. It's your computer. I'm just saying I don't understand why you'd use it in this sort of use case. Some people have pointed out driver issues and specific apps they need for a hobby. That's fine. I don't really care.

 

[Aidan]

I would disagree. ChromeOS is being pushed in schools, the 3rd world and with poortards/cheaptards their userbase doesn't say much in regards to technically inclined end users. Literally no one in this thread has said bro you should try ChromeOS and upload all of your data and everything you've ever done on your computer to google so they can retain it in perpetuity and hand it over to any government or paying business entity that would like unrestricted access.

What happens when their automated AI finds all your TempleOS memes and discovers you recently purchased one too many bottles of Diet Shasta on your local grocers rewards card and concludes you are a subversive? Auto deplatformed from big G, loose access to all of ChromeOS features tied to your Google account and backups, and your name is added to an NSA database.

I don't know what that has to do with Windows or Linux. Let's talk OS/2 and Arca next.

You kinda missed his point and it's worth noting this is one angle of attack Windows and Apple used to gain the userbases they now enjoy. You get 'em young and then they're yours for life.

 

[Matt Damon]

It's just a lot snappier to say "Linux doesn't run Adobe CS" rather than take the next 40 minutes to try and remember all the dumb little problems I've had with Linux over the years, from finding an obscure driver I needed for an old laptop that whomever wrote it expected me to just magically know how to compile it from source and where to install it, to stupid shit like Grub just not working with no solution because of my GPU's brand. I wouldn't care so much if I hadn't already given Linux several fair tries, just to wind up right back at Windows.

I tried to get my audio stuff working on some distro years ago. I got Wine configured just so and got it playing with Jack (the Linux equivalent of ASIO) for low latency and it actually kinda sorta half-assed worked, except it would just abruptly cut out periodically and very frequently the rest of my system sound wouldn't work, so I had to manually reconfigure my entire audio set-up every time I went between my audio software and a browser or an MP3 player or anything else.

Life is too short to waste so much time fighting a nigger-rigged software configuration just so you can say you're sticking it to Microsoft.

 

[Pissmaster]

1) A large percentage of PC users do not use anything that can't be accessed through a browser and it doesn't really matter what operating system they use. The large volume of Chrome OS devices sold illustrates this.

Pour one out for all those nice 5K displays on iMacs only ever being used by middle-aged women checking Facebook

 

[SilentDuck]

You kinda missed his point and it's worth noting this is one angle of attack Windows and Apple used to gain the userbases they now enjoy. You get 'em young and then they're yours for life.

Not really new information that Mac gave their shit away to budding young art fags in the 90s. But yes I do not get it - I don't see how a corporate strategy trying to IRL poz young vulnerable minds with Macs makes any distribution of linux somehow widely suitable in 2023 because someone says you can purportedly just use your browser for everything anyway.

1) A large percentage of PC users do not use anything that can't be accessed through a browser and it doesn't really matter what operating system they use. The large volume of Chrome OS devices sold illustrates this.

The reason ChromeOS users use their browsers for everything is because they don't know how to do anything else with ChromeOS. Because in order to learn how to do anything else, you'd have to learn linux.

2) I'm reasonably tech savvy and 90% of my time on the computer is spent in the browser, torrenting movies/tv shows and editing personal documents. I don't understand why similar users that are tech savvy enough to flatten their PC and install a new OS wouldn't at least give Linux a shot simply based on the data Microsoft collects these days and the fact that they are trying to railroad everyone into upgrading their PCs and using online accounts. Maybe you prefer the look and feel of Windows. Whatever. It's your computer. I'm just saying I don't understand why you'd use it in this sort of use case. Some people have pointed out driver issues and specific apps they need for a hobby. That's fine. I don't really care.

People spending upwards of 3k-5k on a single desktop computer aren't interested in "flattening" their computing. They are interested in actually using a computer not just a web browser.

 

[Aidan]

You're missing the point @SilentDuck
The point is that people use what comes pre-installed on whatever they buy. If Ubuntu was on cheap laptops at Best Buy and Amazon you'd see a lot more people using Linux. As is, you typically have to go out of your way to get a computer with Linux pre-installed so very few people even know it's an option.

ps gaming on Linux is quite viable these days, ask me how I know

 

[Never Scored]

Not really new information that Mac gave their shit away to budding young art fags in the 90s. But yes I do not get it - I don't see how a corporate strategy trying to IRL poz young vulnerable minds with Macs makes any distribution of linux somehow widely suitable in 2023 because someone says you can purportedly just use your browser for everything anyway.



The reason ChromeOS users use their browsers for everything is because they don't know how to do anything else with ChromeOS. Because in order to learn how to do anything else, you'd have to learn linux.



People spending upwards of 3k-5k on a single desktop computer aren't interested in "flattening" their computing. They are interested in actually using a computer not just a web browser.

You really don't get it. Nobody is arguing for or against Chrome OS. Just that it's existence and market share is proof there is a sizable number of users who only want a cheap box with a keyboard that runs a browser out of the box and therefore it doesn't really matter what OS they use all that much. That's it.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I literally have Bioshock installed on my Windows 10 computer as we speak and it runs just fine.

You have the Anniversary(?) re-release of Bioshock. I had that game in my library for almost 15 years, and it wouldn't run on anything but Windows XP 32-bit and Vista (or WINE) until they FINALLY did something about it recently for some kind of milestone/promotion. Only caveat is, it's not 100% the original game anymore, but that's a frankly minor gripe, and probably for the best. The PC-DVD version/version originally put on Steam, before being replaced, is what I'm on about.

Halo 2 was one of the early flagship titles that used GFWL and they fucking encrypt your save files. I just cannot fathom what the rationale for that idea was. The whole pseudo-platform seemed to offer inconvenience for the sake of inconvenience and nothing else.

GTAIV was RUINED on PC by this, and extremely poor optimization. I couldn't get it to run until the online functionality was killed, and a trainer program to remove GFWL was released on some torrent site. Don't you just love pirating the games you fucking own?

 

[LillWeeb]

Does anyone who plays older games that ran on Win 10 just fine run or look like ass on Win11 Simcity 4 for example runs like ass on my new PC?
(it runs on my M1 Mac just fine)

 

[Smar Mijou]

One complaint (among many) that I have with the forced updates that Micro$oft pushed with Windows from 7 to 8/8.1 and then 10, was the disregard for the system requirements of the newer operating systems and the limitations of older computers. A computer that was pushing the limits on Win7 could, and oftentimes would, be crippled by an "upgrade" that put more strain on system resources than the system could handle. While a mid-top tier circa-2013 and newer laptop could handle 8.1 decent enough, just about anything that wasnt high end before 2017 or so is bogged down by a full Windows 10 install with Cortana, Windows Store, all the Xbox shit, etc. in my experience. I have had quite a few times where I've "fixed" laptops that were essentially bricked by a forced "upgrade" by just rolling back to an earlier restore point on the old OS and disabling the auto updates. Even with something similar to my setup, you'd be amazed at how well a properly set up and streamlined Win7 setup with an SSD, plenty of RAM, and cutting off the ever-watchful eye of big brother can be.

It still amazes me that even with the huge advances in technology in the past 20 years with memory storage, processor speeds, and optimization of file sorting and RAM accessing, the associated increase in software bloat and sapping of system resources has rendered most of these advancements moot. You see it in web design too. Older web 1.0 pages mostly based on html were quick loading almost by necessity, with most people on dial-up internet. Nowadays with the vast majority of people on high speed broadband, modern sites are somehow slower, with the background pages, forever loading web banners, ad-cancer, web based spyware, pop-ups, etc. I think that the biggest benefit for internet speeds would be if all software developers would work on optimization of their software, instead of increasing the bloat just because modern computers are usually capable of handling it.

 

[Never Scored]

One complaint (among many) that I have with the forced updates that Micro$oft pushed with Windows from 7 to 8/8.1 and then 10, was the disregard for the system requirements of the newer operating systems and the limitations of older computers. A computer that was pushing the limits on Win7 could, and oftentimes would, be crippled by an "upgrade" that put more strain on system resources than the system could handle. While a mid-top tier circa-2013 and newer laptop could handle 8.1 decent enough, just about anything that wasnt high end before 2017 or so is bogged down by a full Windows 10 install with Cortana, Windows Store, all the Xbox shit, etc. in my experience. I have had quite a few times where I've "fixed" laptops that were essentially bricked by a forced "upgrade" by just rolling back to an earlier restore point on the old OS and disabling the auto updates. Even with something similar to my setup, you'd be amazed at how well a properly set up and streamlined Win7 setup with an SSD, plenty of RAM, and cutting off the ever-watchful eye of big brother can be.

It still amazes me that even with the huge advances in technology in the past 20 years with memory storage, processor speeds, and optimization of file sorting and RAM accessing, the associated increase in software bloat and sapping of system resources has rendered most of these advancements moot. You see it in web design too. Older web 1.0 pages mostly based on html were quick loading almost by necessity, with most people on dial-up internet. Nowadays with the vast majority of people on high speed broadband, modern sites are somehow slower, with the background pages, forever loading web banners, ad-cancer, web based spyware, pop-ups, etc. I think that the biggest benefit for internet speeds would be if all software developers would work on optimization of their software, instead of increasing the bloat just because modern computers are usually capable of handling it.

I think the most jarring jump was XP to Vista performance wise. There's a reason that's considered one of the biggest tech failures of all time. Then they followed it up with IMO the greatest operating system ever created, Windows 7. Just about the only bad thing I can say about the windows 7 experience is you can't make the terminal full screen.

I find a lot of older machines still play pretty nice with Windows 10 as long as you're not using a mechanical spinning hard drive. I've upgraded to Windows 10 on a bunch of machines close to a decade old at the office, and for some reason it just doesn't work well hard drives at all. You take the same machine and swap out the hard drive for an SSD and you have a much bigger jump in performance than one would expect. Much bigger than the jump from HDD to SDD on Windows 7, for example.

One funny thing I noticed is Windows Server 2019 does not have the same issues with hard drives. Now it could just be because it's a much newer machine, is never turned off and has 64-gigs of ram, so it doesn't need to go to the hard drive often as alot of the applications are already loaded to working memory, but I wonder if there is something specific to Windows 10 that makes it not play so nice with hard drives,