Wow what an insane posting you discovered. They really know how to treat the < 1%. Most Mac users have the dough to spend on games so I find this a bit baffling. But I wouldn't blame them if they didn't get upset about upgrading constantly every few years. Without the lemmings to pay up for the next iPhone or Mac model Apple would be broke if all older models simply worked for years like a Sandy Bridge. Mac OS already did it to them a long time ago as tradition not allowing an older model to update to the later Mac OS intentionally even though it was capable of installing the OS and running it just fine. I'm surprised they didn't just exclude Linux altogether as well while they were at it. Reduce the amount of foot soldiers in the company to extract more profits. Now that they've pushed XP out and Vista and now all older MAC OS versions Windows 7 is next on the chopping block. Mark my words it's coming and Windows 10 only is around the corner as being a requirement.

The Windows 7 days are numbered at Steam:
http://web.archive.org/web/20181216053226/https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

[November 2018]
Windows 10 64 bit
63.50%
+2.26% gain

Windows 7 64 bit
26.52%
-3.09% drop

==========================================================================================
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5953-QTIO-1764

Steam macOS Support

Starting on January 1 2019, Steam will officially stop supporting macOS versions 10.7 ("Lion"), 10.8 ("Mountain Lion"), 10.9 ("Mavericks") and 10.10 ("Yosemite"). This means that after that date the Steam Client will no longer run on those versions of macOS. 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 macOS.

The newest features in Steam rely on an embedded version of Google Chrome, which no longer functions on older versions of macOS. In addition, future versions of Steam will require macOS feature and security updates only present in macOS 10.11 ("El Capitan") and above.

For the remainder of 2018 Steam will continue to run and to launch games on these versions, but other functionality in Steam will be somewhat limited. For example, new features such as the new Steam Chat will not be available. We encourage all users on these operating systems to upgrade to newer versions of macOS in order to have ongoing access to the latest features of Steam, and to ensure future access to all games and other Steam content.

Users of macOS versions 10.7 ("Lion") through 10.10 ("Yosemite") can find more information on upgrading macOS here.
==========================================================================================
In case this gets silently purged off the Steam server in the future:

http://web.archive.org/web/20181216051128/https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5953-QTIO-1764
==========================================================================================

And the one this thread is about...

==========================================================================================
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1558-AFCM-4577

Windows XP and Windows Vista Support

Starting on January 1 2019, Steam will officially stop supporting the Windows XP and Windows Vista operating systems. 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.

The newest features in Steam rely on an embedded version of Google Chrome, which no longer functions on older versions of Windows. In addition, future versions of Steam will require Windows feature and security updates only present in Windows 7 and above.

For the remainder of 2018 Steam will continue to run and to launch games on Windows XP and Windows Vista, but other functionality in Steam will be somewhat limited. For example, new features such as the new Steam Chat will not be available. We encourage all users on these operating systems to upgrade to newer versions of Windows in order to have ongoing access to the latest features of Steam, and to ensure future access to all games and other Steam content.
==========================================================================================
In case this gets silently purged off the Steam server in the future:

http://web.archive.org/web/20181216052837/https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1558-AFCM-4577
==========================================================================================

Since you had a pretty in depth explanation it required a meaningful response to address it. ;)

If you're trying to run modern games that require DX10+ that's a different scenario. Same as if you wanted to run a PS4 game on Windows 10 it's simply incompatible without some way to emulate the hardware. You use what OS suits the application it was designed for. If you're on GOG most of the older games are DirectX 9 and lower suited for XP. Only new Indie titles or Vista+ games will require DX10+.

XP is actually very efficient. The total installation size is under 2GB and compared to Windows 7 64-Bit which is closer to 20GB for a minimum install or about 10 times the bloat.

The memory requirements you'll need at least 16GB to comfortably run Windows 7 at the minimum and XP only requires 3GB at most and the rest above this can be utilized as a large Ramdrive so you don't waste anything and is very efficient. That extra 13GB hogged by Windows 7 can be part of the XP Ramdrive. When you add all the newer updates for Windows 7 past SP1 it actually bloats the OS even further and in some cases adds more telemetry for MS and breaks certain applications/software that used to work just fine on Windows 7 and SP1 before the post SP1 updates like someone experienced here.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-gaming/windows-xp-games-will-not-work-in-windows-7/3ac92218-4653-4b43-aa8e-1d8413a3cd95

I've been using XP SP3 for the longest time and the security holes you're speaking of are usually caused by running programs via email attachments or visiting an untrusted website (not safe ones like GOG, Steam, Amazon, eBay). Nothing can prevent a user from running malicious software if the OS is trusting you to know what is safe. But so far no sites I've been to have caused any problems you speak of regarding security. Just use Firefox and not Internet Explorer which is usually the most vulnerable browser to avoid using and the most targeted. You will sometimes run into some strange fake pop up windows site if you're wandering around the internet to random sites that pretends it has hijacked your computer and wants to hold you ransom and it won't close until you call some phone number. You just disable javascript with a toggle button addon in another browser window and then switch back and you can force close that pop up window. It's a hoax.

Those are used to trick you into thinking your system has been taken over with a warning message and voice recording in some cases that I've seen. Look at the actual internet address and you can tell it's some randomly named characters put together. The real security hole is the "user" controlling the computer not the OS. You don't get infected by malware or some virus by going to Youtube or Steam or a trusted site. This doesn't happen. Now if you are downloading and then running a malware or a virus/trojan executable in an email attachment then it is the user's fault not the OS. Even with some of these anti-virus programs they can't catch "stupid" all the time. The user should always know what they are doing. Never rely on the OS to know everything or protect you from yourself. That's why I always recommend people to clone their OS partition somewhere safe in case of an emergency.

Now there eventually will be a time when all the websites may gradually stop working for every older OS including Windows 7 and 8.X. So when it comes to web browsing the best approach is to use Linux or a smartphone as a substitute if that were to happen. And if you were uber paranoid you could disconnect your ethernet/wifi from your computer as a precaution.

>>>"And 20 years in technology is light years."

Well yes from 1980 to 2000 there has been a lot of technological leaps. But if we are talking about computers then 1980 to 1990 had the most advancements in computer technology than 1990-2000, or 2000-2010. Recently in the last 8 years technology has not changed a whole lot. Sandy Bridge in 2011 was really the last real major CPU upgrade adding the iGPU. Anything after Sandy Bridge even up till today's Coffee Lake is just more cores, more energy efficient, and a small bump from 32GB to 64GB max memory.

The operating system Windows XP had SP3 added around 2008 which has updated files. So technically it's really 10 years since then of official support then extended support till 2014. The reason why XP has been around or had so much support was because it was supported longer than any other modern Windows OS to date. But even XP is actually more modern than this as there was XP compatible Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 which support will end in 2019 next year. So while you think XP is not supported it still has support since these are all the same branch of NT5.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11196

https://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/6/636E5B38-EA04-4F25-A059-CA6EDF773F79/POSready2009_CD.iso

Now a more secure and robust version of XP is Windows Server 2003 which is actually XP's successor on crack. It can use up to 64GB of memory for the 32-Bit version which is equal the current memory max limit of Coffee Lake desktop motherboards with 4 memory slots. But if you want even more memory you can go even more modern to the 2003 64-Bit version and it's 1TB of memory at your disposal but I don't think we'll be hitting 1024GB DDR4 memory usage within 5 or even 10 years.

Newer doesn't always mean better. As far as efficiency XP actually runs faster than any later OS including Vista, Windows 7, 8.X, or today's 10 on the same CPU and the OS uses less memory. XP is more customizeable so you can change the user interface to Windows Classic mode things are near instantaneous. Don't stick with the default Luna theme.

---[Continued from the last message]---

The software you are running say that doesn't work it's because it's made specifically for that OS. Just like FireFox there are XP and Windows 7 versions. You can't install the Windows 7 version and run it in XP. If you want to use Microsoft Office you don't really need MS Office 2019 unless your job requires it. Even 2010 would probably be overkill for most people but still worked on XP. I actually liked Office 2003 and Office 1997 since they were more compact and less bloated. There's so much software that is already written that worked in XP so unless you need software specifically for some reason that runs in Windows 7 then that's the only reason to switch the other OS at boot. I used Vista or Windows 7 for my DVR on another dedicated machine since the software exists only on that OS.

If you're specifically gaming in DX10/11 then you need Windows Vista/7. If you're gaming in DX12 then you need Windows 10. But if you're on GOG then most likely you're really into older games but not newer ones. Otherwise you should be on Steam to really use DX12 or Windows 10 titles that take advantage of the high end graphics card's capabilities. If you're not gaming in DX10/11/12 then pretty much whatever software you are using like a browser, word processing, video editing, sound editing, most programs are already existing in XP or can be created by a 3rd party. But from what you said it sounds like the only software you really need is DX10/11/12 for gaming so MS forced you to upgrade your OS to use them.

Linux is free but it doesn't mean there are more games that run on Linux and that will never be the case since it still has a small share out of the big pie at at one point XP was around 80%+ dominant pre 2009. Steam probably had a lot of 3rd party support for newer Linux titles so since it doesn't require you to pay for an OS license to use some may want it only for gaming and web browsing.

For true XP gaming I think you will need to install XP and run bare metal or use try using XP mode in Windows 7 which may not be 100% compatible but much easier to accomplish for the average computer user like yourself without worrying about security issues. It is free to download from Microsoft so get it before they take it offline which will happen soon. I recommend this easier method of testing for you as installing XP on Coffee Lake bare metal requires a skillset that is beyond the average user to accomplish and I don't know enough about your technical background experience to recommend you try it. It's not as simple as you think. So try the easiest and safest way using Virtual PC for Windows 7 method.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8002

You can download it directly here and tell us how compatible it is for XP games.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=8002&6B49FDFB-8E5B-4B07-BC31-15695C5A2143=1

If XP were free I'm sure more 3rd party support would appear than Linux even on Steam. There are certainly more XP machines globally than Linux and probably the majority will be in China and India. How many of these people use Steam? There might be an alternative Steam equivalent in Asia that we don't know about that they are using for gaming or in Internet Cafes. And if MS made Windows 7 free for life the same thing would happen and an upsurge of Windows 7 users would wallop Windows 10 and flip the scales.

>>>"Both of those OSs should be just removed from support by any company and use those freed
assets to improve support on the OS most people use (7, 10"

Removing 8.X support isn't necessary as any Windows 7 program should work in it. There isn't any need for GOG to even do anything specific for it work on 8.X and most using that OS will either downgrade back to 7 or upgrade to 10 unless they are not DX12 gamers then they should remain on 8.X and continue to receive security updates.

GOG and I'm sure the independent companies are no longer making XP games themselves so you can't remove XP support for what isn't being made. The only thing GOG makes is the GOG Galaxy but that's just used for the multiplayer gaming and that has already never had XP support from the beginning so only Windows 7-10 users are using it for gaming so XP won't get affected. The main GOG site can be accessed by your regular web browser.

The offline game installer files for XP 32-Bit should work in all other later Windows version from Vista -> Windows 10 as long it just expands the files to a location you specify that's all it needs to do so nothing has to be changed. We're not asking Windows 7 and 10 games to be backported to XP which is definitely not going to happen if they never were coded for XP to begin with.

But for people who bought a game that specifically stated "XP" as the supported OS you can't just remove that installer from GOG as the customers bought it expecting to be able to play it on that OS. Most developers if they didn't support XP then there's nothing to worry about or has to be changed. But it sure doesn't hurt to ask a developer of a popular game to be developed to include XP support if can be done by just recompiling it or let a 3rd party do it. I'm sure some very simple games could be programmed for XP and Vista compatibility in mind from the start and then those games would actually be forward compatible and work in Windows 7 -> Windows 10.

>>>"Age sometimes IS obsolecence. Actually, with technology, most of the time it is."

Well that doesn't fly in my book. Sometimes you'll see a new film shot with the latest camera equipment with the best special effects but the movie itself had a bad plot and bombs at the box office. Then you have a classic film which didn't have such high end modern day equipment and special effects being a far superior film. Even for computer technology I still consider the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge Intel's best generation. Had everything remained the same motherboard specs except a swappable CPUs within the same socket it would make Coffee Lake their best CPU generation. A lot of the modern changes they've done is kill off OS compatibility in the newer chipsets but not offering anything but a slightly more powerful CPU.

In order for technology to be considered better other than time passing by they have to improve upon their predecessor not just change the API or upgrade the DirectX and call it a day. It's not just an age only thing that qualifies something to be superior. If that were the case then Windows 8 should be your favorite OS instead of 7.

Vista Ultimate 64-Bit with SP2 and the DX11 patch would be the best MS last offered as an OS since XP. It has the most customizeable user interface similar to XP's and included the Quick Launch and all the user themes out of the box. Windows 7 took a step back with Pinning and got rid of Quick Launch and a horrible file search engine than Vista. Windows 8 then went with the Metro UI which bombed and that forced MS to skip even naming the successor Windows 9 and calling it Windows 10 which had even less customization than Windows 7.

So if newer to you means better with a poorer user interface than its predecessor than that's like now your older gasoline car which used to have 4 doors now has 2 doors and no trunk and your steering wheel has now changed to a touch screen electric car but they at least gave you a rear view camera for backing up into your blind spot. Do you want to drive with a steering wheel or your fingertips just because it's newer technology? I'm sure had Vista's user interface customizations been carried over to Windows 7, 8, and 10 I would have agreed that 10 would be the best or at least 7 but this isn't the case and with each Windows version release since it has only gotten worse. If Windows 7 included a DirectX 12 patch you wouldn't even consider using Windows 10 if you had a choice today would you?

But if you wanted newer than XP 2001 compatible OS, you could say Windows Server 2003 R2 which released at the end of 2005 or let's call it early 2006 would be 13 years old in 2019. This OS looks and runs almost everything XP does with better security and more memory support than Windows 7.

>>>I would love to go back to Windows XP, but half the software I use doesn't even work there.

Jonridan I still don't know what the other "half the software" you meant that isn't gaming related DX10/11 that only worked in Windows 7. But if you could list this "half the software" you are using that doesn't work in XP maybe I already know of their XP counterparts that do the same thing or it might be something I'm interested in using on Windows 7. Or maybe what you think isn't possible in XP is already possible and you just didn't know it since you had moved on long ago.

I actually agree with you on pretty much everything you just said.

As for "half the software" I meant mostly AV production suites: Premiere, Vegas, Audition, After Effects... etc...
I don't game much lately on my PC, since I have a laptop with Intel's HD4000 (sure, runs some games pretty good but it is not a gaming system). And the 64 bit version of XP, while not bad, is nowhere near as stable and "trusty" as the 7 and forwards versions.

If you are a writer, for instance, yes, you can use a DOS machine and still get away with it. That would be a case of old and not obsolete. But if you do anything beyond "checking emails and facebook" then XP starts becoming obsolete because of what I said: compatibility, security, etc... I actually prefer XP over everything that came afterwards, but I can't use it for what I need it.

As for the games that had XP support and now lost it, if the game use to run in XP and now it doesn't (here on GOG that actually happened with some installers being updated) then yes, I agree it shouldn't have happened and it is on GOG. But when they made the new installers they didn't prioritize compatibility with such an old OS. They should just provide both the old and new installers (not updating the old one anymore) and call it a day. Yes, it would be three different installers (old one, new one and new one with Galaxy) but it would cover all the bases and not add an extra layer of "support", but in good conscience, if they removed XP support from their catalogue, they can't help you (legally speaking) if you can't a run a game XP compatible on Windows XP (it would end up being a little backwards, right?). It was simpler to just cut XP out. If still runs, great. If it doesn't, tough luck. It sure sucks, I'll give you that.

XP Mode (which is what TrueDos linked to) will only run on Windows 7 Pro and above. Home Edition users will not be able to run it.

But as for how compatlible it is, its not really any different to any other VM. Some games will run fine under VMs, others will not run at all due to it being a VM and because VMs don't really handle gaming graphics well others will run but only in software mode.

For XP era games most will run on newer systems anyway. Some will need third party patches, others will need compatibility mode to work. There are of course games that just point blankly will not work. The XP era isn't really that bad i'd say most will run without issues. The biggest issues are from the Windows 95/98 days. Yes with the likes of nGlide we are getting closer but most of those era titles (I own alot) are still unplayable.

Another route is of course getting a XP machine and just using it for games that woun't run under newer hardware or operating systems.

"XP Mode" is just a newer ver of VPC.
Use Vmware Player\Workstation if you want D3D and OGL support in Windows 2000+
Use pcem for up to DX7 support in 9x.
For GDI and DDraw VPC is theoretically better with their emulated S3 Trio but I really haven't noticed that many games that I had to use VPC for. You're better off using Vmware or pcem and only using VPC if you have to.

I know XP Mode is a new ver, but it runs the same just as doing it yourself.

Yes D3D and Opengl will work in VMware, but several games I own don't like it. I have to run them on my XP box.

PCem is very resource hungry. Its not really worth running tbh, as unless you have a very beefy machine even Windows is slow, at least that was my experiance with it. And a few games I tried with it, didn't work anyway.

Its worth noting for VMware though that the free version doesnt allow you to stretch the image. (That I could find out.) So certain titles which are locked for a certain resolution (I think its below 640x480, Star Trek Borg is a good example of this) will just be a tiny window. Even if you make it full screen.

Have you tried WIne? I know Linux looks scary, but it runs many old games far better than Windows in a fair amount of cases.

I've not. I have dabbled in Linux last year and wasn't keen on it. But I never tried it running Windows 95 era games. I might well do that under a VM and see how it fairs. Whats the best one to get for older titles?

Unfortunately not. The offline installers for Fallout 3 ain't supported for XP, while the retailversion (on dvd) is working on XP. I have the retailversion of Fallout 3 as well as the GotY here on GoG. My dvd version still works on XP. The GOG version not. However, a downside from the dvd version is that it was packed with games for windows live.

Well for one: Keeping in mind that a VM will never replicate actual hardware and may hinder the performance.

For two: I'm a proponent of keeping your software up to date, which is why I run Fedora. There isn't much of a "choice" for version in the first place, typically you either get the latest stable, or development packages. (Within reason.) Currently Wine 4.0 is in the works, so you'd want something close to that. (3.21)

Choice of distro is entirely based on your wants, desires, and needs. But I'd personally leave out anything based on Debian's LTS releases. (Which are Ubuntu, Mint, and the thousand spinoffs of Ali Baba.) 〔Who'd have guessed that having packages upwards of 6 months out of date from upstream would be a problem?〕

To which leaves Arch, Manjaro, Fedora, and several other distributions to which I would personally call viable.

Thanks. I shall give that a go when I get a chance. I know VMs might hinder it, but i'm not quite ready to jump to Linux full time yet, as much as I hate Windows 10.

To which instead I suggest instead using live disks. Be it an actual disk or a USB key/flash memory with a valid booting image written to it. They load into memory, and when you shut off the computer, there's no evidence you did anything.