- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Whatever. I don’t need it to be better, I just need it to be decent.
Precisely.
I switched to Linux before Steam on Linux was a thing. When it came to Linux, I made a Steam account and bought games. When they made Proton, I bought more games.
I’m not moving away from Linux, so all I need is for games to work well and I’ll buy them. That’s true on my desktop, and it’s true on Steam Deck (even more true since many games are preconfigured).
I don’t think it’s good because of Linux, I think it’s good because Valve invested a lot into it.
I’d say:
- Lightweight (no bloat)
- No licenses
- Easier package management (of preinstalled drivers etc.)
- Easier driver development
- Much more flexible (Bootloaders, Partitions, etc.)
I love how XDA have this article 2 days ago
4 reasons Windows is a better OS for gaming handhelds than Linux
Their take aways are crap:
-
Windows offers complete compatibility with all games. I get what they are driving at, but I am amused that I have older games running on Linux that do not run on windows. They should have said most games run on windows, and if you dont mind root kits installed on your computer anti cheat ones do too.
-
Xbox PC Game Pass provides access to a wide range of games. If you want a subscription. And a Microsoft account. Or in their case friends. And if you are going to share your pass with a friend, why not just sail the seas and call it a day?
-
Windows is more versatile than Linux, allowing your gaming handheld to also serve as a primary desktop PC with the ability to connect peripherals and a monitor, providing a full-fledged computing experience. This adds value to a Windows-based handheld. This one pissed me off. No it is not more versatile. I use the steamdeck as my work computer when I am out of town and I use Linux on the desktop exclusively. I have a full fledged computing experience, thank you very much.
rootkits
And this is the number one reason I don’t use Windows. I don’t feel like I control Windows, and the fact that game devs do really rubs me the wrong way. If I wanted that experience, I’d buy a console.
gamepass
I never saw the appeal. I guess it’s cheaper if you like trying lots of games, but surely not knowing when the game will leave the service would be really annoying. I’ve been in the middle of Netflix shows when it leaves the service, and I tend to binge those, whereas many games can take me weeks or months to get through.
I guess it’s cool when it was $1 or whatever for the intro period, but I really don’t see myself subscribing long term, especially not at the full price. I might do it if I could pick nearly any game on Steam, but that’s not how it works.
versatile
Eh, I actually mostly agree with that one. More stuff works on Windows than Linux, that’s a simple fact of the current state of software.
That said, I have never used my Steam Deck to get work done, I’ve only used it for gaming. I have a laptop for work (much bigger screen, included keyboard, etc), and having to bring enough extra stuff with me to make the Deck work well (monitor, keyboard, mouse) would take up way more space than just bringing a laptop and the Deck separately.
So either way, I think it’s a crappy example. If you’re going to bring all of the accessories for a work setup, you’d pick based on the software you need. I can’t work effectively on Windows, so it’s a no-go for me, but I’m absolutely in the minority. Most would feel more comfortable on Windows than Linux.
versatile
In terms of what your workflow is it really is versatile, although you can get add on software in windows to kind of rig it. Your workflow can be your own - tiling, activities, traditional windows like desktop, or more focused with something like say Gnome.
As for the Steamdeck, I had a USB-C hub for my Pinephone and started using it with the Steamdeck. I found that when I traveled there was almost always a TV or monitor at the destination. Worst case I can use my tablet with steamlink as a monitor. I had always carried a portable mouse for my laptop anyways, so that left me only needing a keyboard. I got a light and small portable keyboard.
I found that a laptop of the same capability to actually play games was big and heavy. My travel laptop was smaller, but I found myself bringing the steam deck along too anyways.
So in the end: Flying, I just play games on the steam deck. When I get where I am going, the keyboard (stored in the luggage, not on me) comes out and I can set up as a workstation either in a hotel or at a clients office, or a remote office quickly. In the case of a remote office I just use their monitors and keyboard - seems like everyone has a spare workstation these days. I put applications that I need to use, sometimes full desktops, into Azure so the deck acts as an RDP client for any windows software. Or remote into the clients provided workstations if they want to provide one - also with the steamdeck.
almost always a TV or monitor at the destination
Perhaps if you always stay at hotels, but if you usually stay with family or friends, your options will be quite limited. It’s also obviously not available in transit (airplanes, trains, etc). I almost never stay in a hotel room for more than an hour or two (aside from sleeping), because I’m either on location or staying with friends/family.
So I honestly never had a situation where I could’ve gotten away without a laptop. Then again, the nature of my work requires a lot of typing, so YMMV.
And yeah, a gaming laptop is a nonstarter for me. It’s too bulky, tends to have crappy battery life, and the ergonomics of actually playing suck. So that’s why I bring a thin-ish laptop and a Steam Deck, the laptop slips in my bag for the day’s work, and the Steam Deck stays in my room for games later (sometimes I sneak it in my bag if I know there will be downtime).
That said, if I’m traveling, I’m not working in an office, it’ll be at a conference desk or a family member’s house, and it’s really hit or miss what amenities I’ll have access to.
-
XDA’s article is quite a bit of garbage too. Outside of game compatibility their other reasons are reaching.
Linux has a desktop and can be used as a desktop PC as well and works with a ton of peripherals driver free. That being said Linux has an issue with too many hands in the cookie jar for window managers so you get 2 really bulky fleshed out ones and a whole bunch of others that just don’t hold up without considerable customization by the user which tends to add more bulk and a steep learning curve.
Xbox Gamepass, as great as it is, has a ton of issues with installing/uninstalling software in Windows and the cloud gaming part of Gamepass Ultimate works quite well on the Steam Deck too. Technically you can also dual boot Windows but it’s no at all worth it and has much worse performance.
And then they just kind of silently say that many people don’t know Linux and are familiar with Windows. I feel like anyone coming to Windows 11 from 10 or even 7 might have some idea but they’re going to be just as confused considering the obfuscation Microsoft included in 11. And Steam OS has an easy to use and understand interface that just about anyone can figure out in a few minutes.
I’m just not seeing the huge benefit that XDA claims. Worse performance and battery life, generally a higher cost (Windows licensing), and support is going to be a grab bag for all these Windows based handhelds.
I don’t even see the point in comparing OS, just compare product experience. For example:
- inexpensive for the performance you get
- easy to use to play games
- can use desktop mode for additional value (e.g. install Heroic or other launchers)
- decent battery life
The fact that it runs Linux is largely an implementation detail, until you get to desktop mode.
I don’t game, but if I did, yes, I’d use Linux as my gaming platform. Just way more cuztomizable.
Here’s the five:
- Everything you need, nothing you don’t
- Better performance, lighter overheads
- A hidden desktop experience
- Never worry about drivers
- Modify it to your heart’s content
And my response to each:
- Seems kinda hand-wavy to me, so I’ll boil this down to lower bloat (i.e. lower disk and mem usage by the OS)
- This is very much YMMV, and for Steam Deck specifically, it’s comparing a tuned the system to an OOTB experience; surely other handhelds tune their systems too
- I’m pretty sure this is true for other handhelds, but I haven’t used them personally so I don’t know
- This seems very solvable, and not an inherent Windows issue; large enterprises manage drivers and whatnot centrally, surely a handheld can too
- Surely this is true for Windows devices, no? I’m guessing more people are comfortable customizing Windows handheld PCs vs the Steam Deck simply because more people are familiar with customizing Windows than Linux
I just want to say that I have been Linux only for well over 10 years (aside from macOS at work), and I absolutely prefer a Linux-based handheld to a Windows-based one. However, I think this article is vastly overselling what Valve has done on the Steam Deck, after all, this is a pretty serious thing to brush aside:
On top of that, some games will never run on Linux, no matter what. Games like Call of Duty with a custom anti-cheat won’t run, and that’s a symptom of how open Linux is.
The end user usually doesn’t care about how open their gaming-specific device is, they care if it plays the games they want.
I love Linux and my Steam Deck, and I’ll recommend it every chance I get, but overselling it just leads to frustration. If you temper expectations, people will be pleasantly surprised at how good it is.
What’s going to be really neat is if we get Linux handhelds using these new Qualcomm chips that are similar to Apple M series chips in terms of performance and power consumption.
You do realize it’s not that simple, right? That’s arm, not x86 so it would be a different architecture from consoles and pcs. It necessitates using some sort of translation layer like rosetta for mac and that tanks performance. So no, in the short term that wouldn’t be neat.
M1 and M2 chips are so much faster that they outperform native x86 macs running Rosetta https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/15/m1-chip-emulating-x86-benchmark/
Those are synthetic CPU tests. It’s not a valid point of reference when discussing a cpu+gpu workload for an x86 game. Plus, you’re comparing with 3 year old Intel cpus. The mobile king right now are AMD APUs.
New ARM chips would also need to only emulate the speeds of current x86 chips as opposed to future ones to support the current crop of games. The idea would be that new games would be compiled natively. Most games nowadays use a handful of engines, so it’s really a matter of porting the engine to the new platform. There are a number of architecture differences that make chips like Apple M series and new Qualcomm chips strictly superior to anything Intel or AMD are putting out. This article does a good overview. The gist is that there are two main advantages. System on a chip architecture eliminates the need for the bus, so GPU, CPU, and any other cores can all share memory directly. The other big advantage is that RISC instructions have a fixed sized, you can read a batch of instructions figure out which ones are independent, and then run those in parallel. This approach scales to a large number of cores. On the other hand, CISC instructions are variable length and this makes this approach impossible to scale. AMD discovered that past parallelizing 3-4 instructions the cost of figuring out dependencies exceeds the benefits of running them in parallel.
My overall argument here is that the chip simply has to run enough current games well enough, and that new games would target the chip natively. And I’m going to point out that Steam Deck clearly shows that using an emulation layer as a bridge is a perfectly viable approach.
That’s not really true. It has to run a plethora of games well. Both new and very old. Not to mention emulators as well.
The fact that a different architecture might be a lot better than x86 doesn’t change the fact that pcs and consoles use x86 and that all of the emulators target that architecture as well. I don’t care how much better arm o risc can be, I care about being able to use the games and programs I want to use today. Unless new architectures are powerful enough to run x86 programs decently woth a translation layer, their adoption will not be widespread.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
