Steam will stop supporting Windows 7 and 8 in 2024.

[thesheeep]

I can do that, yes.

Well, if you need help with that, it appears we have a bunch of knowledgeable people here, but there are also places like GamingOnLinux or others that tend to be very helpful.

Use Linux

I didn't know Codex was promoting LGBQT propaganda

I think you need to have a little nap, you seem sleep deprived and hallucinating.

 

[tommy heavenly6]

Use Linux

I didn't know Codex was promoting LGBQT propaganda

Meanwhile in reality...

 

[thesheeep]

You cannot maintain support for dead operating systems in software development.

they're not stopping to support. they're stopping your right to use it. notice the difference?

Nobody is stopping any rights.
You don't have a "right" to any OS usage for any piece of software to begin with.
Sorry, but using ancient Windows versions is not a human right, though you are free to start a petition, of course.
Software supports X operating systems and if they decide to drop support of one of them, users have to stop using that OS or use different software.

It's not that difficult.
Nobody's life depends on the OS they use, especially not those that reached eol.
There are legitimate concerns about using Win10+, but those can definitely be alleviated with a little work.
People are just being lazy fucks about this. And with "people" I mean a very, very tiny, select minority of loudmouths thinking their laziness is some bastion of resistance.

 

[Tacgnol]

You cannot maintain support for dead operating systems in software development.

they're not stopping to support. they're stopping your right to use it. notice the difference?

Google is via Chromium.

Valve isn't going to entirely refactor Steam's underlying web library to support 1.43% of the user base.

In order to keep supporting Win 7 users they would have to have switched to an entirely new web library or continued using an outdated (and probably very vulnerable to exploits) version of Chromium behind the scenes.

I'm sure some autist will make an unofficial client (much like the XP one) for the stubborn Win 7 users. Though I suspect most people will just upgrade their OS or switch to Linux.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Keep buying deeper and deeper into our glorious "online services" economy, citizen, it's for your own good! You'll own nothing and nobody'll give a shit whether you're happy or not, but oooh, look at those cloud saves and shiny, shiny cheevos!

Ironically, Newell once characterised piracy as a service problem...

If it makes you happy, it's been estimated that around half of the products with Internet of Things functionalities aren't being used as they "should". Engineers don't know what the fuck to do against this situation (not that they know a thing about anything, tbh).
Also lol @ the "right" to use an OS. You're paying for your tap water but decide to complain about a software you're not even forced to use.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

What the fuck.
YOU bought the product with YOUR money. You should be able to enjoy said product however you want. It's like the provider putting conditions on how exactly you want to enjoy and make use of the product you just bought from him.
Valve might even get lawsuits thrown their way.

Yeah but Valve would just say that they still support a free OS that is still updated.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

You don't have a "right"

your nick is such a perfect fit.

 

[NecroLord]

You don't have a "right"

your nick is such a perfect fit.

 

[Forest Dweller]

You cannot maintain support for dead operating systems in software development.

they're not stopping to support. they're stopping your right to use it. notice the difference?

Google is via Chromium.

Valve isn't going to entirely refactor Steam's underlying web library to support 1.43% of the user base.

In order to keep supporting Win 7 users they would have to have switched to an entirely new web library or continued using an outdated (and probably very vulnerable to exploits) version of Chromium behind the scenes.

Or they could just provide a "legacy client" or something like that that only allows users to play their old games. Which I'd be fine with.

 

[thesheeep]

You don't have a "right"

your nick is such a perfect fit.

I didn't expect you to actually engage with the argument because you already know you are wrong.
But come on, you could at least put some effort into your quip attempts.
Do it for the entertainment value!

 

[lefthandblack]

I have a 2nd, older PC that still runs W7. I still use it to play older games and as a backup.
I guess I have to install all the games I want with the Steam version on it and never connect it to the internet again.

I don't like this. After the change you can no longer play games you bought unless you have upgraded your OS and PC. Even if the games would still run fine on W7/8.
I'm not sure this is legal in the EU. You bought a game and Steam promised you it would run on W7/8. If Steam is no longer able to fulfill that promise you should be able to get a refund.

The other thing that you can do is just copy the folders over and replace the exe with one that's been fixed. Some games that do not officially support W7 will work on it via the same method.

 

[thesheeep]

You cannot maintain support for dead operating systems in software development.

they're not stopping to support. they're stopping your right to use it. notice the difference?

Google is via Chromium.

Valve isn't going to entirely refactor Steam's underlying web library to support 1.43% of the user base.

In order to keep supporting Win 7 users they would have to have switched to an entirely new web library or continued using an outdated (and probably very vulnerable to exploits) version of Chromium behind the scenes.

Or they could just provide a "legacy client" or something like that that only allows users to play their old games. Which I'd be fine with.

Easier said than done.
How would they ensure that that legacy client keeps working as they update their databases, update their APIs, update their security measures, update their... you get the idea.
Only a fraction of Steam's functionality is actually within the client, most of it is on their servers that the client communicates with and the client must be kept in-line with whatever the current flow is.
If they had a legacy client, then that client, too, would have to be actively maintained - or they'd have to maintain a legacy version of their entire infrastructure. Not gonna happen in order to support an officially dead OS.

Best they could realistically do is release a "last version that supported Win7" with no official support that will one day just cease to function as the rest of their services change.

 

[Ryzer]

Use Linux

I didn't know Codex was promoting LGBQT propaganda

Meanwhile in reality...

Imagine not having already disabled or completely uninstalled any of windows pre-installed bloated shit including cortana.

 

[Gargaune]

If it makes you happy

Nope.

Also lol @ the "right" to use an OS. You're paying for your tap water but decide to complain about a software you're not even forced to use.

This right here's precisely the sort of attitude that got us into this shit where we no longer "purchase" a copy of a software package for own use, but instead "license" it at the provider's whims and when stuff changes under our ass, we're "not even forced to use it, bro."

I paid for my Windows 10 license and would like to keep using my Windows 10. I don't expect Microsoft to keep giving me free updates past its lifecycle, but I also don't want some mandatory update to turn into something other than what it was when I paid for it. Other saps (not me, though, I'm cool) bought Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, but when Owlcat changed the EULA at their discretion to datamine their colons, they weren't offered an opportunity to retain their prior build or refund the product. We've all sunk more money than we care to admit into Steam games, but when Valve decides to move on, we're not offered a solution to just hang on to the shit we have.

Of course, it's all legal because that's where we're at, our lawmakers have no incentive into cleaning up the wild wild west that is the IT sector and its batshit business models. Because you vote.


P.S. You can keep the tap water you already paid for, genius.

 

[Tacgnol]

This right here's precisely the sort of attitude that got us into this shit where we no longer "purchase" a copy of a software package for own use, but instead "license" it at the provider's whims and when stuff changes under our ass, we're "not even forced to use it, bro."

You have the right to use an old OS, but you don't have the right to force third-party vendors to continue to support it indefinitely.

 

[tommy heavenly6]

You have the right to use an old OS, but you don't have the right to force third-party vendors to continue to support it indefinitely.

Would be fine if it didn't mean Steam stops working even when using the old versions, which is what I can gather from the initial post. It's like your copy of Resident Evil 4 for the GameCube stopped working because a remake is out now. Can't be clearer than this:

In order to continue running Steam and any games or other products purchased through Steam, users will need to update to a more recent version of Windows.

I can boot an old computer and use the latest browser version supported for that OS. This is not the same, your old Steam version will simply refuse to work. 100% anti-consumer.

 

[mastroego]

Imagine not having already disabled or completely uninstalled any of windows pre-installed bloated shit including cortana.

I disabled most things but didn't manage to get rid of suggestions and such.
I must say though that I read somewhere that disabling cortana might be a bit too much since the system relies on some of its functions...

 

[Tacgnol]

Would be fine if it didn't mean Steam stops working even when using the old versions, which is what I can gather from the initial post. It's like your copy of Resident Evil 4 for the GameCube stopped working because a remake is out now. Can't be clearer than this:

There will undoubtedly be an unofficial client much like there was for XP. There is no way Valve would do a legacy client themselves as they then become responsible for it, no matter how many warnings they put up about it being "unsupported".

 

[Dadd]

It's simple. They aren't getting my money. Don't care about the mental gymnastics of confused consumers justifying Steam's actions.

 

[Gargaune]

This right here's precisely the sort of attitude that got us into this shit where we no longer "purchase" a copy of a software package for own use, but instead "license" it at the provider's whims and when stuff changes under our ass, we're "not even forced to use it, bro."

You have the right to use an old OS, but you don't have the right to force third-party vendors to continue to support it indefinitely.

I don't expect Microsoft to keep giving me free updates past its lifecycle, but I also don't want some mandatory update to turn into something other than what it was when I paid for it.

To extrapolate from that, I don't expect Newell to keep supporting our continued business on a deprecated OS outside of his company's control, but I would want him to supply a technical solution for users to retain access to the products he's already sold them such as they were at the time he sold them. For instance in this case, some barebones Windows 7 client that'd just allow the games to run. No cloud features, no updates, just here it is, either let users download or backup their products and then run them.

More generally, the point is that all notions of ownership, consumer protection and fair business practices are being eroded at an alarming rate in this magnificent modern world of ours, and everything IT-related is leading the fucking charge. If our lawmakers had the slightest bit of backbone and inclination towards the public interest, mandatory updates would be out the fucking window and providers would have to supply customers with the ability to retain personal use copies of their existing software if the provider discontinued support or (this being another can of worms in dire need of attention) chose to update their terms post-acquisition.

 

[Konjad]

This right here's precisely the sort of attitude that got us into this shit where we no longer "purchase" a copy of a software package for own use, but instead "license" it at the provider's whims and when stuff changes under our ass, we're "not even forced to use it, bro."

You have the right to use an old OS, but you don't have the right to force third-party vendors to continue to support it indefinitely.

I don't expect Microsoft to keep giving me free updates past its lifecycle, but I also don't want some mandatory update to turn into something other than what it was when I paid for it.

To extrapolate from that, I don't expect Newell to keep supporting our continued business on a deprecated OS outside of his company's control, but I would want him to supply a technical solution for users to retain access to the products he's already sold them such as they were at the time he sold them. For instance in this case, some barebones Windows 7 client that'd just allow the games to run. No cloud features, no updates, just here it is, either let users download or backup their products and then run them.

More generally, the point is that all notions of ownership, consumer protection and fair business practices are being eroded at an alarming rate in this magnificent modern world of ours, and everything IT-related is leading the fucking charge. If our lawmakers had the slightest bit of backbone and inclination towards the public interest, mandatory updates would be out the fucking window and providers would have to supply customers with the ability to retain personal use copies of their existing software if the provider discontinued support or (this being another can of worms in dire need of attention) chose to update their terms post-acquisition.

You have a free linux for that

 

[Justinian]

This right here's precisely the sort of attitude that got us into this shit where we no longer "purchase" a copy of a software package for own use, but instead "license" it at the provider's whims and when stuff changes under our ass, we're "not even forced to use it, bro."

You have the right to use an old OS, but you don't have the right to force third-party vendors to continue to support it indefinitely.

I don't expect Microsoft to keep giving me free updates past its lifecycle, but I also don't want some mandatory update to turn into something other than what it was when I paid for it.

To extrapolate from that, I don't expect Newell to keep supporting our continued business on a deprecated OS outside of his company's control, but I would want him to supply a technical solution for users to retain access to the products he's already sold them such as they were at the time he sold them. For instance in this case, some barebones Windows 7 client that'd just allow the games to run. No cloud features, no updates, just here it is, either let users download or backup their products and then run them.

More generally, the point is that all notions of ownership, consumer protection and fair business practices are being eroded at an alarming rate in this magnificent modern world of ours, and everything IT-related is leading the fucking charge. If our lawmakers had the slightest bit of backbone and inclination towards the public interest, mandatory updates would be out the fucking window and providers would have to supply customers with the ability to retain personal use copies of their existing software if the provider discontinued support or (this being another can of worms in dire need of attention) chose to update their terms post-acquisition.

You have a free linux for that

If I have to install another OS I might as well upgrade to Windows 10.

 

[The Decline]

With the tools available to remove all the offending parts of Win 10 there's no reason not to upgrade aside from stubbornness. And even then you have the option switch to a Linux distro. And besides that I'm sure there will be some pissed off guy hacking together a way to keep using Steam on Win 7.

 

[Norfleet]

It's simple. They aren't getting my money. Don't care about the mental gymnastics of confused consumers justifying Steam's actions.

YARR!

 

[Melcar]

What about Steam on Windows 98?

 

[pickmeister]

This right here's precisely the sort of attitude that got us into this shit where we no longer "purchase" a copy of a software package for own use, but instead "license" it at the provider's whims and when stuff changes under our ass, we're "not even forced to use it, bro."

You have the right to use an old OS, but you don't have the right to force third-party vendors to continue to support it indefinitely.

Sure, sure. Just like it's private companies' business what they're doing with their platforms. And the vaccination was completely voluntary and no one was coerced to take it.
Same principle.