Alot the problem people not understand that Steam OS is linux with a api getting overhaul, right now the OS will do the same as like any linux OS using opengl. With the name Steam OS there was no hiding magic that will do somewhere close to windows. As Drivers on linux from AMD and Nvidia need alot work as the same work they did with DX9/DX11 or so games.
But right now just need to wait see when the new api hits if AMD and Nvidia drop in drivers that get some where close to windows. I don't expect that will beat windows in performance but I expect somewhere close to windows overtime.
The vast majority of people using a computer for gaming do not want to run Autocad, ever. Nobody said everyone has to use one or the other. Choice is not a bad thing.
The problem is that vast majority expect to run every application they want. "I know this application! I wanna it!" - "Sorry! This exactly application is missing. However there is an app with similar functionality!" "I wanna this one!".
Customer support - "What version of windows you have?". "Linux". "Try windows!".
Despite having consoles, despite not using PC only for games - I still do not see the increase of Linux users (exception is application development - I prefer linux there but whatever windows is just fine too).
You're speaking as someone with specific needs. Valve isn't targeting you. What you're saying could also be said about OS X in many cases, where applications people specifically want aren't available.
It's far too early to say what will happen, but if Vulkan takes off (and it should) there's no reason to think that the OS won't be popular. Valve certainly will be pushing its games, and they're certainly not lacking in influence in the gaming industry.
One issue is that almost all current AAA titles for SteamOS are late ports from the Windows DirectX titles, and they're not brilliant ports at that. They're not done by the people who made the games, but by a third party company. This is very likely to change in time.
its expect since developers focus using windows api
It's not just the developers, it's many factors, API alone doesn't explain a 50% difference in FPS
OpenGL API is considerably slower than DirectX API, but not by 50%
-developers don't care about Linux -OpenGL is a mess -Linux is extremely bloated and ineffecient -Steam OS is even more bloated, it's Linux wrapped in Debian, wrapped into Steam OS -Microsoft has 100% control over Windows, Valve does not control Debian, or Linux kernel, or OpenGL, they have no control over most optimizations at all -Drivers are made for Windows, and are an afterthought for Linux -documentation of Linux API are horrendous, terrible, attrocious -developers are forced to work around far more bugs in Linux
I agree with Athisar, I think it's mostly driver optimization. Linux drivers have always lagged significantly behind windows drivers in terms of graphics performance, regardless of which color team you root for. You could say it's OpenGL vs DirectX, but I don't think that's a particularly fair argument, because ultimately it comes down to the driver again.
You could try to pin some of that on the underlaying OS, except that Linux isn't exactly a stranger to the supercomputer or GPGPU applications. And while particular Linux distros may have a lot of bloat, you can't necessarily blame that on Linux, which will run on some seriously minimal hardware and can be stripped down to run only exactly what you need.
Which points to Valve - they should have done more work on it before they released the hardware versions. The drivers (in my opinion) have a very long way to go (maybe you blame that one on Valve, maybe you blame it on the GPU manufacturer, but regardless it isn't there), and they could have done a lot more fine tuning on the SteamOS distro to make it a lot more streamlined and optimized just for Steam gaming.
-Microsoft has 100% control over Windows, Valve does not control Debian, or Linux kernel, or OpenGL, they have no control over most optimizations at all -Drivers are made for Windows, and are an afterthought for Linux
I agree with the second point here. the top quoted point though is an inaccurate representation.
Microsoft does have 100% control over Windows, to the point that no one else has any control to the underpinning code. You can read what is in the API, and what is released on TechNet, and that's it.
Valve absolutely has control over Linux though - the source code is made public and is Public Domain, Valve is entirely at liberty to modify the source code and release their own fork of the Linux kernel, or create their own distribution (either apart from Debian, or forked from Debian). There even exist Public Domain GPU drivers which Valve could use to develop and optimize their own GPU drivers, but they are currently in an extremely poor state compared to the closed source Windows drivers, or even the closed source Linux drivers.
-Linux is extremely bloated and ineffecient -Steam OS is even more bloated, it's Linux wrapped in Debian, wrapped into Steam OS -Microsoft has 100% control over Windows, Valve does not control Debian, or Linux kernel, or OpenGL, they have no control over most optimizations at all -documentation of Linux API are horrendous, terrible, attrocious
Some serious misinformation here...
Linux is only bloated if you start installling random packages. If you only install what you need to accomplish your goal you typically only use around 500mb to 2GB of disk. Linux also boots up way way faster than windows 10. Also if you have hardware acceleration turned on, the desktop GUI is like 20 times faster than windows. You also have like 9000 times more customization.
Steam OS is basically debian with a custom desktop shell. Essentially its Debian with Steam installed to open in fullscreen mode when you log in. Debian is really just the original linux kernel with apt installed and pointed to the debian repos. (all linux distros are really just vanilla linux with different software repos, you can make them all behave, look, and run the same) Debian is ran by Richard Stallman who really really hates propeitary software and is really strong on privacy. Debian linux is like the antimatter to Windows 10.
Documentation of anything to do with linux is freely available...even the source code too duh.
-Linux is extremely bloated and ineffecient -Steam OS is even more bloated, it's Linux wrapped in Debian, wrapped into Steam OS -Microsoft has 100% control over Windows, Valve does not control Debian, or Linux kernel, or OpenGL, they have no control over most optimizations at all -documentation of Linux API are horrendous, terrible, attrocious
Some serious misinformation here...
Linux is only bloated if you start installling random packages.
Before you reply, it helps if you spend 2 seconds looking things up for yourself.
Linux its creator said the kernel, not the "packages", Linux itself, was bloated.
The vast majority of people using a computer for gaming do not want to run Autocad, ever. Nobody said everyone has to use one or the other. Choice is not a bad thing.
The problem is that vast majority expect to run every application they want. "I know this application! I wanna it!" - "Sorry! This exactly application is missing. However there is an app with similar functionality!" "I wanna this one!".
Customer support - "What version of windows you have?". "Linux". "Try windows!".
Despite having consoles, despite not using PC only for games - I still do not see the increase of Linux users (exception is application development - I prefer linux there but whatever windows is just fine too).
You're speaking as someone with specific needs. Valve isn't targeting you. What you're saying could also be said about OS X in many cases, where applications people specifically want aren't available.
It's far too early to say what will happen, but if Vulkan takes off (and it should) there's no reason to think that the OS won't be popular. Valve certainly will be pushing its games, and they're certainly not lacking in influence in the gaming industry.
One issue is that almost all current AAA titles for SteamOS are late ports from the Windows DirectX titles, and they're not brilliant ports at that. They're not done by the people who made the games, but by a third party company. This is very likely to change in time.
You know it didn't occur to me until I read this that Valve might be keeping HL3 under wraps until steamOS is out so they can make it exclusive, or something along those lines. 'twould make sense.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Did nvidia ever fix the problem with DX12 having less performance on there card? other then AMD doing great on DX12, I wonder if vulkan works the same as DX12 if having a nivdia can hurt the machine even more then it is. And the OS
I'd point people to the benchmarks I posted on the first page. When a well written OpenGL application (Unigine Heaven, Valley, etc.) with good driver support is compared with Windows and Linux, the performance is statistically identical.
The reason for poor performance in Shadows of Mordor could be a number of things, but the most likely is that the OpenGL port is, simply, not very good. When you farm out a port to another company whose priority is just to get it working (and attempt to make it compatible with OS X, using an outdated OpenGL set up too), lots of corners will be cut. Games that are already released and have had all their reviews long since are not going to get the same priority in performance tuning as the initial release on the main platform.
As for Half Life 3, I would be very surprised if Valve made it a SteamOS/Linux exclusive. They don't want to come across as forcing people to use it. At the same time, I would be surprised if works with DirectX, and expect instead it will require Vulkan on both Windows and Linux.
Bloated software isn't a relative thing, it is not subjective, it can accurately be measured. There is no semantic ambiguity in the word.
Considering the amount of different organisations contributing to the Linux Kernel, the amount of code Linux has to deal with is massive. Every couple of minutes someone suggests code, this of course leads to bloat.
I'd point people to the benchmarks I posted on the first page. When a well written OpenGL application (Unigine Heaven, Valley, etc.) with good driver support is compared with Windows and Linux, the performance is statistically identical.
The reason for poor performance in Shadows of Mordor could be a number of things, but the most likely is that the OpenGL port is, simply, not very good. When you farm out a port to another company whose priority is just to get it working (and attempt to make it compatible with OS X, using an outdated OpenGL set up too), lots of corners will be cut. Games that are already released and have had all their reviews long since are not going to get the same priority in performance tuning as the initial release on the main platform.
As for Half Life 3, I would be very surprised if Valve made it a SteamOS/Linux exclusive. They don't want to come across as forcing people to use it. At the same time, I would be surprised if works with DirectX, and expect instead it will require Vulkan on both Windows and Linux.
Was said that Valve is moving all there game over to Vulkan is maybe why there own game not doing so great on the test when a new api coming most the work should be done there. Pretty much Half Life 3 be on Vulkan other then DX,
I'd point people to the benchmarks I posted on the first page. When a well written OpenGL application (Unigine Heaven, Valley, etc.) with good driver support is compared with Windows and Linux, the performance is statistically identical.
The reason for poor performance in Shadows of Mordor could be a number of things, but the most likely is that the OpenGL port is, simply, not very good. When you farm out a port to another company whose priority is just to get it working (and attempt to make it compatible with OS X, using an outdated OpenGL set up too), lots of corners will be cut. Games that are already released and have had all their reviews long since are not going to get the same priority in performance tuning as the initial release on the main platform.
As for Half Life 3, I would be very surprised if Valve made it a SteamOS/Linux exclusive. They don't want to come across as forcing people to use it. At the same time, I would be surprised if works with DirectX, and expect instead it will require Vulkan on both Windows and Linux.
Was said that Valve is moving all there game over to Vulkan is maybe why there own game not doing so great on the test when a new api coming most the work should be done there. Pretty much Half Life 3 be on Vulkan other then DX,
If Vulkan gives the same kind of performance as Dx12, then most developers will use Vulkan instead of Dx12, because Dx12 is limited to Win10 only, and with half the world or more using Win7 and Dx11, it would be silly for developers to restrict their product to just Win10, of course, for that to happen then Vulkan will have to be just as good as Dx12, at least where it matters.
Bloated software isn't a relative thing, it is not subjective, it can accurately be measured. There is no semantic ambiguity in the word.
Considering the amount of different organisations contributing to the Linux Kernel, the amount of code Linux has to deal with is massive. Every couple of minutes someone suggests code, this of course leads to bloat.
The kernel is highly modular. A kernel supplied with a desktop distribution doesn't include all the stuff suited to running an enterprise server, a high end router, etc. nor does it include Android drivers, and so on. There's a long (and difficult) process for getting code into the mainline kernel, because it's so widely used. If you think that everything submitted just gets chucked in, you're mistaken. Bloat is certainly a subjective and relative thing, it's entirely dependent on what you're talking about, in what context, and compared to what.
I don't get who the target market was supposed to be for the Steam Machines running SteamOS.
It certainly isn't console gamers because it lacks the basics like a standard uniform model, publisher support from the console maker (which means exclusives) and optimization for gaming.
It isn't existing Steam users on PCs running Windows since the Linux library is still only 1/3 of the available titles with big developer/publisher support being even worse (and the vast majority of large publishers already stating they won't support Linux). On top of that, most of the existing games are either indie or poorly optimized ports (again, because the original developer won't develop natively in Linux).
And they couldn't have created the Steam Machines with only the existing Linux gamers as the the sole target. Linux gaming is still only 1% the size of Steam for Windows even after all the hype and announcements for these things.
Valve totally dropped the ball on these things. Valve has deep pockets and if they really were interested in seeing Steam Machines really excel they could have given them a real fighting shot. Instead, it appears Valve has little actual interest in Steam Machines. They were announced several years ago as a protest in response to what they saw as a threat to PC gaming with Windows 8 and other decisions Microsoft was making. Microsoft backed off and then launched a much better Windows with Windows 10. It appears Valve also backed off with not even a half-assed effort to really support Steam Machines.
I suspect Valve lost internal interest in the Steam Machine concept over a year ago, but was obligated to attempt to appear to support Steam Machines due to Valve licensing out the Steam Machine name out to third party console manufacturers over two years ago.
Sure, Steam Machines on SteamOS trail Windows performance.
But you can install Windows on a Steam Machine. You just have to procure or recycle a license.
So really - are we talking about Steam Machines lack of performance, or the fact that SteamOS is just the default bundled OS and it has poor performance. Hardware-wise, the Steam Machines really aren't all that bad for the price.
Even the OP's title and the linked article from Ars - they are using a Windows box with SteamOS installed, they aren't even really talking about the Steam Machines at all.
So I think we need to separate the machine from the software here, there's a pretty marked distinction between the two.
Sure, Steam Machines on SteamOS trail Windows performance.
But you can install Windows on a Steam Machine. You just have to procure or recycle a license.
So really - are we talking about Steam Machines lack of performance, or the fact that SteamOS is just the default bundled OS and it has poor performance. Hardware-wise, the Steam Machines really aren't all that bad for the price.
Even the OP's title and the linked article from Ars - they are using a Windows box with SteamOS installed, they aren't even really talking about the Steam Machines at all.
So I think we need to separate the machine from the software here, there's a pretty marked distinction between the two.
Steam Machines (according to Valve's definition) run SteamOS as the operating system. The second you install and boot up Windows, it's just another gaming PC running the Steam Client.
And in terms of value, you can easily find options better than any of the 'Steam Machines'.
Sure, Steam Machines on SteamOS trail Windows performance.
But you can install Windows on a Steam Machine. You just have to procure or recycle a license.
So really - are we talking about Steam Machines lack of performance, or the fact that SteamOS is just the default bundled OS and it has poor performance. Hardware-wise, the Steam Machines really aren't all that bad for the price.
Even the OP's title and the linked article from Ars - they are using a Windows box with SteamOS installed, they aren't even really talking about the Steam Machines at all.
So I think we need to separate the machine from the software here, there's a pretty marked distinction between the two.
Steam Machines (according to Valve's definition) run SteamOS as the operating system. The second you install and boot up Windows, it's just another gaming PC running the Steam Client.
And in terms of value, you can easily find options better than any of the 'Steam Machines'.
Not sure when the new API hits let see how it performance for being that small, I can build a pc but pretty hard to get it to performance for something that small. As I want to get one to take it with me when I got over family house or over a friend house to play some games when there not mucn to do.
I'm sure PS4 and Xbox can do the same but at times spending more money buying games from them then on steam so the long run I be saving money with crazy steam sales hit and most all my games on the hard drive.
But yeah the OS still need alot of work and the OS still have got long way. First step is hard and linux in general need mass of funds to get it close where it should be.
As I do want linux do well, but don't want it to try to kill off windows.
We just need some type of companion as windows with all there spyware add in to there OS as there don't care what people think who going to say no? when people still have to go to windows for alot there needs.
So far SteamOS seems to be nothing more than the answer to how to build a more expensive console to play cheap,bad linux ports of cheap, bad pc ports of more expensive console games.
I don't see it gaining much traction. Especially when other platforms like DRM-fee GOG are rising and now getting newer games as well. Everyone bitches about Uplay and Origin and all, but it is Steam that is putting a second layer of DRM on their games. Right now, the biggest saving grace for Steam is cheap bundle sites and the fact that people are already so invested in it. Almost as invested as they are in Windows.
So far SteamOS seems to be nothing more than the answer to how to build a more expensive console to play cheap,bad linux ports of cheap, bad pc ports of more expensive console games.
I don't see it gaining much traction. Especially when other platforms like DRM-fee GOG are rising and now getting newer games as well. Everyone bitches about Uplay and Origin and all, but it is Steam that is putting a second layer of DRM on their games. Right now, the biggest saving grace for Steam is cheap bundle sites and the fact that people are already so invested in it. Almost as invested as they are in Windows.
Console games not any cheaper then PC games. At times I can find a pc game alot cheaper then a console game don't have to go off steam to do it.
Thing about console vs pc, that console so far lack of letting play your older games that you payed for with out double dipping in to your wallet. Or hope that your old console still works to go back and play them again.
As For DRM-free it's good to have around there are people don't care about but other do, but anyhow DRM-free is a good pick if people want there games to last longer if one the company drop off on this face of this earth, can't do that with console.
I don't think there's any evidence that Valve doesn't know what it's doing. It's all part of a long term goal -- to provide Steam and all PC games in an environment that has no dependency at all on Windows. That doesn't mean Valve wants to kill off Windows.
I don't think that existing games have ever been the target, which is why they've thrown in home streaming as a way to play all the games that are likely never to be ported. The target is the future, with newer engines all supporting SteamOS/Linux, and all supporting Vulkan.
Comments
But right now just need to wait see when the new api hits if AMD and Nvidia drop in drivers that get some where close to windows. I don't expect that will beat windows in performance but I expect somewhere close to windows overtime.
And if not a bad ported game.
It's far too early to say what will happen, but if Vulkan takes off (and it should) there's no reason to think that the OS won't be popular. Valve certainly will be pushing its games, and they're certainly not lacking in influence in the gaming industry.
One issue is that almost all current AAA titles for SteamOS are late ports from the Windows DirectX titles, and they're not brilliant ports at that. They're not done by the people who made the games, but by a third party company. This is very likely to change in time.
OpenGL API is considerably slower than DirectX API, but not by 50%
-developers don't care about Linux
-OpenGL is a mess
-Linux is extremely bloated and ineffecient
-Steam OS is even more bloated, it's Linux wrapped in Debian, wrapped into Steam OS
-Microsoft has 100% control over Windows, Valve does not control Debian, or Linux kernel, or OpenGL, they have no control over most optimizations at all
-Drivers are made for Windows, and are an afterthought for Linux
-documentation of Linux API are horrendous, terrible, attrocious
-developers are forced to work around far more bugs in Linux
You could try to pin some of that on the underlaying OS, except that Linux isn't exactly a stranger to the supercomputer or GPGPU applications. And while particular Linux distros may have a lot of bloat, you can't necessarily blame that on Linux, which will run on some seriously minimal hardware and can be stripped down to run only exactly what you need.
Which points to Valve - they should have done more work on it before they released the hardware versions. The drivers (in my opinion) have a very long way to go (maybe you blame that one on Valve, maybe you blame it on the GPU manufacturer, but regardless it isn't there), and they could have done a lot more fine tuning on the SteamOS distro to make it a lot more streamlined and optimized just for Steam gaming.
I agree with the second point here. the top quoted point though is an inaccurate representation.
Microsoft does have 100% control over Windows, to the point that no one else has any control to the underpinning code. You can read what is in the API, and what is released on TechNet, and that's it.
Valve absolutely has control over Linux though - the source code is made public and is Public Domain, Valve is entirely at liberty to modify the source code and release their own fork of the Linux kernel, or create their own distribution (either apart from Debian, or forked from Debian). There even exist Public Domain GPU drivers which Valve could use to develop and optimize their own GPU drivers, but they are currently in an extremely poor state compared to the closed source Windows drivers, or even the closed source Linux drivers.
Linux is only bloated if you start installling random packages. If you only install what you need to accomplish your goal you typically only use around 500mb to 2GB of disk.
Linux also boots up way way faster than windows 10.
Also if you have hardware acceleration turned on, the desktop GUI is like 20 times faster than windows. You also have like 9000 times more customization.
Steam OS is basically debian with a custom desktop shell. Essentially its Debian with Steam installed to open in fullscreen mode when you log in. Debian is really just the original linux kernel with apt installed and pointed to the debian repos. (all linux distros are really just vanilla linux with different software repos, you can make them all behave, look, and run the same)
Debian is ran by Richard Stallman who really really hates propeitary software and is really strong on privacy. Debian linux is like the antimatter to Windows 10.
Documentation of anything to do with linux is freely available...even the source code too duh.
Before you reply, it helps if you spend 2 seconds looking things up for yourself.
Linux its creator said the kernel, not the "packages", Linux itself, was bloated.
You know it didn't occur to me until I read this that Valve might be keeping HL3 under wraps until steamOS is out so they can make it exclusive, or something along those lines. 'twould make sense.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
The reason for poor performance in Shadows of Mordor could be a number of things, but the most likely is that the OpenGL port is, simply, not very good. When you farm out a port to another company whose priority is just to get it working (and attempt to make it compatible with OS X, using an outdated OpenGL set up too), lots of corners will be cut. Games that are already released and have had all their reviews long since are not going to get the same priority in performance tuning as the initial release on the main platform.
As for Half Life 3, I would be very surprised if Valve made it a SteamOS/Linux exclusive. They don't want to come across as forcing people to use it. At the same time, I would be surprised if works with DirectX, and expect instead it will require Vulkan on both Windows and Linux.
Bloated software isn't a relative thing, it is not subjective, it can accurately be measured. There is no semantic ambiguity in the word.
Considering the amount of different organisations contributing to the Linux Kernel, the amount of code Linux has to deal with is massive. Every couple of minutes someone suggests code, this of course leads to bloat.
It certainly isn't console gamers because it lacks the basics like a standard uniform model, publisher support from the console maker (which means exclusives) and optimization for gaming.
It isn't existing Steam users on PCs running Windows since the Linux library is still only 1/3 of the available titles with big developer/publisher support being even worse (and the vast majority of large publishers already stating they won't support Linux). On top of that, most of the existing games are either indie or poorly optimized ports (again, because the original developer won't develop natively in Linux).
And they couldn't have created the Steam Machines with only the existing Linux gamers as the the sole target. Linux gaming is still only 1% the size of Steam for Windows even after all the hype and announcements for these things.
Valve totally dropped the ball on these things. Valve has deep pockets and if they really were interested in seeing Steam Machines really excel they could have given them a real fighting shot. Instead, it appears Valve has little actual interest in Steam Machines. They were announced several years ago as a protest in response to what they saw as a threat to PC gaming with Windows 8 and other decisions Microsoft was making. Microsoft backed off and then launched a much better Windows with Windows 10. It appears Valve also backed off with not even a half-assed effort to really support Steam Machines.
I suspect Valve lost internal interest in the Steam Machine concept over a year ago, but was obligated to attempt to appear to support Steam Machines due to Valve licensing out the Steam Machine name out to third party console manufacturers over two years ago.
Sure, Steam Machines on SteamOS trail Windows performance.
But you can install Windows on a Steam Machine. You just have to procure or recycle a license.
So really - are we talking about Steam Machines lack of performance, or the fact that SteamOS is just the default bundled OS and it has poor performance. Hardware-wise, the Steam Machines really aren't all that bad for the price.
Even the OP's title and the linked article from Ars - they are using a Windows box with SteamOS installed, they aren't even really talking about the Steam Machines at all.
So I think we need to separate the machine from the software here, there's a pretty marked distinction between the two.
And in terms of value, you can easily find options better than any of the 'Steam Machines'.
I'm sure PS4 and Xbox can do the same but at times spending more money buying games from them then on steam so the long run I be saving money with crazy steam sales hit and most all my games on the hard drive.
But yeah the OS still need alot of work and the OS still have got long way. First step is hard and linux in general need mass of funds to get it close where it should be.
As I do want linux do well, but don't want it to try to kill off windows.
We just need some type of companion as windows with all there spyware add in to there OS as there don't care what people think who going to say no? when people still have to go to windows for alot there needs.
But anyhow Value you can be right atm right now.
I don't see it gaining much traction. Especially when other platforms like DRM-fee GOG are rising and now getting newer games as well. Everyone bitches about Uplay and Origin and all, but it is Steam that is putting a second layer of DRM on their games. Right now, the biggest saving grace for Steam is cheap bundle sites and the fact that people are already so invested in it. Almost as invested as they are in Windows.
I don't get the point of steamOS.
Paying as much or more for the same hardware to have access to less software and lower performance.
Where is the compelling reason to choose a steam box?
Thing about console vs pc, that console so far lack of letting play your older games that you payed for with out double dipping in to your wallet. Or hope that your old console still works to go back and play them again.
As For DRM-free it's good to have around there are people don't care about but other do, but anyhow DRM-free is a good pick if people want there games to last longer if one the company drop off on this face of this earth, can't do that with console.
I don't think that existing games have ever been the target, which is why they've thrown in home streaming as a way to play all the games that are likely never to be ported. The target is the future, with newer engines all supporting SteamOS/Linux, and all supporting Vulkan.