I wonder if this will cause further drama with that one guy that was mad that Steam no longer supports Win98
Well, as the good old wisdom would say: fuck them.
The fediverse is opinionated.
Did steam ever support Windows 98?
It sure did. Back in 2003 when it was released.
TIL: Steam has 32-bit support.
Not support, on Linux 32-bit is a requirement. Creates a huge problem since it forces distros to still ship 32-bit dependencies to make sure steam can run.
Can’t the dependencies just be installed with the steam client? Yes, it’s ridiculous that steam isn’t 64-bit, but I don’t see the huge problem programs with having 32-bit dependencies. Am I missing something?
Steam doesn’t have the 32-bit library files you need. Every system is different.
Finding 32 bit libraries hasn’t been a problem with any package manager I’ve ever used in Linux for a long time. This isn’t a problem for any modern distribution.
It’s not a problem for users, it is a problem for maintainers: https://www.howtogeek.com/fedora-44-will-not-lose-32-bit-software/
Nowadays there is basically no reason for mainstream distros to have to maintain 32-bit libraries and dependencies… Except steam.
As long as 32-bit games maintain good compatibility, I see no problem with this.
I’ll never be able to play a stable functioning Sid Meier’s Railroads again
Look into PCemu man, it’s perfect for that kind of niche scenario.
Honestly had better luck with DOSBOX-X.
Hopefully?!?
side eyes Debian
If Linux isn’t still supporting 16-bit, there’s a problem.
16-bit computers died off before Linux was even a thing.
The 8088 was produce to 1998 and 80186 was produced all the way to 2007.
They may not been mainstream, but they certainly existed in production to run linux.
Just because they existed during the Linux era doesn’t mean they ran Linux; Torvalds was writing for the 386 from the beginning, and Linux has never been written for anything below 32-bit.
Now, it certainly has RAN on that hardware through emulation, such as on a 4 bit Intel 4004, but only for the heck of it.
Linux has never been written for anything below 32-bit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embeddable_Linux_Kernel_Subset
Technically not the Linux kernel.
How is it not? It is a fork of the linux kernel.
For one, it explicitly calls itself a “subset”; a subset is not the whole set.
If we don’t want to go just off the pedantics of language though, then here’s the thing: it was forked a very long time ago, and both have diverged significantly, I think. It’s a bit like saying Blink (the rendering engine of Chromium) is WebKit; sure, Blink is a fork of WebKit, but the two are very different now.
Right? If my 8086 can’t run it, I don’t want it. Smh
I don’t get the hopefully Linux follows statement. I assume it is just for the client? Linux should support everything it can.
I’d prefer if the Steam app uses the 64 bit libraries so I don’t have to install a bunch of 32 bit dependencies too.
Me too. It’s ridiculous they haven’t updated their client.
steam is one of the few commonly used 32 bit apps left on linux.
I imagine most of it is bc most other things are oss and have been updated/rebuilt already. having to run a 10 year old binary happens way less on linux than it does windows.
a handful of distros have tried to remove 32 but support they’ve gotten backlash bc they’d lose steam support. linux the kernel won’t drop it any time soon, but there’s a good chance that if steam drops 32 bit, so will fedora etc
It’s Steam who supports these things. It costs money to support anything. Do you want that cost added to your game price?
This is a ridiculous argument. Steam isn’t supporting the 32-bit libraries. It’s done through repositories that are maintained to ensure legacy compatibility which is one of the strengths of Linux. There’s no impact on the cost of games.
why dont they make a steam legacy client for 32bit win7?
nevermind, it would require actuall work
Actually it was because of the chromium browser integrated into steam under the hood - it was no longer updated for win7.
Same reason XP got discontinued before that.
and this was totally important, and wasnt possible on some legacy firefox engine. what a load of horseshit. and of course they fucked up steam skin support as well.
So you’re telling me that Valve should create a new branch of the existing steam client using an alternative browser engine explicitly due to dropped support on a platform that (I would argue) less than a fraction of a percent would use in 2025 and beyond? Along with maintenance, security patches (on an OS that will never receive any new official patches for current vulnerabilities) and feature parity for at least the steam library?
If you’re that dependent on hardware/software combinations so far removed from the current development status quo, you should have the technical expertise to install DRM-free games on your obsolete OS that should never be online anyway.
I don’t think anyone at the company nor customers with even a modicum of understanding of software maintenance would endorse that. It would be a gross waste of engineering time and resources. Hell, explaining this to you in such detail should be lesson enough on why software companies filter user suggestions.
Wah, this company isn’t willing to spend time and money supporting my OS that’s been EOL for over 5 years
Obviously official support for Win 7 is long dead but Steam still runs without issue on 64 bit Windows 7 to this day. What device are you running Windows 7 32 bit on?
Gotta keep those 20 year old CPUs running for playing Borderlands 4.
You joke but most of the CPUs released in 2005 were 64 bit. That’s why I’m curious about what the original commenter is trying to run Steam on.
