TrueDosGamer: You never attempted to even respond to what I said previously except a few lines stating you're not interested to any of my points which means either you couldn't respond because you have nothing to back up what you are saying to them or you didn't bother to read it.
BKGaming: It's not because I can't back them up, it's because you want to post long discussion post on something I don't care to debate you about. I don't have the time to reply to all of that, when 90% of it is just fluff to make you point seem valid even when it's not. At the end of the day only Windows 7 and up is supported. What is the point of debating you, when it's GOG's decision? Not mine and certainly not yours? If you want to stay reliant on a dead OS... then I can't fix that, it your choice.
I'm not going to derail this thread anymore, this thread is about the Galaxy beta, not what OS's are supported... good day.
TrueDosGamer: Now why are you you even using Linux Mint as a second OS when your original complaint is that supporting XP would be a waste of resources for GOG to spend time on for the Galaxy Client when the market share I've shown proof of puts Linux (not even at 2%) and that's all Linux flavors not just Linux Mint, which is only a small fraction of XP's market share (almost 11%) and yet they've started a pending Linux Galaxy client?
BKGaming: Any real programmer wouldn't need to ask that. Linux is more secure than Windows and open source so I can customize it to my needs. Not to mention I think Linux does some things better than Windows, and I'm not talking about gaming.
The difference is Linux is supported, and even GOG only supports the latest modern version of Linux. So yea XP might have a larger market share, but for the purpose of this discussion it is a dead OS. Linux is not. When the next LTS version comes out, GOG will probably only support it and people that don't upgrade won't probably get any support like people on XP, because that point it will be a dead OS as most people are moving to the new version.
There has been 4 new OS's after XP, GOG supports the last 3... this is very good support if you ask me. They can't help it if some people prefer to stay on outdated software, that's entirely your choice.
I wouldn't call Vista, 7, 8 really adding much new support since they should all work on Vista. Like I said the biggest difference is between XP 32-bit and Vista 64-bit. Once you've covered those two you don't really need to focus on additional support as Windows 10 should run all Vista software. But saying Linux is supported is like saying their is a small niche that uses this OS and we should expend the resources because a small group is constantly updating it. If you are saying that then you must know there is still a large group of people probably comparable to Linux still doing the same for XP. You could in fact say Firefox creating the browser for XP is a form of support as they don't have to create a browser that runs on it but it is still supported. There are other browsers supported on XP but I won't get into all of them as I've already stated them in past messages.
Linux might be more secure and not as targeted due to its lower market share and online presence but it isn't invincible from threats. Assuming it somehow gains popularity as you would hope then it would become a bigger target for hackers. And if the only reason you are sticking with Linux is you like to tweak the kernel which I can understand your unique interest in using it. You probably have a lot of time on your hands to do what you want with it. If XP's source code was released I'm sure I would do the same because it isn't perfect (user interface wise) but still better than the later versions released. I still switch it to Windows classic mode since I can't stand the default XP interface. I would be more interested if they recompiled XP to 64bit or 128bit to future proof it while containing Windows 10 code for compatibility for DX12 games. It is true the later Windows versions might provide more security to older ones and have technical support. I have never ever used or needed from Microsoft but functionality and efficiency is more important to me than worrying about some possible threat from the internet. And like I stated before I used 3rd party tools that pretty much prevent or intercept most of these typical internet related malware and using Firefox instead of IE would pretty much stop 95+% of these intrusions. And on the occasion that it does occur a simple image restoration fixes in just a minute and I'm back to a clean state.
There are some things I like about Linux which is the ability to store the entire OS into memory using a small footprint and being able to tweak it with customized modules. So don't get me wrong I'm not anti-Linux or all Pro Windows otherwise you'd be hearing me praising Windows 8 despite how awful it is.
As far as GOG support on games I have no problem with them supporting whatever OSs they want. If it is a DOSBOX game I just extract the actual DOS files and just use my own DOS BOX version and not deal with their installer.
Now if it is a Windows Vista or 7 game that requires DX 10/11, I'm not going to expect them to port it to XP because it wouldn't work and won't be worth the attempt of Gog's resources. Those particular DX10+ games I'd use Vista on. I'd rather GOG spend time converting some popular DOS game that came on CDs that required a CD check to work as those were the ones I would like to see on Windows. Like I said before "A Final Unity" would be one I've been waiting for them to convert. I already have Elite Force so I'm not worried about that one.
TrueDosGamer: When you make a point that would be incorrect I don't see the harm in at least providing the other side that you may not see.
However this is about Galaxy Beta and open to discussion as to how it can be improved and as I stated earlier if you've been reading that it would be better to adopt a Browser user interface rather than some in house stand alone software they have to keep tweaking. Since a user typically logs into GOG anyhow it would be seamless. A browser would work on any computer as long as it supported that OS so OS used by GOG Galaxy would be irrelevant and wasting any resources on just making it work on Windows 7 when Windows 10 is already gaining favor as you put it being adopted including yourself.
BKGaming: It basically does... it uses the Chromium Embedded Framework for your info. Not in house stand alone software, but that doesn't mean though that they don't use some dependency that has issues with XP or Vista or some feature in the future will have issues running on XP or Vista. Like I said before, they have stated they have ran into issues with XP and Vista during alpha, but did manage to fix.
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/please_add_support_of_windows_xp2003_into_gog_galaxy/post43/?staff=yes Ahh, good to know. Perhaps this might be the problem focusing the code on CEF rather than Mozilla's. Mozilla is open source if I remember and I doubt GOG using that code would be a negative. Mozilla originated from Netscape's code so there is a lot of old school compatibility built in. Strange thing is I even tried using an old version of Netscape Navigator and it still works although with some slight handicaps due to the new coding of web pages probably baffling it. Perhaps if they still have time they could scrap this CEF version for a more compatible Firefox based one which already has MAC OS and Linux versions and all Windows versions XP, 7, 8, and 10.
I looked at the link this must be the one you were referring to in your earliest post about Galaxy XP compatibility.
