Why should anyone that builds their own gaming PCs care that much about steamOS for at-least the next 5 or so years while windows dominates gaming and productivity all in one? I'm not saying that running steamOS from another drive or partition wouldn't be an option. But I would rather run one OS for both productivity and gaming. I would also rather have one gaming computer than buy a steam box and stream games from a windows PC. Whats the point of that when I could just play games on my PC or plug my PC into the big screen?
The way I see it is that this can possibly be the beginning of a major shift in the user distribution. SteamOS will hopefully pave the way for better graphics drivers in Linux, major games coming to Linux, and Linux can be seen viable gaming platform. Linux already has plenty of productivity options, so this would mean that we would no longer need to go with Windows. Why do you want to live in a world where Windows is such a necessity?
If it weren't for the better gaming options on Windows, I would have not bothered and saved money that could have been spent on better and more powerful components. SteamOS could change that. Valve hasn't really mentioned productivity options for that particular OS as far as I'm aware, but it's a variety of Linux so there isn't anything saying that that kind of software isn't possible.
With the way that mantle and new driver support is coming to linux, SteamOS could very well dominate windows in every way.
Linus is faster, more lightweight, more secure, and, once you know how to use it, a lot easier to fix things than windows.
Pretty much what ZHDINC and Phantom said, except with the addition that you could likely install any linux compatible piece of software onto the machine.
At the same time, look at it this way: SteamOS will be ideal for the console world. In the normal console world, they don't get mods for games (such as those on Steam Workshop). This might open up the world of mods for console people, which I find really amazing.
This opens up the market quite a bit, and with a larger market brings more developers, and hopefully better content. Its better to have too many options than not enough.
you dont have to pay for steam os
Software on linux at the moment is really bad compared to windows and I wouldn't want to use linux at all.
That is completely untrue.
It's true from my point of view and the matter is for the most part subjective. At least when it comes to user interfaces which is the part I'm concerned with.
The user interface for steam OS would be big picture mode. It isnt meant to use other applications.
You CAN use other Apps, or even install another OS, but steam OS will be a big picture mode steam, with options for streaming and a web browser, most likely.
The excitement of SteamOS, does not come from the streaming feature or the livingroom optimizations. It's the desktop experience that may come out of it. In terms of productivity, Linux has many different alternatives to Office, in terms of usability, Linux is pretty simple to use, and is very flexible compared to Windows.
It's free, it'll start generating support for consumer Linux products and drivers, and most of all people will start switching from Direct3D to OpenGL/Mante/etc. It's going to be a long time, it may take those 5 years in which Windows will still dominate, but Valve is known for sticking to their game. Steam was deemed as a failure for its first couple of years, look where it is now.
We chose Windows because it runs games and has productivity, if SteamOS will run games and have similar productivity (and stuff like Mantle becomes a big success and allows us more power from our hardware) there is no reason for a gamer to use Windows and deal with the stupidity of MS anymore.
That's where the issue comes in though - productivity . Most people are bound by select applications that only exist on windows and do not have proper alternatives on linux, such as the majority of the adobe suite, the autodesk suite, or even applications such as cubase or solidworks or ZBrush, or even FL studio.
Another point is that there's still minor incompatibilities that will force the user to edit config files if something is amiss - something most people wouldnt want to bother with, especially after windows, land of the automatic hardware installation.
If in gerneral there's development towards more acessibility on linux, then perhaps it will be the OS of choice of the general consumer but It's something that's still a pie-in-the-sky that's just kindof starting to be affected by gravity.
But to answer OP's question : I think SteamOS is not targeting windows. It's targeting to become an Open & multi-hardware-config console OS that will start targeting actual consoles in a few years,(As there is no way this gen can last more than 4 years - if it does - pc gamers are screwed again.) Akin to the way Android stormed the mobile space in a few years.
I think valve wants to take hardware limitation out of the equation.
That's why we have at least 4 big UI toolskits, that's why we have dozens of user interfaces, that's why we have the best drivers (except for graphics but that's changing, too), that's why we have everything in the kernel that needs extra hardware on windows, that's why we have dozens of file systems of which nearly non has fragmentation for years, supports snapshotting, supports all kinds of raid, that's why we can mount stuff anywhere on the file tree, that's why we have symlinks, that's why we can have a good bootloader, that's why we have to best dev tools, that's why you can theme everything, that's why virtualization works better, that's why we have at least 5 different supervisors, that's why animation films are rendered on linux, that's why we have the best 3d tools, that's why we do en- and decoding faster, that's why graphics performance is better, that's why we can even run windows software, that's why we have different package managers, that's why we have good encryption, that's why can run everything on all kinds of architectures, that's why we can use multicore properly, that's why our compilers are way ahead, that's why our systems run with much less resources, that's why you can scale everything up to whatever you want, that's why you can change everything, that's why we have better command lines, that's why everything is free and open source, that's why everyone chooses linux to do anything.
Because software on linux at the moment is really bad.
You live in a dreamworld.
That's where the issue comes in though - productivity
Oh, you're one of those guys.
Most people are bound by select applications that only exist on windows
Well, that's another point. If you depend on proprietary software you locked yourself into a walled-garden and you need to overcome the laziness to change something. It's a general problem and not specific to linux.
such as the majority of the adobe suite
Like linux doesn't have anything of that.
autodesk
cubase ... FL studio
ZBrush
solidworks
Another point is that there's still minor incompatibilities that will force the user to edit config files if something is amiss
You live in the wrong decade.
It doesn't matter how much it's better on the inside as long as it doesn't have an intuitive interface. Entire first half of your post doesn't mean anything whatsoever to 95% of users, they only care about what they see. And user interfaces is what they see when they use their PCs. So far, no matter how you customize software on linux, it's for ordinary user it's still inferior to what he uses on windows. And that's linux has 1% market share.
that's why everyone chooses linux to do anything.
Dreamworld indeed.
Again. The USER INTERFACE for steam OS will most likely be Big picture mode
as long as it doesn't have an intuitive interface
Do you seriously consider Windows or Mac intuitive?
So far, no matter how you customize software on linux, it's for ordinary user it's still inferior to what he uses on windows
Wooooow. You do.
Just because you're using the Windows UI for years it doesn't mean that it's good. You're just used to it. I can't use windows anymore because I'm used to awesome wm. So everything you're saying essentially boils down to: "I can't use anything but windows because I used it my whole life and others must be like me!".
And that's linux has 1% market share.
One could think so if one didn't understand the concept of idleness and pre-installations.
Dreamworld indeed.
Okay, let's get facts on this one. Tell me where windows is important except the PC platform.
Blender! :D
I wouldn't use SteamOS for a productivity OS though. I see it as a better "PC" gaming experience on the big screen.
I don't think anyone official ever said SteamOS was for productivity?
Its a gaming OS.
For steam.
Programs? Doesn't matter.
UI? Doesn't matter, using Big picture mode. STEAMS UI
Its a console replacement. Can you do rendering, modeling, documentation, or anything like that on a console?
No?
Then stop complaining.
Do you seriously consider Windows or Mac intuitive?
Generally, yes.
Just because you're using the Windows UI for years it doesn't mean that it's good.
It's not that good, but it's decent. Easy to understand and gets the job done and that's all it needs to do. How is that related to how much time I've been using it? I don't like, for example, gnome and KDE not because I'm used to windows but because they are bad.
So everything you're saying essentially boils down to: "I can't use anything but windows because I used it my whole life and others must be like me!".
No, I'm saying that linux can't provide an ordinary user with something even close to what they need when windows already does. If it did, more people would use it. It's easy to make something better than windows. But it seems that linux is unable to make itself appealing to end user.
One could think so if one didn't understand the concept of idleness and pre-installations.
How does this change the fact that users don't choose to use linux on their PCs?
Okay, let's get facts on this one. Tell me where windows is important except the PC platform.
Why are you asking this when we are talking only about PC?
I don't like, for example, gnome and KDE not because I'm used to windows but because they are bad.
Don't you, like, you know, notice that your sentence doesn't make sense?
I don't like windows because it's bad. I don't like cars because they're bad. I don't like people because they're bad.
How does this change the fact that users don't choose to use linux on their PCs?
Either you don't want to get it or you're stupid.