I've never run into a 32-bit app that hasn't run on 64-bit Windows 7. In fact, 32-bit backwards compatibility is one of the things that Microsoft has managed to get right. A few years ago, I expected the transition to be something of a nightmare, but the 4GB memory barrier came and went without much fanfare at all.

Since I moved to Windows 7, I've wanted to run a few 16-bit apps (mainly old Windows 3.1 games), and of course those don't work. However, I still think that getting rid of the 16-bit layer was an important step to modernizing the OS, and running Windows 98 in a virtual machine easily took care of the 16-bit app issue anyway.

DLL hell is pretty much a thing of the past. Given a random piece of software that's not part of a normal Linux distro, and a random piece of Windows software, I know which of the two is going to be far easier to install. I haven't had an install fail on a Windows system in damn near a decade, but have given up one more than one Linux app install due to strange make errors or weird configuration scripts. Package managers have helped with this immensely, and there are few Linux programs that aren't part of the Ubunto/debian repos, but it's still far from perfect.

(Of course, MacOS has both platforms beat. Dragging and dropping apps into the 'Applications' folder -- and dragging them to the trash to uninstall -- is much easier.)

And obviously most of those few million have overinflated egos and no humility whatsoever ('generally above average intelligence'? Please...)

Because some people don't want to deal with the hassle of configuring Wine, perhaps? I know I'd much rather have a 'download and play' option that simply works, rather than spend all day modifying config files and crossing my fingers (which I guess is kind of a game in itself).

The comments in this story (not yours so much, but many of the others) confirm the reason why very few commercial companies support Linux - no matter what they do, it isn't enough for the community.

This console definitely isn't meant to be a replacement for one of the 'major' consoles, but would serve as a good way to fire up a casual game on a large screen for a few minutes (especially if the device is low-power and is always on like a Roku). Sure, I could do this in front of my computer, but sometimes I just like sitting in a comfy chair in front of my much larger TV screen.

Also, I'm not sure that the device would be limited to *only* $1/$2 games. As long as the game offers some sort of free mode (extended demo, microtransactions, etc.) then it will fit in with the development model just fine. A bigger problem will be lack of storage, but some sort of external storage option (like a MicroSD card slot) would help with that.

Just because people can make crap doesn't mean that everyone needs to be forced to see it.

In order to filter out the shitty apps, they're going to need some kind of 'Editor's Choice' game channel, and the 'Everything' game channel. That way, the good stuff is what the average player sees when they turn the console on, but everything else is available without much additional effort. Adding a way for users to vote apps into the main channel would make sure a wide variety of higher quality games make it to the larger audience.

And when you realize just how shitty these cheap-ass Chinese media player boxes are, you'll end up regretting your purchase.

If it comes from DealExtreme, it's not even worth the pittance they're asking.

Having used a number of AMD/ATI and Nvidia cards on Windows, Nvidia wins hands down. I've never had a good experience with AMD devices -- more than half the games I own required me to disable the second card of a Crossfire setup (dual 6870s) because AMD had never released a proper compatibility profile. This includes games like Skyrim! There's no excuse for poor Crossfire support in big name, AAA titles, especially when your competitor consistently manages to get it right.

I've been burned by shitty AMD drivers more than once in the past. Never again.

Why would I want to dual boot to play games when I can stay in one OS (Windows) that does all the useful stuff that Linux can do *and* do things that Linux can't? I'm long past the point where I want to tinker with an OS just for geek cred. I want my computer to work and to do everything I want it to do without having to waste time rebooting between two operating systems.

It's not always as easy as 'release the specs'. Many devices have licensed code and components, and IP agreements prevent information about such code from being released. A good example of this is hardware support for video codec acceleration. Good luck getting Nvidia or AMD to break their contracts just to meet the needs of a small niche of computer users.

Windows and MacOS are defunct and living in niches? The amount of delusion here is stunning. Linux is the niche OS, and it's ideological stands like this that are directly to blame.

Bitch all you want about how proprietary vendors aren't being fair, but understand that the Open Source community has taken a stance, and that stance is largely incompatible with the stance of every major hardware developer in the market. It's not their job to cater to the 2 or 3 percent of PC users that have chosen to use Linux for one reason for another.

Because every other OS vendor does it. Maybe you like broken, half-baked operating systems, but some of us like to get real work done, not tinker with drivers and be forced to use outdated hardware.

No, he need not cripple himself and developers, but he shouldn't expect vendors to support him, either.

It's shit like this that guarantees that Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS. All of you get too hung up on ideology and purity of beliefs, and then wonder why nobody wants to support you.

You might as well start your relatives on Arch, or with an assembler and instructions to write all their own code.

There's a reason that Linux hasn't taken hold on the desktop, and it's because the developers and users are all out of touch with the needs of the average end user. Your relatives want something easy to use, not some purist's idea of the 'Perfect Linux'.