Hundreds of Thousands of Windows XP and Vista Users Won't Be Able To Use Steam Soon (vice.com)

Windows XP and Vista users have six months to upgrade their operating systems or get the hell off of Steam. From a report: "Steam will officially stop supporting the Windows XP and Windows Vista operating systems," Valve, the company that operates Steam, said in a post to its XP and Vista support community. "This means that after that date the Steam Client will no longer run on those versions of Windows. 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."

Comments

Boo hoo

[Skuld-Chan]

No-one should have have to support an OS that came out 17 years ago.

Re:Boo hoo

[Computershack]

No they're not. They're updating the client, the old OS no longer has the features that the new client needs so from thereon in it won't work. You can still fire up the old client, it'll just sit there doing nothing. You don't have an automatic right to have a software company support massively outdated OS feature sets that was end of life a decade ago.

Re:Boo hoo

[KiloByte]

But why would a game you purchased stop working just because someone no longer considers your OS profitable?

The DRM is sabotaging a perfectly working piece of hardware that can't run newer OS but is fully fit for the game you paid for and which worked well until now. Thus, it's reasonable to demand removal of the DRM or issuing a refund.

Also, running XP and Vista with unfettered Internet access is unhealthy, thus converting these games into offline-only would be ok. It's also reasonable to no longer support the Steam UI, but only if the games can work stand-alone.

Re:Boo hoo

[Aaden42]

Steam is a special case. If you can't run the latest Steam client, the licensing on your existing Steam games will stop working, and you won't be able to play them any more. They're making a change which because of DRM will make your old, not-updated games actively break.

It's reasonable they want to update Steam to modern technologies. It would also be reasonable if they left a legacy license server up that will continue to serve licenses to the last version of Steam that ran on those older systems.

Re:Boo hoo

[F.Ultra]

According to the latest Steam Survey, https://store.steampowered.com... , apparently 0.22% of the Steam user still does.

Re:Boo hoo

[DickBreath]

The whole reason I was about to upgrade to Windows XP was for Steam. Now it seems like there is no point in upgrading.

Re:Boo hoo

[OrangeTide]

Are you willing to support 17 year old software, for free, when you offer a modern version?

Buying hundreds of dollars of games on Steam isn't exactly the same as free. I'm really only asking that Valve continue to host the data on their servers, not that they do any additional updates to my game library.

I don't think any of us really enjoy the frequent updates to the Steam client. Those updates are something we tolerate, but I'm certainly not asking to pay for them.

Re:Boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one should have have to support an OS that came out 17 years ago.

Yes.

We should also be required to tear down and rebuild any structure older than 10 years. All houses, buildings, everything. If it's too old, it must be destroyed and you must replace it.

All cars must be destroyed. All appliances. All clothing. All furniture. Everything that is "too old" must be destroyed. Just think how much money is being lost by the companies who manufacture these items, because people are allowed to keep using them for years and years.

Re:Boo hoo

[Zak3056]

On the other hand. Your car is too old. We're not going to allow you to buy gasoline here.
Sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

Re:Boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm struggling to understand why people would stay on dead, insecure operating systems. I mean, modern games require win7 minimum, and those who need XP can and do work with compatibility mode.

There's no excuse.

There is. Both Windows 7 and Windows 10 spy on you.

Re:Boo hoo

[jwhyche]

Both of them?

Re:Boo hoo

[Angeret]

And in the UK you get it re-registered under "classic car" regulations, your insurance costs drop markedly and you get back on the road and drive on. Companies are very willing to supply parts at even reasonable costs and there's a whole industry surrounding having an old car. Car restoration nuts would say "Find another analogy."

Shooting support for an OS in the head is going to be irksome for those who have no need or intention to upgrade, but cutting off the software that allows them to play their paid-for library of games is not going to be a great move. If it means forking Steam so that those Users who wish to can carry on but without any extras, updates or security fixes while everyone else moves on - that's a better option than "Upgrade your system which seems to be working fine or piss off."

Is cutting them off necessary?

[Sniper98G]

"This means that after that date the Steam Client will no longer run on those versions of Windows."

I can understand the desire to not have to support the older operating systems. But, why completely stop in from running?

Why not just say, "if it breaks too bad" and let people risk it if they want to?

Re:Is cutting them off necessary?

[Hentes]

Because Steam is partly a DRM solution. Being able to run unpatched versions would allow for crackers to exploit unpatched vulnerabilities which could be used for piracy. Yes it's silly and ineffective like all DRM, but the big publishers, Steam's main customers, want to keep the illusion. Now I don't know what will happen to older games that don't run on Win7, but hopefully Steam will force the developers to upgrade them before the 2019 deadline.

Re:Is cutting them off necessary?

[dryriver]

Valve does not not give a damn about its users, never has, and will definitely NOT force ANY developer to provide a Windows 7 version of any older game. Valve will just shrug their shoulders when people who love older games scream that they don't work anymore. These are the people who brought you boxed games in stores that contain only 1 DVD in the box, remember? Steam killed everybody's ability to buy a full, boxed game with complete install discs. Deliberately. For extra profit.

Re:Is cutting them off necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boycott Steam, switch to GOG. If the game isn't on GOG, don't buy it. GOG is selling the entire Ultima series including spinoffs, for less than $7.

Re:Is cutting them off necessary?

[hairyfeet]

Oh please, if they actually gave a flying flipping fuck about that then damned near every GCW crack wouldn't be based on the Steam vrsion of the games!

As someone who has actually worked support I can guaran-damn-tee ya its trying to keep support staff that actually knows how to deal with that ancient shit is just too much of a royal PITA. At the shop I worked at I was the only guy that still knew the old DOS/Win 3.x/Win9X OSes and software and you'd be amazed how much old industrial gear like CNCs are locked to some ancient version of DOS or Windows so if one of those companies came through the door? Suddenly everything I was doing had to be tossed to someone else who may or may not have a clue WTF I was working on because if we didn't do this? Yeah there simply wasn't anybody else that had a damned clue about dealing with that old shit.

You have to remember when dealing with support it can be a fricking nightmare when you are just dealing with one or two OSes and until the cutoff date Valve has been dealing with SIX, not to mention the hardware...dude do you even remember what kind of hardware they were selling when XP was an OEM? We're talking Pentium 4s and Netburst celeron.../shiver/, hell just waiting for a damned diagnostic to run on those piles of shit can take three fricking forevers due to how bad Netburst sucked ass, and you expect them to support that mess? And Vista was NEVAR a good OS, I can't even imagine trying to figure out whether its a game bug or just one of the bazillion Vista bugs that was causing a problem, better them than me!

So no its not the DRM, if it were they would have minimums that include CPUs with hardware DRM support. Nope I bet this is someone at management looked at the numbers and went "holy shit XP and Vista users are taking up HOW much time? Yeah...no, that crusty old shit has gots to go!" and as someone who still runs into the occasional XP or Vista user in the wild I say good riddance, that shit is just too damned old and creaky to be supporting in 2018.

XP 10

[Anonymous Coward]

Laughable because 10 is so much more secure than a 20 year old operating system, right?

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cortana-hack-lets-you-change-passwords-on-locked-pcs/

Yeah, about that....

Why steam has mandatory binding arbitration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam forced mandatory binding arbitration on their users because they wanted to be able to offer lifetime access to games, with the ability to revoke your access any time they feel like it's too much work to keep giving you access.

If you accepted it, good luck.

There's tons of XP only games on Steam

[rsilvergun]

if I owned one I'd be demanding a refund right about now.

NO!

[higuita]

That is plain stupid and egocentric way to think!

A machine may not have anything useful but it can be used a botnet, jump host, malware server, etc
That is why IoT is a big problem, people think like you (eg: it is just a webcan looking to a plant, i do not care), yet it was involved in a DoS that knockout your favorite site, it is acting as a reverse proxy for some child porn, it is CC node in a huge botnet or even just mining some crypto coins.

The fact that it works do not mean that it should not be replaced. At very least should be protected and if it is not possible to protect it (like XP, if it connects to the internet), it should be terminated and replaced.

It's not yours

[Uteck]

RMS has been warning of this for years, you don't own anything if it is on someone else's server.
Steam is just game rental.